The Sculptors and the Marble

[XLFD]

"The sculptor produces the beautiful statue by chipping away such parts of the marble block as are not needed - it is a process of elimination."  -- Elbert Hubbard

A Michigan State Police Trooper shot a retired schoolteacher, William Marble, while this 68 year old man was at his home late on the night of January 14, 2014 with his wife.  According to police, he confronted the trooper with a gun in his hand after police were dispatched to check his residence regarding a 9-1-1 hang-up call, prompting the shooting.

 

The day after, the commanding officer of the Hart MSP post, Lieutenant Kevin Leavitt, stated the reports and the recordings from the officer's collar microphone would be ready for the prosecutor the following Monday (January 19).  He stated that there would be an investigation conducted by the MSP concerning the incident, and then after January 15, over three weeks ago, the information stopped coming, until today.

Various media outlets earlier today were finally sent the prosecutor's 18 page opinion that the shooting was justified.  In this decision, the prosecutor makes some points about an earlier incident near Thanksgiving involving two UPS deliverers having Marble have a gun out and pointed while they delivered to his house.  The initial-response officer, who we finally learn a name of, James Luttrull, along with his partner, Alexander Hammerle, felt a bit more threatened by Marble, with Luttrull pulling his gun out of his holster to drop Marble with one shot, which appears to have hit Marble's right hand index finger and gun before lodging itself into Bill Marble's chest.  Here is the full 18 page opinion.

The prosecutor's statement is precise and develops a story that looks as if it was a rather straightforward case of self-defense by the officers, concerned for their safety and Marble's wife's safety.  It is thus fairly odd to me that the details have taken so long to come out, and that even now, the state police are not freely willing to give us further evidence to support their claim, allowing the prosecutor to lay the case based on their findings.  I still believe there is a bit more to this story that the public is not being spoon-fed by a friendly summary of the agency that did the deed.  This is not some inner conspiracy-theory part of my psyche coming to this conclusion. 

If the case, as stated, is accurate, then you have no real reason to wait over three weeks to come clean with a press release that has the 'prosecutor's opinion' be the final say.  The MSP investigators presented a case to the prosecutor where they developed a scenario where their guys would be able to be seen in the best light, without conflicting with the evidence that they gathered and presented.  Prosecutor Spaniola, in making his case of justifiable homicide, had the same goal.  If either of those two found otherwise, given the plausible deniability of the evidence gleaned, they would be betraying their comrades in the justice system.  Bill Marble, despite what his actions were, would be the fall guy, and everyone would be okay with that because it is the official word.

"Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor."  --Alexis Carrel

I offer my own evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of the Michigan State Police in this case, and whereas it does not prove they overreacted at the Marble residence, it does prove they believe they are above the law.  On January 16, 2014 I sent a FOIA request to them asking for the following in electronic format:

"The electronic file of the audio and video of the in-car recording system(s) on the initially responding MSP officers' car (or both cars, if available for both responding officers) when they went to check 9-1-1 hangups at the residence of William Marble at the corner of Hansen and Dennis Roads in Mason County on the night of 1-14-2014 at roughly 2300 hours.  Include all video and audio from at least when they arrived on-scene until it was turned off, or the responding officer(s) cleared the scene."

Yesterday, I received a letter with just a page with writing on front and back:

As you can see, the audio and video of this incident, which probably amounts to less than an hour's worth of action, costs over $100 to receive.  Now granted, if the file is too large to send through E-mail or Dropbox functions, I am willing to pay for the CD being mailed to me.  (CD cost: $.14 each) + (Mailing a CD: cost $.66) = eighty cents.  So what is the extra hundred dollars for?  

By the FOIA, a fee can only be charged for incremental costs of copying, for mailing, and for 'labor'.  As regards the latter:  MCL 15.234 (3), "A fee shall not be charged for the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs."  Emphasizing that last phrase, if there were to be any 'labor' costs they need to specifically identify that high cost.  They don't, because there isn't any unreasonably high costs to the MSP to provide this material.  They translate a file from their computer to a  blank CD.  They supplied it to the prosecutor well over two weeks prior.

Still, I have sent a check for $100.58 out to the MSP yesterday, along with a letter giving a stern notice as to what may happen if they decide to cash it.  We will see how their evidence holds up to scrutiny once it is received.

"Life is made up of marble and mud."  --Nathaniel Hawthorne

[XLFD]

Then you are sorely misinformed as to what rights you as a citizen possess, and what powers the officer has.

1)  At 1:40 the officer asks for ID-- "May I see your papers?" may be OK for a totalitarian state, but the officer has not stated what crime he suspects the cameraman has done so as to see ID, so to ask for ID is not appropriate.

2)  At 1:45 the officer seems to think the street's right of way is City property rather than public property, actively denies it as being public property.

3)  At 1:55 the officer restresses his demand  "need to see your ID" without having expressed how they have gotten into 'temporary detainment' status or any voiced suspicion of crime yet.

4)  At 2:02 the officer states the cameraman is being detained until he sees an ID.  Again, no reasonable suspicion, and it becomes officially an unlawful detainment.

5)  At 2:15 the cop is asked point blank about the reason for the arrest, he says "I need to figure out what you're doing out here".  Not a crime.

6)  At 2:22 the cop says the cameraman has not been illegally detained.  Wrong, see 1, 3,4 and 5.

7)  At 2:30 the cop calls in for warrants regarding the guy, again a misuse of public resources, and harassment, of an individual who has not done anything.

8)  At 2:45 the cop threatens 'on trespass' charges on someone on a public right of way declaring it city property again.   This dumbass would probably have shot this guy if his camera looked like a gun.

[Sherman Jackson]

Study the "TERRY DOCTRINE"!!! or better yet, realize that your not living in a bubble gum candy land where no citizens ever do any wrong. Until you can memorize each and every statute, State and Federal, you really should stop Monday morning quarterbacking every move that Officers Make. I also reviewed this video and find that the Officer did nothing out of procedure. It would seem that you have a bigger problem than you are letting on here. Have you ever met a Law Enforcement Officer "EVER" that you trusted or felt that they did a good job at anything? Nugent was right about people with there anti government standings. Someday your going to need the help of Law Enforcement and you need to hope they don't hold the animosity towards you that you hold towards them.

[XLFD]

 I advise you to study the "Terry Doctrine" and see whether I am wrong in saying that you are sorely misinformed.  If this is standard procedure in your opinions, you are scary law enforcement officers indeed. 

As I must repeat from time to time for the ignorant, I have the highest respect for law enforcement officers that take their oaths of office, their powers and their duties seriously, and use that knowledge to serve the public, not show their ignorance of the law and to harass them like this officer did.  

[Willy]

There was no reason to ask for ID. Someone standing on the sidewalk video recording what a police officer is up to is perfectly within their rights. Who's going to keep track of police activity if not the citizens who hire them. I don't trust the police because there have been to many times where they have abused their power. I have witnessed it many times. This officer in the video wasn't even nice. He was confrontational and that's where a lot of problems begin. When many officers are irritated they use their power and laws as an excuse to show everyone who's the boss. There are obviously times when being nice doesn't get the job done but an officers job also includes public relations which is something many of them can't seem to get the hang of. The police are not an army but many of them act as if they are in one. The attitude that they are "warrior blood brothers" only instills suspicion about the police and their treatment of people. Police are not "warriors".    I'm afraid there are to many people who can't look at police in an neutral way. There has always been a threat that hangs over societies head that if you do something the police do not like then they will hold a grudge and either come down hard on innocent people or falsely accuse innocent people.  Many cops have an attitude that the general public is the enemy and should be dealt with accordingly. Those officers should be taken off the force. Before you get the idea that I'm anti cops, I worked closely with the police in another city for a number of years and have officer friends. The problems the criminals cause has made many of them cynical because they see the dirty side of society much of the time. I can't blame them but when that cynicism affects your performance and judgement when dealing with the public then it's time to retire.  I'll never forget the time a child in our family asked one of my officer friends  about becoming a cop when he grows up and my friend advised him to pick another profession.

[AQUAMAN]

Very well said Willy, sometimes, the truth, if admitted and faced to inside, hurts people. Cynicism and self-pity, combined with arrogant authority, doesn't make for a badge to protect and serve in the capacity of right. As for the Terry Doctrine that Sherman posted, it doesn't fit at all. The officer does have a right to ask for ID and frisk: "only if the officer feels threatened, that the suspect is carrying a weapon, or may induce violence toward the officer in his duty". That's NOT what I saw, anyone else see that?

[XLFD]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Willy]

 New York. The police try to stop folks from recording.

[AQUAMAN]

Attached is the Terry Doctrine, it does not allow police to ask for ID nor intimidate citizens just for filming them.