LA County Settles Police Brutality Case For $650K

The 5-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a settlement of $650,000 to Erick Hoxey and his girlfriend Shatwan Smith in response to a civil lawsuit which charged outrageous behavior by Los Angeles County Sherriff officials during an April 2008 incident in Compton.

The Los Angeles Times covers the story:

On trial for allegedly assaulting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, Erick Hoxey took the witness stand in his own defense and told jurors it was the other way around.

He said he was waiting in his car outside a Compton apartment building where his girlfriend was making an appointment to braid a little girl's hair, when deputies pulled up. After asking him a few questions, Hoxey said they inexplicably yanked him out of the car, punched him and struck him with a flashlight before pepper-spraying his eyes and inside his mouth.


Then, he said, one grabbed him by the hair and slammed his head twice against the pavement.

The prosecutor, troubled by the young man's testimony, cut him off suddenly and asked the judge for a recess. When he returned an hour and a half later, the prosecutor announced that all charges were being dropped.

On Tuesday, two years after the criminal case fizzled, the county agreed to pay Hoxey, now 24, and his girlfriend $650,000.

The payout comes despite the Sheriff's Department defending the deputies' conduct in arresting Hoxey, his girlfriend, Shatwan Smith, and a bystander who came to their aid during the April 2008 altercation.

According to Deputies Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles, they were on patrol when they spotted Hoxey driving with his seatbelt off. The deputies said Hoxey was immediately aggressive, cursing at them, before reaching under his leg for what they believed was a handgun. The deputies unlocked the car door and pulled Hoxey out of the vehicle. The young man then spun around and took a swing at them, according to the deputies' account. Hoxey continued to fight back, the deputies said, while his girlfriend ran out from the apartment building and began hitting them too.

Although the deputies said they believed Hoxey was armed with a gun, no weapon was recovered. Deputy Orozco testified that a woman at the scene, who did not identify herself because she feared retribution, told him that she saw a man run and grab something from the car, presumably the weapon.

The couple, and the bystander who interceded and pleaded with the deputies to stop, denied the deputies were assaulted.

After hearing the conflicting testimony about the incident, the L.A. County district attorney's office abandoned its prosecution of Hoxey and Smith.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Siddall said in a deposition that Hoxey's testimony "made me think that there was reasonable doubt in the case."

The couple's civil attorney, Glen Jonas, accused the deputies of framing Hoxey on charges of resisting arrest and drug possession and Smith of resisting arrest and assault. Giles said he found a cocaine rock in Hoxey's car, while he and other deputies were searching the vehicle.

"It ruined their lives," Jonas said of the ordeal. He said Smith, who was a student at UC San Diego at the time, "was so distraught over being falsely prosecuted that she couldn't concentrate in school…her grades fell and ultimately she wasn't able to stay in school."

During the trial, Orozco's past on-duty behavior was also scrutinized in testimony from residents in the area who said they had run-ins with him. One woman said he used the N-word against her. Another testified that she'd also been roughed up by Orozco, booked and was eventually acquitted.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore declined to comment on specific allegations but said the department maintains the couple was resisting arrest. "This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing," he said. "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is, and we contend they did not fabricate anything."

I don't usually include such an extensive excerpt from a newspaper story but one really needs to see all the paragraphs that I have included in order to draw your own conclusions about what really happened*. Two Sheriff deputies see a Black guy sitting in a car and decide to rough him up for some bizarre reason only known to themselves. They start beating the crap out of him, then his girlfriend and a bystander come to the guy's defense.  Then the deputies have the gall to claim that the person that they assaulted was "resisting arrest" AND they claim the existence of a gun which is not found AND attempt to plant drugs in the vehicle. It reads like something out of FX's The Shield!
(That was a show starring Michael Chiklis as a rogue cop who basically takes the law into his own hands.)

The real hero of the piece is the Deputy District Attorney Eric Siddall who refused to condone the cops lying and when he realized what was going on, declined to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. I'm not convinced that $650,000 is enough money for the two people who were attacked by the very same people their own taxes pay to protect them and keep them safe. What is a reasonable price for violation of the public trust?

Another question is why do Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles still have jobs with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and why hasn't the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged them with perjury?
Even the Sheriff's Department spokesperson says "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is." Really? Do you think this is some kind of joke?

 It is incredibly damaging to how all police officers are viewed and public safety overall if it appears that some officers of the court are getting away with activities that if they were just regular people would result in jail time. Police officers and sheriff's deputies (and elected officials) who are presumed to have the public trust should be held to a higher ethical standard than the general public. Even the appearance of hypocrisy is unacceptable.

*DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog posting should be construed as claiming any individual of having committed any criminal or civil offense.

Cop Serves 220 Days For Killing Unarmed Black Man

Johannes Mehserle claimed that he shot Oscar Grant by mistake,
using his gun instead of his Taser, and a jury with no Black members agreed

The former BART police officer who shot and killed an unarmed Black man while holding him restrained face down on the ground on New Years Day 2009 has been released from prison this morning after serving an astonishing (and sickening) 220 days in prison after being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter (as I blogged about last fall).

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

E-mail and phone notifications made at 12:01 a.m. today said Mehserle had been released, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's online inmate locator also said he had been freed.

[...]

Mehserle, 29, was sentenced to two years for shooting Oscar Grant in the back while the 22-year-old Hayward man lay face down on the platform at Oakland's Fruitvale BART Station after being pulled from a train.

Mehserle has been imprisoned in Los Angeles County Jail since being convicted July 8. He was eligible for release with credit for time served before his trial and what is known as "good time" credit: one day for every day spent behind bars.

[...]

Mehserle testified that he had thought he was firing his Taser stun gun instead of his pistol as he was trying to arrest Grant for allegedly resisting an officer. The case drew widespread outrage, prompting the trial to be moved from Alameda County to Los Angeles. The jury there acquitted Mehserle of murder.

[Mehserle's attorney] Rains said at least eight other law-enforcement officers across the country have similarly mistaken their Tasers for their service weapons and were never criminally charged "and, in some cases, not even disciplined."

On Sunday, several hundred protesters marched peacefully from the Fruitvale BART Station to 14th Street and Broadway in downtown Oakland.

The saddest part of this case is that it must be considered progress that Mehserle was even charged with murder, since as the lawyer says, this was one of the rare times that the "peace officer" offending actions were caught on video and a public outcry finally lead to a criminal prosecution for murder.

SHOCKER! Alabama Passes Racist Immigration Law

Following up on the controversial passage of Arizona's SB 1070 last year and Republican's assuming control of state houses after the midterm elections, several states have attempted to pass even stricter legislation to "regulate immigration." On Thursday, Alabama's Republican governor Robert Bentley signed what he promises is the nation's toughest anti-immigration law.

The PBS News Hour described some of the more prominent provisions:

In addition to allowing law enforcement officers to arrest and detain anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally, Alabama’s measure introduces new rules for educators, would-be landlords, and businesses.


"This signals real momentum on the side of immigration hawks," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in favor of stricter enforcement. Among the provisions of the new law:

• Public schools will have to confirm students’ legal residency status through birth certificates or sworn affidavits.
• Illegal immigrants are banned from attending state colleges. 
• Transporting, harboring, or renting property to undocumented immigrants will be illegal.

The housing aspect is one that Ali Noorani of the immigrant-rights group the National Immigration Forum finds troubling: “This is of special concern to mixed status families – children could be arrested for transporting their undocumented parents, for example. It can also impact churches who are ‘transporting’ immigrants to church or are providing any services that may be considered as ‘harboring.'"

Georgia and Utah have also passed anti-immigration laws this year. Utah's law has already been enjoined in court. Arizona's SB 1070 has also been enjoined and has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Alabama's Latino population has doubled to a high of 3.9% from 2000 to 2010. I wonder how many white people will be arrested by Alabama police in order to have their immigration status tested?

Celebrity Friday: Goodwin Liu Withdraws Nomination

Goodwin Liu, Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley has written President Obama, withdrawing his name from consideration for a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after Republicans successfully filibustered his nomination on the floor of the United States Senate on May 19th.

The text of the letter is here:

Dear Mr. President:


I have been deeply honored to be your nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The nomination has been a tremendous source of pride for my family and community, and it would be a great privilege and responsibility to serve our country as a member of the judiciary. 


In light of last week's unsuccessful cloture vote, however, I respectfully ask that you withdraw my nomination from further consideration by the United States Senate. With no possibility of an up-or-down vote on the horizon, my family and I have decided that it is time for us to regain the ability to make plans for the future. In addition, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has noted the "desperate need for judges" to fill current vacancies,  and it is now clear that continuing my nomination will not address that need any time soon.


I am profoundly indebted to you for your confidence in me and to the many people wh workd tirelessly in support of my nomination. Thank you for this great honor and opportunity


Sincerely,


Goodwin Liu

Sometimes the bad guys win. Interestingly, President Obama has now nominated a judge named Morgen Christen from Alaska put on that state's Supreme Court by Governor Sarah Palin for the 9th Circuit. It will be interesting to see what response she gets from Senate Republicans!

STUDY: Racial Disparities In Perceived Racial Progress Revealed!

There is an interesting new study ("Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing,” Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers, Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2011) which compares how "Black" Americans and "White" Americans perceive racial progress of the last few decades in America. The Wall Street Journal (!) reported a summary of the results:

The researchers contacted a random national sample of 209 whites and 208 blacks, and asked them how much discrimination each group faced, on a scale of one to ten, for each decade since the 1950s.

Black Americans saw anti-black bias as declining steadily, from 9.7 in the ’50s to 6.1 in the ’00s. Over the same period, they perceived a small increase in anti-white bias, from 1.4 to 1.8.

White Americans saw an even steeper decline in anti-black bias: from 9.1, in the ’50s, to 3.6, in the ’00s. But more striking, according to the researchers, was the sharp increase in perceived anti-white bias: Among whites, it shot up from 1.8 to 4.7.

White Americans, in short, thought that anti-white bias was a greater societal problem by the ’00s than anti-black bias.

The researchers described the pattern—which did not vary markedly with regard to age or education levels—as evidence that white Americans see race relations as a zero-sum game, in which one group’s gains must be offset by another’s loss.

My friend, Professor Ange-Marie Hancock of the USC Political Science department, would call this an example of Leapfrog Paranoia, which is the mistaken belief by one group that they are going to be surpassed in status by another group which they previously had perceived to be their inferior. Leapfrog paranoia generally leads to or is coupled with Movement backlash which is where the movement for progress by the inferior group experiences backlash as the currently superior group portrays itself as the victim precisely because there has been progress by the previously (and currently) inferior group. One obvious example of this is fundamentalist Christians saying that "militant homosexual activists" are persecuting them for their beliefs and forms of worship when LGBT activists are asking for equal access to civil liberties and civil rights without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the public sphere.

Newt Gingrich: "The Good Ol' Boy" Who Wants To Be Prez

Newt Gingrich, with his 3rd wife (and former aide) Calllista

Newt Gingrich has a long and troubled history with making statements which are both counterfactual and controversial. His mendacity and mischievousness know almost no bounds.

Recently, the Republican presidential candidate has become decidedly non-elliptical in his racially charged remarks. Last week, Newt said this before a Republican audience:

Gingrich sought to lay blame for the recession, as well as the economic and social upheaval in Detroit, on Obama and his policies. “President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history,” Gingrich said. “I would like to be the most successful paycheck president in American history.”

Unfortunately for Newt it's not 1994 anymore, it's now 2011 so people like Salon's Joan Walsh and The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates have started to notice Newt's blatant appeals to racial prejudice:

But let me be clear: I might not have paid attention to Gingrich's "food stamp president" jibe had it not come along with a panorama of images designed to make clear Barack Obama is blackity black black. Praising right-wing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Gingrich said he'll make the U.S. more like Texas, while Obama only "knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit." In the speech to Georgia Republicans where he tried out the "food stamp president" slur, Gingrich also told the bastion of the old Confederacy that 2012 would be the biggest election since 1860 -- you know, when Abraham Lincoln got elected and the South began to secede over slavery, commencing the Civil War. He also suggested the U.S. might need to bring back some kind of voting test, banned under the Voting Rights Act. Last year, of course, Gingrich denounced Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialist behavior," which made him "outside our comprehension" as Americans, spreading the lie that Obama inherited angry African anti-colonialism from his absent African father, though he was raised by his white mother and grandparents. Oh, and he headed the drive to label Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor "racist" when she was nominated in 2009. 

So let's review: Welfare slur? Check. Tie to a troubled, mainly black city? Check. Specious association with African anti-colonialism? Check. Dire reference to Lincoln and the start of the Civil War, while campaigning deep in the heart of Dixie? Check. Suggestion we need a voter test? Check. Oh, and for good measure, calling liberals concerned about racial injustice "racist"? Check. Awesome: They've hit pretty much every way the GOP has used to divide Americans by race in the last 200 years! 

Great job, Newt. You've developed the perfect platform to run a spirited GOP campaign that attracts a cadre of aggrieved white people. You'll never be president of the United States, but you'll be the champion of the declining share of the country that still thrills to what we used to call dog-whistle politics: coded varieties of racism only understood by their intended audience.

It will be interesting to see if  other Republican candidates and politicians call Newt out for his racist remarks, or (more likely) they also use more subtly coded appeals to the predominantly pale populace's anxieties about racial progress. Interestingly, on This Week with Christiane Amanpour even George Will said that Newt "is not a serious candidate" for president.

Let's hope not.

46% of Mississippi Republicans Oppose Interracial Marriage

The blogosphere is buzzing with the results of a Public Policy Polling poll of Mississippi Republicans showing that a plurality (46%) think interracial marriage should be illegal while only 40% think it should be legal. For information purposes, all laws banning interracial marriage were struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1967 landmark case Loving v. Virginia.

The self-evident fact that most Mississippi Republicans are bigits is not surprising, what is really interesting is the analysis of which Presidential candidates the Republicans who think "miscegenation" should be illegal support. 

The American Prospect bog TAPPED has the analysis:

We asked voters on this poll whether they think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal- 46% of Mississippi Republicans said it should be illegal to just 40% who think it should be legal. For the most part there aren't any huge divides in how voters view the candidates or who they support for the nomination based on their attitudes about interracial marriage but there are a few exceptions. 

Palin's net favorability with folks who think interracial marriage should be illegal (+55 at 74/19) is 17 points higher than it is with folks who think interracial marriage should be legal (+38 at 64/26.) Meanwhile Romney's favorability numbers see the opposite trend. He's at +23 (53/30) with voters who think interracial marriage should be legal but 19 points worse at +4 (44/40) with those who think it should be illegal.

It's worth noting those 46 percent of Mississippi Republicans who oppose interracial marriage -- and think it should be illegal -- are in the small minority of whites nationwide who oppose race mixin'. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, 75 percent of whites approve of interracial marriages (or at least, those between blacks and whites). That number jumps up to 85 percent for whites between the ages of 18

I would love to see polling of Republicans nationwide on interracial marriage and whether public accommodations (schools, parks, buses, etc) should be racially segregated. But I bet they wouldn't really tell the pollster what they think.