A Time to Come Together, Not Apart

A memorial for PO Liu and PO Ramos in Brooklyn. (Source)

Last night's assassination of Police Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos was a tragedy. There is no other way to describe it. Two men simply doing their job gunned down in cold blood as they sat in their cruiser. The killer furthered his cowardly act by turning the gun on himself, escaping the responsibility of answering for his actions. Any sane individual mourns with the city of New York and the NYPD over this senseless tragedy.

A moment like this should unite a city that has already seen such unrest the past few weeks. Unfortunately, pundits, politicians and others who gain from division have jumped on the opportunity to politicize this. Long Island Congressman Peter King (who has previously supported cop-killers) has used this tragedy to point the finger at people like Bill de Blasio and President Barack Obama for their "cop bashing," suggesting some kind of link between yesterday's killer and the president of the United States.

Sean Bell Settlement Reached for $7 Million of Taxpayer Money

The family and friends of Sean Bell will receive more than $7 million from the city stemming from the shooting of Bell and his two friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield. The settlement is a large one, but it doesn't beat out the settlement reached last month in the case of Barry Gibbs, a man who spent 19 years behind bars after being framed by an NYPD detective for murder. Gibbs will receive $9.9 million from the city.

So who pays the $17 million for police malfeasance? You and I do, of course. Despite the fact that we know who pulled the triggers that killed Bell and injured his friends - Marc Cooper, Gescard Isnora (who fired the first shot), and Michael Oliver (who fired 31 shots, requiring a magazine change) - none of these men will be contributing to the $7 million settlement. This is also not the first time Michael Oliver has cost the city more money than he's worth: in 1995 Oliver shoved a livery cab driver's head into a car window, resulting in a $10,000 settlement to the victim. Somehow Oliver kept his job so he could later cost the city even more money in the Bell case.

Disturbing New Details in NYPD Rape Cops Case

This weekend more details emerged in the case of NYPD Officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata who are accused of raping a woman on the Lower East Side after a taxi driver called 911 to report a drunken fare. Moreno and Mata were the responding officers and instead of displaying the "Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect" we see emblazoned on all NYPD patrol cars, they allegedly raped the woman while she drifted in and out of consciousness.

The details come from a notice of claim filed by the victim, who remains unidentified, seeking $5 million total for the heinous act. Among the new details is the fact that the officers stole her BlackBerry and called her mother and brother in an effort to intimidate the victim from coming forward.

The timeline of events is equally disturbing. The victim was out having drinks at a Brooklyn club last December 6 and into the morning hours of December 7, when her friends put her into a yellow cab to take her home because she was highly intoxicated. When the cab driver pulled up to her apartment he could not get her out of the cab so he called police. That's when Moreno and Mata showed up. The officers escorted the woman into her apartment and left, but returned less than an hour later and gained entry to the building by telling a resident that they were investigating a noise complaint behind the building (which was untrue). They entered the victim's apartment with a key that they had stolen from the woman earlier. They were in the apartment for 17 minutes but had to leave when called to a traffic accident.

Once they were done with the accident scene the two are alleged to have made a false 911 call saying that there was a drunk homeless man two buildings down from the victim's so that they could return to the area. They went to the woman's apartment after being dispatched to the fake homeless man. This is when the alleged rape took place, with Mata acting as lookout and Moreno raping the victim while she lie face down on her bed after she vomited a few times. After being in the apartment for more than a half-hour the pair left and this is when the woman reported the rape.

The victim was able to meet with Moreno after the rape and secretly recorded him apologizing to her for having sex with her. Moreno has also admitted to having sex with the woman during the investigation, but he claims that it was consensual. Now we all know that when a person is legally drunk (and if someone is puking from alcohol poisoning, it's a pretty good indicator that they are legally drunk) they cannot legally consent to sex. And when you have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to sex, it's called rape.

Even Ray Kelly, who rarely criticizes his officers in public, called the two's actions "egregious" and a "shocking aberration." The two were charged with rape, burglary, and official misconduct back in April, have pleaded not guilty, and have a scheduled court appearance for September 16. You would think given their charges and Kelly's own outrage over the incident that these two would not be working for the NYPD anymore. You would be wrong. Despite the fact that Moreno has admitted that he had sex with a drunken woman WHILE ON DUTY, he and Mata continue to work for the NYPD in administrative duties. That means that our taxes are going to pay for their salary and benefits while they wait for the inevitable firing from the force and convictions on at least some of the charges. Top that off with the tax dollars that will have to be used to pay the victim her settlement money, and we're really in the hole. If Ray Kelly truly thought that what these officers did was egregious and a shocking aberration, he would do more than simply say it; he would show it by firing them. Peace.

Photos - NYPD Officers Kenneth Moreno (l.) and Franklin Mata (NYPost)

Rape Cop's Partner Turns

The Post is reporting today that Franklin Mata, the partner of alleged rapist and NYPD officer Kenneth Moreno, is telling investigators that, contrary to what he tried to claim yesterday, the officer did rape the victim rather than have consensual sex with her. Mata and Moreno were called to East 13th Street on December 7, 2008 in response to a cabbie's calls to 911 to say that a fare he picked up was sick in his cab and needed assistance to get home. Mata and Moreno escorted the woman to her apartment, then returned twice during the course of the early morning, with Morneo allegedly raping her on the third visit. The Post reports that the woman awoke hours after the alleged attack "in pain and with signs of trauma," prompting a trip to Beth Israel Hospital. When the officers' lockers were searched after the allegations were brought by the unnamed victim, heroin was found inside Moreno's locker. While the officer tried to claim that he simply forgot to voucher the smack, it was found "tightly wrapped in a package hidden in a cigarette box."

The Daily News states that along with the dope in his locker, Moreno was found to be in possession of a list of almost a dozen women containing their names and addresses. The DA is currently looking into whether any of the women were involved with any incidents that Moreno may have responded to in his duty as a police officer. Moreno was stationed out of the famous 9th Precinct (Kojak and NYPD Blue used the facade of the station house for their filming). Back in the summer of 2005, PBA Magazine did a piece on the 9th Precinct, tailing Moreno and his then-partner Tyra Narvaez on one of their midnight to eight runs.

There is still no word on whether Moreno or Mata have been permanently relieved of duty or have even been arrested. You can bet that if a civilian were accused of rape, had dope in their possession, and had corroborating testimony from their partner-in-crime, their ass would be on the next bus to Rikers. The two officers, instead, have been on administrative duty since the allegation was reported on December 7, receiving their pay and benefits. According to the NYPD recruitment website, an officer who has been with the force for more than 5 and a half years makes $90,829 (not including OT and benefits). A three-year vet (like Mata) makes $53,819 (again, not including OT and benefits). That means that every day that accused rapist Moreno is on the force, he is costing the taxpayers more than $284 a day. His lookout Mata costs taxpayers more than $147 per day. Since their December 7 administrative duties kicked in, they have cost the taxpayers more than $37,000 combined. I don't know about you, but personally I don't like my money going to pay an implicated rapist's salary.

Another thing I've noticed is that there is a severe lack of outspoken leaders on this issue. Bloomberg only offered the standard, "It is a very serious charge, obviously, and I don’t want to prejudice anything, but you can rest assured that the Internal Affairs Bureau is working very hard and doing an investigation." Ray Kelly has been silent thus far. Pat Lynch, the outspoken PBA president who called a suspect charged (but eventually acquitted) of killing Officer Timoshenko a "mongrel," has been uncharacteristically quiet. Why the sudden silence?

It seems that the so-called blue wall of silence held up for Moreno about as well as the 9th Ward levees did for the people of New Orleans. It should go without saying that Moreno and Mata should be fired and brought before a grand jury immediately. No more of our tax dollars should go to paying these two. Both should also pay back the taxpayers of New York for the time that they spent on administrative duty if convicted of these horrendous acts. It's pretty clear from what has been offered that Moreno will be spending time behind bars, the real question is for how long. But what about Mata? Is he some kind of accomplice, considering he appears to be Moreno's lookout and covered for him? At the least I hope Mata is fired, because he is clearly not to be trusted. It will be interesting to see what the official response to all of this is and how Bloomberg deals with it, considering this is an election year. So far the silence is deafening. All in all, it is disgraceful to the entire police department that a person like Moreno could be on the force for almost two decades and be capable of something like this. Let's hope the rest of the department stands by what is on every RMP on the force: "Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect." Peace.

Photos - Kenneth Moreno (Daily News), Moreno again (PBA Magazine), NYPD logo (Mesomorphosis)

Two NYPD Officers Accused of Rape While On Duty (UPDATED 3/3/2009)

Of all the NYPD blunders I have covered on this blog, this one may be one of the more disturbing. Two officers are facing accusations that they raped an intoxicated woman whom they had helped home earlier in the evening after the alleged victim vomited inside a cab. The officers, who have not been named, are still being paid with New Yorkers' tax dollars, even after heroin was found in one of their lockers. No arrests have been made in connection with the incident, which is alleged to have happened three months ago.

The whole thing started when a cabbie called the cops when a woman threw up in his cab and could not find cab fare. The officers showed up and escorted the woman into her apartment. They allegedly came back about a half-hour later and one cop raped the woman while the other stood by. The woman told her friends the morning after the attack and then called the Manhattan DA's office. Sources inside the police department, according to the Post, say that charges are expected against the two officers.

When pressed on the heroin found in his locker, the older of the pair (the one accused of physically raping the victim) stated that he simply forgot to voucher the drugs in a separate case. So not only was he in possession of an illegal substance, but he probably screwed up the other, unrelated case to which the smack was evidence.

Surveillance video from around the building shows the officers entering and exiting the woman's apartment building on three separate occasions: one to escort her in initially, another time when they spent 17 minutes inside the building, and a third time when they spent over 30 minutes inside. My questions is this: where does the NYPD get people like this on their force? And another one: did anyone know that these two guys were bad cops (and scumbags, to boot)? If so, and they said nothing, they can consider themselves complicit in all of this, for had they said something to their CO then a woman may not have (allegedly) been raped.

This horrible incident renews the call to make the restrictions on becoming a cop stricter. I've said it before: raise the salary of incoming cops and raise the minimum requirements. Right now to become a cop the educational requirement is 60 credits (2 years) from an accredited college with a minumum GPA of 2.0 (which translates to a 70% average). While you cannot be a city officer if you are a felon, you can have misdemeanors (aka even if you have a criminal record you can enforce the law you broke in the first place). The only time a misdemeanor would disqualify you (according to the website) occurs when "repeated convictions of an offense...indicate a disrespect for the law." Do we really want to give someone a gun and an abnormally large amount of power if they have demonstrated that they cannot follow the law?

Cops deal with crap all the time, but it's no excuse for drug possession and rape. Officers are underpaid and undertrained and it can lead to dangerous outcomes (such as this one). If you increase the starting salary as well as the minimum requirements (jack up that GPA to 3.0, make it a full bachelor's, and make the candidate demonstrate the ability to follow the law he/she will swear to uphold), you will see a much lower number of disgusting incidents like this. Because the bottom line of all this is that allegations like this erode the trust of the police department in the public's eye. I've already spoken to a few women who said they would now think twice about calling the police in situations where they might not have given it a second thought before, and I have to say I cannot blame them. The fact that this is even remotely possible in today's NYPD while the cops are on duty is despicable and tarnishes every good cop's badge. Peace.

UPDATE 3/2/2009: The police officers involved have been tentatively identified by New York Post sources as Kenneth Moreno (a 17 year NYPD veteran, married with two kids) and Franklin L. Mata, who has been on the force for three years. In addition to the heroin found in Moreno's locker was "personal information of other women." It is astounding that someone can be on the force for 17 years and allegedly do something like this. If, in fact, Moreno is guilty of this rape, I have to wonder how could he have stayed on the force? It takes a special kind of scumbag to rape a woman and if that kind of person can be on the force for 17 years in New York, I wonder who else can be wearing the badge? Scary stuff.

UPDATE 3/3/2009: The New York Post today is reporting that Franklin L. Mata, the partner of accused rapist Kenneth Moreno, has told investigators (through his lawyer) that the sex between Moreno and the alleged victim was consensual. All of this despite the fact that the victim says she was raped and there is video evidence of the woman beyond drunk (and thus legally incapable of giving consent). Moreno should have known this. The fact that these two are still on the job (being paid by the taxpayer) is disgusting. Moreno had smack in his locker and is accused of rape (and in the best scenario had "consensual" sex with an impaired woman), yet he still gets a check cut by the state? And his partner, who also should have known better, was 100% complicit in it. This is a nightmare for the NYPD and is slowly becoming the epitome of double-standards when it comes to cops and civilians. Think about it: if you or me are accused of rape and they find drugs on us, would we be out in the streets continuing to get a paycheck? Fire and arrest both of these criminals now.

Photos - NYPD logo (Mesomorphosis), Heathers, a nearby bar from which video surveillance was obtained (New York Mag)

Cops Who Abandoned 14 Year Old in SI Swamp Plead Guilty to Lesser Charges

Two Staten Island police officers who found a teen throwing eggs at cars on Halloween in 2007 and subsequently dumped him in a swampy area to fend for himself have pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in the case after the teen refused to testify against the officers. The cops avoid prison time altogether and only have to pay $95 in court fees and serve a conditional discharge (meaning they will not have to check in with the Department of Probation). The incident occurred on Halloween in 2007 when the two officers came upon the teen being a teen and throwing eggs at cars. Instead of driving him home to be dealt with by his parents or to the precinct to fill out the proper paperwork and allow the DA's office to do their job, the two officers, Thomas Elliassen, 28, and Richard Danese, 26, both of Great Kills, thought that they were qualified to be judge, jury and executioner. In what they called "teaching the teen a lesson" they drove him out to a swampy area and abandoned him after hitting him a bit. Their original 33 count indictment has now been whittled down to a simple DIS/CON.

Now many people have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to criticizing Elliassen and Danese. They hide their lack of an argument behind the accusation that those who criticize the officers are wholeheartedly defending the teenage victim. Was the teen in the wrong by throwing eggs at cars? Yes. Were the officers in the wrong to not deal with him by the book? You bet. There are no winners here (especially because it sounds like this kid has some issues as he was arrested for bringing a boxcutter to school a year after this incident). But what's unbelievable is that the taxpayer has continued to pay Elliassen's and Danese's salary this entire time. There is no word that these officers have been released from the force despite having pleaded guilty to committing a crime on duty, in uniform, and violating NYPD directives. Maybe the cops will be let go tomorrow, but one more day of taxpayer-funded salary for these two would be embarrassing.

We expect police officers to rise above the fray of criminality when we give them badges, guns, and cars with shiny lights on them. We expect them to keep order, stay objective, and know the legal limits of their job which involves arresting people and testifying in court when needed and NOT to dole out punishment. But cops are human just like the rest of us and are prone to mistakes like this, which is when they need to be let go. It's like any job; if I showed up to work and did something that involved me pleading guilty to a misdemeanor because of my performance, I don't think I'd be at that job very long (I probably would not be paid for doing less while the outcome of the prosecution was pending, either). Again, bad cops tarnish the badge for the good cops. If I were a cop who played by the rules and did my job dutifully, I would be pissed at these two for giving my profession and my employer a bad name; I would not defend them nor would I try to cover up for them because what they did was wrong and in life, there are appropriate consequences to your actions. If these two officers were allowed to continue their employment with the NYPD after this admission of guilt, it would be a major shame for the entire force. Peace.

Photo - Officers Thomas Elliassen (left) and Richard Danese leaving State Supreme Court last year (SI Live)

Two Queens Narcs Frame Innocents, Diminish the Badge

It's been a while since I focused on a local story, and I read about one that outraged me today and figured I would take a closer look at it. It has to do with absolute power and the police (big surprise there for those who have followed this blog). It seems that two narcs from Queens are accused of framing four men for dealing cocaine at a club in Elmhurst, Queens a year ago. It seems that one of the officers, Detective Stephen Anderson, claimed that he bought one bag of blow at the club from two men (Gabriel Lira and Julian Martinez). The other officer, Henry Tavarez, claimed that he bought two bags of blow from four men (Jose Colon, Maximo Colon [they're brothers], Raul Duchimasa, and Luis Rodriguez). The reality of the situation is much different.

What really happened was that Detective Anderson bought three bags of the nose clams from Lira and Martinez (the two have since pleaded guilty) and Officer Tavarez took two of the bags and claimed that the Colons, Duchimasa and Rodriguez sold them to him. The arrests occurred on January 4, 2008 and five of the men were released the next day with no bail (Maximo Colon spent three days in jail until he could post $2,500 bail). Charges against the four innocent men were dismissed when Jose Colon was able to go back to the club (called Club Delicioso) and obtain video footage which showed that the four men had no contact with the crooked narcs. Since the indictments have come to light, Officer Tavarez has been placed on modified assignment without his badge or his piece (so don't worry, he's still being paid with taxpayer dollars). Detective Anderson is no longer with the NYPD, as he left to join the Nassau County Police Department but dropped out before graduating from the academy (probably did not pass the professionalism and ethics portion).

So here are my questions: what if Jose Colon went back to the club and could not obtain a copy of the video that exonerated him and his brother and their friends? What if the club had no CCTV or had erased the tapes? Would our taxpayer dollars be used to prosecute and imprison these four innocent men? What about all of the other collars these two officers have made? This opens up massive room for appeals and calls into question every arrest made by Detective Stephen Anderson and Officer Henry Tavarez. So, because of their boneheaded actions, legitimate drug dealers could be back out on the streets because these two boys in blue tried to lock up innocent bystanders.

It does not end there. This also exposes the NYPD to a lawsuit, which would be paid out with taxpayer money. It also erodes confidence in the NYPD, which has had less than a stellar week as one officer pleaded guilty to illegally accessing the feds' terrorist watch list to help a friend in Canada with a child custody dispute, and a NYPD lieutenant stabbed and shot his wife to death (in front of his own daughter) before turning the gun on himself (the gun was his service revolver). What is unfortunate about police officers getting caught doing horrible things is the fact that it erodes the public's confidence in the police force as a whole. There are some good officers out there who care for others, but there are also people like this, and you cannot tell just by looking at a cop whether he's good or bad. Though impossible to implement in this economy, the best things to weed scumbags out of the NYPD would be to increase training, salary, and the requirements to be a police officer (make it more competetive). Being a cop is an important job and one that is needed in America, but there's got to be a better way to do this so we don't have as many issues as this.

In summation, Anderson and Tavarez should go to prison, just like they tried to get the four bystanders in prison. We give police officers a lot of power and expect them to use it correctly and justly. All the NYPD cars say "Courtesty, Professionalism, Respect" on the back of them, and it's clear that neither Anderson nor Tavarez embodied that slogan. How Tavarez was able to rise to detective in the NYPD is beyond me and hopefully his superior officers are doing some self-evaluation trying to figure out the same question. If Anderson and Tavarez don't see the inside of a prison, they won't learn their lesson and will join other people of power who get away with murder (literally and figuratively). Peace.

Photos - Jose and Maximo Colon (l. to r.) (New York Post), Screenshots from the video that exonerated the Colons and their friends (New York Post)

Harlem Cops Caught Playing with Dolls

In a very odd series of events, NYPD officers in Harlem are being accused of racially insensitive behavior after two white officers were seen driving an unmarked car with the head of a black doll attached to the rear antenna. When a Harlem resident went to take a picture of the doll head in order to report it, the two white officers came out of the restaurant they were in and removed the doll head, placing it into the trunk of the car, while allegedly laughing about the incident.

As the New York Times article today points out, the fact that the doll head was on the car is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how it got there. The NYPD is saying that someone else put it there, while many Harlem residents, probably seeing through a weak excuse like that, ponder whether the cops driving the car put it there as a joke.

I do not know how the head got there, but the NYPD's version of events do not hold water for many reasons. To begin with, I personally do not believe that a Harlem resident would take the time to put a doll head on a cop's car. In an environment where the police and the residents do not get along too well (stop and frisk incidents in the neighborhood run rampant), the wrath of a cop whose car is being messed with is nowhere near worth the risk. I suppose under the realm of "anything's possible," a resident could have put it up there, but it makes little sense.

Looking beyond this, however, is the fact that the cops' report of the incident indicates that the two officers did not notice the head on the back of their car. If this is the case, then these cops probably need to get their eyes checked or need to be more vigilant. If you cannot even keep track of what is on your patrol car, I would have little faith in any report written that mentions the surrounding environment and the placement of objects (something that many police reports require). Additionally, when you drive a vehicle, you are responsible for everything associated with that vehicle. If someone else puts a brick of coke in your car and you get pulled over and say, "That's not mine, officer, someone else must have put it there," do you think that's going to work? Is the officer going to give you the benefit of the doubt? No, it's in your car, which you are operating and thus have custody of, which means you are responsible for everything in it (including attached items on the outside of it). So why is this rule different for cops?

Essentially what we have here is two possible scenarios: the cops did not put it on the car but are morons and are unable to take in their immediate surroundings, calling in to question their ability to police a neighborhood or, the cops put the doll head up themselves and are lying (which would not be unprecedented within the ranks of the NYPD).

In addition to all of this, I have seen people saying that they do not see the big deal of putting the head of a black doll on a police car driven by white cops. While the symbolism should be quite obvious, it is lost on some. The way I see it, the black doll head brings up many negative connotations for people of any color, but especially for blacks. To begin with, it brings up images of lynchings under the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups throughout the United States throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The image of these cops cutting a black doll's head off to place on their antenna conjures up past images of lynchings following which participants would cut off various parts of the victim's body for souvenires. Additionally, the scene of a black head with a slender base as a body also parallels a lynch victim's posture following the disgusting act.

Beyond all of this is the one thing that many people who are not minorities can not understand. To be in a largely black neighborhood like Harlem and to be policed by a mostly-white police force, especially given the history of the NYPD and their treatment of minorities, is automatically a bit antagonizing. Plus, in many situations blacks often find themselves the lone member of their racial group in day-to-day life. Next time you're in a room, look around. Chances are if you're white, you're part of the majority of the group and chances are, if you're black, you are the only black person or one of a significantly small number. As someone who has been in the reverse situation many times - in that I was the only white person or among the only white people in a group of non-whites - I can say it is noticeable and you certainly feel as if you are out of place and your actions are scrutinized. Because I am white, however, I do not feel this on a daily basis and am not policed by a group of police officers who are not my race. If I were in the minority and was policed by the majority who bought a doll that was my race, decapitated it and placed it upon their rear antenna as a joke given the history of the treatment of blacks in this country, and then lied about it blatantly when called out on it, I would be pretty upset. Peace.

Photos - Unmarked NYPD vehicles (Dryblood's flickr), A black doll (www.historyandnostalgia.com), One of thousands of black American lynching victims (en.wikipedia.org)

No Justice for Jayson Tirado

Following up on a story that I have discussed in the past, it appears that the NYPD officer who shot and killed an unarmed motorist in East Harlem back in October of 2007, then disappeared for 19 hours before turning himself in, will not face any criminal charges for his actions. As a quick refresher, Jayson Tirado and Sean Sawyer were driving on FDR Drive when they were diverted to East 116th street due to an accident on the highway. In the course of exiting the highway, Mr. Tirado cut off Sean Sawyer, at which point words were exchanged. They continued driving and caught up to each other at a red light, when more words were exchanged and Mr. Tirado allegedly made a reference to a gun. At this point - and this is where most of the contention in this case lies - Sawyer says that Tirado reached for something on the floor of his car and came up as if he had a gun. It is at this point that Sawyer fired two shots and sped away from the scene. Tirado was able to drive a few blocks before slumping over the steering wheel, dead. Sawyer was MIA until 19 hours later, when he decided to turn himself in. Both parties had been drinking that night.

So rack this up as another killing of an unarmed minority at the hands of the NYPD; a killing that will go unpunished. Civil rights charges will not be brought against Sawyer (nor should they be) because the man was acting as a civilian and was not in the course of his duties as a civil servant. But let's look at the most glaring facts of this case: Sawyer shot twice at a car in the middle of East Harlem and did not report the incident until 19 HOURS later, when he walked to a police station and told a sergeant about what had happened. Sawyer claimed that he did not even know anyone was hit and once he realized someone had been killed, he turned himself in. Does this mean that if he did not hit anyone that he never would have alerted his superiors of his actions?

Manhattan DA Morgenthau has said that Sawyer did not receive preferential treatment because of his status as a cop. So if I thought that someone were pulling a weapon on me, I could shoot and kill that person and wait almost an entire day before getting around to reporting it and I would not be charged with a crime? Something about that seems a bit odd. Additionally, if Sawyer was able to see Tirado place his hands in the car and come up as if he had a gun, wouldn't Sawyer be able to see if Tirado actually had a gun? It seems that Sawyer saw and heard a great amount in detail up until the critical moment of identifying a weapon.

Other points of Sawyer's story seem suspect. Sawyer says that he was cut off by Tirado and that Tirado started an argument with Sawyer. That doesn't even make sense. You mean to tell me that Tirado cut off Sawyer and Sawyer did absolutely nothing and Tirado then berated Sawyer for allowing him to cut Sawyer off? That just doesn't add up. Let's not forget that by fleeing the scene of the "crime" Sawyer did not have to take a Breathalyzer test. Various news outlets have reported that Sawyer was out at a Woodside bar for a good amount of time before killing Tirado, who had also been drinking.

Going back to the basics of this story: a cop killed an unarmed minority in New York City and will face no legal repercussions (yet again). Sawyer will most likely lose his job, but he has been suspended WITH PAY since the incident, so he has had plenty of time to get his act together to find new employment. If the roles were reversed and Tirado had shot Sawyer thinking that Sawyer had a gun, do you think that Tirado would walk away from a grand jury as a free man? I will end this post with two quotes. The first is part of a Big L verse that has more relevance of late: "One [cop] murdered my man like it was OK / For the life he ended, he got suspended with no pay / But if a man woulda took the cop life, he woulda got life / And never again see the street lights and that's trife." The final quote is from Tirado's fiancee's lawyer: "He [Sawyer] didn't even get ticketed for littering for leaving Jayson Tirado's body on the street!" Peace.

Photos - Sean Sawyer (www.nydailynews.com), Jayson Tirado and his daughter (www.nytimes.com), Officers inspecting Tirado's car following the early morning shooting (www.nypost.com)

Lawyer Who Defended Bell Killer Can't Make Up His Mind

It appears that Anthony Ricco, a lawyer for Gescard Isnora, the man who fired the first shot at Sean Bell and his friends that began the 50 bullet disgrace, has a tough time making up his mind. You see, he thinks that the 41 shots fired at unarmed black man Amadou Diallo by the NYPD in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment building is horrendous, but the 50 shots fired at unarmed black man Sean Bell by the NYPD is not only OK, but worth defending the man who started the shooting. After the Diallo shooting, Ricco sent a letter to the feds urging civil rights charges for the four cops who shot the African immigrant (those charges were never filed), saying that,

The New York City Police Department has acted with impunity in its pattern of excessive use of force and violence against members of the African-American and Latino communities. The tragic litany of violence shall continue unless and until the United States Department of Justice aggressively prosecutes the police officers who are responsible for the violation of basic civil rights of the citizens they are hired to protect.

Well said, and I completely agree with Mr. Ricco's statement. Now fast-forward seven years, when Sean Bell and his two friends are shot while leaving a strip club while having no weapons on them. One would think that Ricco would get his pen ready to write to the feds again in the case of another state court injustice akin to the one from the Diallo shooting. No dice. In fact, Ricco decided to defend Gescard Isnora, the officer who began the shooting.

Is not the Sean Bell shooting a continuation of the "tragic litany of violence" that Ricco talks about in his 2000 letter? Was not what happened back in November, 2006 an example of an "excessive use of force and violence against members of the African-American and Latino communities"? Even if you subscribe to the notion that the officers somehow had a right to open fire on three unarmed men on an open street, there is little doubt that 50 shots is, at the very least, a bit excessive.

The irony of all this is the fact that now Anthony Ricco will be begging the feds not to charge civil rights charges against his client for killing Sean Bell. Ricco is trying to argue that the cases are different, and he is right. One was in the Bronx in a building and the other was in Queens in a car. Beyond that, however, the cases are very similar. Both involve unarmed black men, both involve said unarmed black men reacting to guns being drawn on them late at night by plainclothes officers who may or may not have identified themselves as the po, and both involve trigger-happy cops who fired over 40 shots. Hopefully the remaining difference will be that Diallo's killers were never brought to justice and Bell's killers will be. Peace.

Photos - Anthony (Tony) Ricco defending Sammy "The Bull" Gravano in 2005 (ganglandnews.com), Gescard Isnora, Ricco's client (www.nydailynews.com)

Setting Dangerous Precedents: Sean Bell's Killers Acquitted

It's Amadou Diallo part II: Sean Bell's killers have been acquitted of shooting 50 rounds at Bell and his friends on that fateful night back on November 25, 2006. At the conclusion of the bench trial requested by the defendants (who, apparently, did not trust the very people that they have pledged to protect and to serve), Judge Arthur T. Cooperman declared that all three men charged (despite the fact that there were five officers involved in the incident) did not act in a criminal manner when they killed Sean Bell and wounded his friends, all of whom were unarmed. Adding insult to injury, Judge Cooperman said that the testimony of Bell's friends at times did not make sense.

Numerous questions have to be asked about this case and its conclusion. What kind of precedent does this set for the NYPD and victims of police violence? First Amadou Diallo's killers get off the hook (following a dubious move to Albany - a much whiter city than New York) after firing 41 shots at the African immigrant, and now Sean Bell's killers, after firing 50 shots, are also off the hook. What is interesting is that with previous NYPD killings, while those officers involved were acquitted of criminal charges, large monetary settlements were given to the families of the victims. Amadou Diallo's family received $3 million, Patrick Dorismond's family got $2.25 million, and Timothy Stansbury's family received $2 million. I would be highly surprised if Bell's family did not receive some sort of compensation for their loss at the hands of the police department. But this begs the question: if the justice system thinks that these officers did nothing wrong, why settle with the families? By giving someone money (which is a shitty substitute for seeing those who killed your loved one put to justice), are you not admitting wrongdoing? If the NYPD is just doing what they're trained to do by gunning down these unarmed black men, then why pay the families of those who obviously had to be doing something wrong to get such a violent response from these trained officers?

I also want to go back to a case that I discussed a little over a year ago that occurred in Rhode Island. A corrections officer named Dante Pingitore was scoring some coke in Providence when he was approached by state police. Pingitore, in response to this, "rammed" his car into an unmarked police cruiser with officers inside. Pingitore could assumed to be armed, because he was a corrections officer for his state, yet his showdown with cops was resolved without firing a single shot. The interesting thing about this case (in case you could not figure it out from his Italian name) Pingitore is, by all available evidence short of an actual photo, white. If Rhode Island cops can prevent violence in a nearly carbon-copy case of Sean Bell's, why can't the NYPD? Does this mean that the NYPD is less trained or worse at their job than Rhode Island troopers? No two cases are the exact same, but these two cases are very similar and it should be noted that one ended with a person being given paid leave and bail and the other being buried.

Other questions that seem to remain unanswered: if the officers present that night were so certain that Bell and his friends not only had a gun, but were psychics and knew that Bell and his friends would go back to their car to get said gun and commit a drive-by (maybe the cops are related to Ms. Cleo?), why allow them to get into the car? Was it an example of NYPD brinksmanship? Why did Gescard Isnora open fire? Did he see a gun, or was he just going off of the equivalent of a middle-school rumor (well, someone said it, so it must be true)? Maybe he saw one of the victims' hands and took a page out of Sean Sawyer's playbook. It is amazing how the defense portrayed the whole thing as Joseph Guzman's (one of Bell's friends) fault. They said that because Guzman told Bell to go as Isnora approached the car, he caused all of this. Let's kick some logic for a moment: you just got into an argument with a group outside of a strip club and then some guy approaches your car with a gun drawn. Are you going to stick around to see what happens? Hell no. (Quick note: Isnora said that he clipped his badge to his collar and yelled "police." It was the middle of the night in November, so the car windows were probably closed, and thus they would not have heard Isnora's shout or seen his badge, if he even did this, as witnesses say that Isnora neither yelled police or had his badge visible.) So without seeing a gun or confirming the presence of any kind of weapon, Detective Isnora fired the first shot, leading to 49 more shots from him and his colleagues.

The most ridiculous part of this entire case is probably the role of Detective Michael Oliver - the man who shot 31 shots at Bell and his companions. Now you might be saying to yourself "Wow, I didn't know that the department-issued glocks had banana clips that held so much ammunition." Well, they don't. Oliver emptied an entire clip into the vehicle, felt that was not enough for a group of unarmed men, reloaded and pumped some more lead into the car. Oliver also has shown very little remorse for his actions, partying after the indictments for the charges were handed down. Bell's parents also seem to notice that, of all three detectives, Oliver seems to be remorseless and cocky. Oliver is also no stranger to violence while on-duty. He apparently put a cab driver's head through a window when he thought that the cab driver took too long to move his double-parked car. Oliver admitted no wrongdoing, but the city settled for $10 Gs, which again begs the question of accepting guilt. It is interesting that Judge Cooperman found Bell's friends' testimonies not believable, but found Oliver emptying a clip, reloading, and still believing to be threatened by unarmed men perfectly rational.

Additionally, many point to past activities of the victims as a reason that little sympathy should be felt for them. It is true that Bell, who's record is not squeaky clean, also hung out with people whose records were not squeaky clean. But unless the cops were familiar with the three men and their records prior to the incident, this means nothing. They could have been doctors or lawyers blowing off some steam for all the cops knew. Additionally, many point to the three victims saying that they were less-than-stellar members of society and this contributed to their death. At least Sean Bell graduated high school, which cannot be said for Michael Oliver. Bell's previous arrests were all for non-violent offenses, while Oliver has previously been involved in violent confrontations over such life-threatening matters as double-parking. Of course, people don't focus on this.

Finally, many news outlets have said that because two of the cops were minorities, this shooting could not have been racially motivated. Give me a break. The guy who shot the most was white and anyone who has dealt with cops will tell you that the only color that matters to them is the color of their uniform - blue. Black cops and Latino cops can be just as judgmental and racist as white cops. To quote an NWA line, "But don't let it be a black and a white one / Cuz they'll slam ya down to the street top / Black police showin out for the white cop." Racial profiling permeates police departments and does not affect only white cops; cops (and people, for that matter) of all races and nationalities fall victim to profiling people by the color of their skin.

The only solace that can come from this is the fact that these three officers will never work undercover again because their faces have been plastered all over the world. Judge Cooperman called their actions careless, but not criminal (though, last time I checked, recklessness that leads to a death is a crime, but let's not get tied down with what the law says) and hopefully all three will no longer be employed by the NYPD. Let's hope that Al Sharpton keeps his trap shut and some legitimate leaders say some intelligent things about the bullshit that occurred today instead of going through the usual rhetoric of the reverend. Rest in peace, Sean Bell, and hopefully justice will come to your killers someday. Peace.

Photos - Marc Cooper, Michael Oliver, and Gescard Isnora (l-r) (www.gothamist.com), Sean Bell, his fiancee Nicole Paultre-Bell, and their child (en.wikipedia.org), Judge Arthur T. Cooperman (www.nydailynews.com), The scene of Sean Bell's death the following morning (Pan-African News News Wire Photo File's flickr), The scene outside of the Queens courthouse following the verdict (cityrooms.blogs.nytimes.com), Never Again - hopefully not (www.villagevoice.com)

Staten Island Officers Indicted in Halloween "Arrest"

As I discussed last November, two NYPD officers out of Staten Island's 120th Precinct got in way over their heads when they decided to mess around with a 14 year old kid who they thought was throwing eggs at cars on Halloween night. Instead of arresting the boy (I don't even know if you can get arrested for that, back in my city the cops just took your eggs and told you to get lost), they put him in cuffs, put him the back of their police car and drove him to a remote part of River Road in the neighborhood of Bloomfield - three miles from where they picked the boy up - and told the boy to get out of the car. They then, according to the Staten Island Advance - allegedly began prodding him in the ribs with their boots until another call came over the radio. They then uncuffed the boy - some reports say they removed his shirt and shoes, others say the boy did this himself to avoid detection in the dark woods (these items where white) when he saw a pair of headlights that he feared were the two cops coming back - and left him there. The boy ended up at a nearby Burlington Coat Factory in his shorts, where he was helped by a security guard. Good thing the cops got another call, who knows what they would have done had they not had to do real police work.

The two cops - Richard Danese and Thomas Elliassen - were indicted on Monday of 33 counts, some of which are felonies. When the arrests occurred the cops only got DATs and were suspended without pay before being reassigned to modified duty (according to the SI Advance). But to make matters worse for himself, Richard Danese decided to illegally log onto a computer at the Brooklyn Gang Squad (where he was reassigned) with a seargent's log-in and password to look up the boy's past criminal history (once) as well as the boy's father's (38 times). That won't help with professing your innocence. For these actions, Danese has been charged with additional crimes which could put him in the pokey for four years. One of the cops has been alleged to have said, "We know you and all your nigger friends [the boy is black] friends talk about how you don't like us. We don't like you either." This would be hard to prove in court, because it's going to boil down to a he-said-he-said argument, but if these two are convicted of this, I wouldn't doubt that one of them said that. It takes a twisted person to leave a 14 year old boy in the middle of the woods by himself at night. Imagine if something had happened to him out there?

Obviously with the Sean Bell case currently taking place, this is not good for the NYPD's public image. It makes one wonder what the screening process is for people who want to join the NYPD as people like this can make it onto the force (as one commenter here said). The two have been suspended without pay and are expected to be arraigned on these charges today (the suspension apparently can last up to 30 days, so it will be interesting to see what the NYPD does after the 30 days, as Richard Danese has proven himself to be a liability even in modified duty). If convicted, of course, these two lose their jobs automatically because felons cannot serve on the force (though those convicted of misdemeanors can, so maybe they'll plead out to keep their jobs, which, it seems, they should not have anyway). Peace.

Photos - Thomas Elliassen (left) and Richard Danese outside of Staten Island Supreme Court on Tuesday (www.nydailynews.com), A Staten Island Advance article with some details about the crime, with the boy's face cropped out (northshore.noizart.com)

NYPD: Rounding Up Criminals or Hiring Them?

Yonkers brawlers and NYPD officers who looked the other way (Gothamist)

With the trial for Sean Bell's killers coming up later this month, one would think that Ray Kelly would try to keep his officers' behavior tip top. Alas, that is not the case.

Back on September 14, 2 off-duty NYPD officers and a friend were involved in an incident in Yonkers, right over the Bronx border, in which a man was punched and lost vision in his left eye. Two NYPD officers on patrol witnessed one of the off-duty officers, Michael McGhee, punch the victim, Peter Cummins. In a logical move, the two patrol officers put McGhee in cuffs.

So, as the process goes, McGhee should have been brought to the patrolling officers' precinct, where the officer would fill out the relevant paperwork, and then be sent to central booking and arraigned. But no. Allegedly McGhee tells the patrolling officers that he and his friend, Thomas Wimmer, are both NYPD cops, so the two patrolling officers, Stella Ibanez and Jeffrey Alicea let them go. When Yonkers PD showed up (considering that technically it was their jurisdiction) Officers Ibanez and Alicea failed to mention the fact that they had a suspect in custody or that they had let said suspect go.

As Yonkers PD, Westchester DA's office and NYPD Internal Affairs investigated, the story started coming to light. The three bar goers (off-duty officers McGhee, Wimmer, and a civilian friend Patrick Tully) have been charged with third degree assault, a misdemeanor. The problem is that the law dictates that these men should be charged with second degree assault (with intent to cause serious physical injury, as opposed to intent to cause injury [I think vision loss would count as a serious injury]) and gang assault in the first degree (assaulting someone with intent to cause serious physical injury when aided by two or more people). These offenses are Class D and Class B felonies, respectively. But then again, there seems to be a double standard when it comes to charging civilians and charging law enforcement officers.

Rockin Robin Pub on McLean Ave
(Irish Emigrant)

 The two officers who tried to cover it up have both been charged with two counts of official misconduct each. The lawyers for the cops are spouting the usual rhetoric of "my client did nothing wrong, etc." but Officer Thomas Wimmer has already stepped up and taken responsibility for his actions by resigning from the force. His lawyer says that he merely found another opportunity that was better for him, but that seems quite coincidental.

Apparently the area where the incident occurred, McLean Avenue in Yonkers, is a hotbed of activity with which one does not really want to be involved. On January 4, 2006 two off-duty officers found themselves in the middle of an argument between two patrons in Rory Dolan's, one of the numerous Irish pubs on McLean Avenue, when one of the patrons stabbed one of the officers and was subsequently killed by the other officer (who was cleared in late April of any wrongdoing.) Even the judge in the recent case exclaimed that that area is not a great one to be in late at night.

NYPD Officer Patrick Venetek
(Gothamist)

This story comes out just a week after the story of a cop in Brooklyn who accidentally shot a toddler in the arm while cleaning his gun. Apparently Officer Patrick Venetek thought it was a good idea to clean the gun while it was loaded. Additionally, because he was delinquent on his electricity bill, the lighting was not great considering it was shut off. His brother tried to come up with an excuse, saying that they were so poor it was either the rent or the electricity that month, but offered no excuse as to why there were piles of trash and dirty clothes in their hallway outside their apartment or explanation for the large number of empty beer cans and cigarette packs lying around. (At $25 a 30 rack and $7 a pack of cigarettes, I think a reduction in the drinking and smoking could have led to a bill payment). Luckily, the NYPD took his gun away, so no more random discharges of the weapon should be occurring.

But the question is: how do people like this make it on the force? The main reason is the salary. It is so piss-poor that people left the force in 2006, despite Mayor Bloomberg and Ray Kelly's promise to add 800 more officers in 2006 (in actuality, the force shrunk by 307 officers). In 2005 the starting salary for an NYPD cop was $39,000; in 2006 it had been slashed more than than $10K to $25,100. Compare that to Nassau County cops ($34,000) and Suffolk County ($57,811).

The NYPD recruitment website says that it will not hire felons, but that leaves misdemeanors (which, for perspective, is what the three people accused of blinding the man in the eye on McLean Ave. in Yonkers are charged with) open for new hires (except petit larceny and domestic violence.) With the department so desperate for recruits, it should come as no surprise that people who would blind a guy in his eye and then try to cover it up, or someone who feels booze and cigarettes are more important than the electricity bill would make it onto the force. This is a dangerous road to go down, as those cops who are dirty or sleazy but are not overt about it move up the ranks.

NYPD Recruitment Van (tom_hoboken Flickr)

If the city wants to stop this problem, bump up the requirements to be a cop. If you paid a cop $50,000 a year, required a college education (instead of just 60 credits or military service and a GED) and a GPA of something over 2.0 (the current requirement, which is a C), plus a psychological evaluation, stories like this would be less and less common. Hell, if the starting salary were $50,000 I would be a cop. Instead, cops have to deal with so much BS and are paid so little, it's no wonder some of them are jerks (this, of course, does not excuse their behavior.)

College grads go after jobs on Wall Street and in law firms and medical professions. If the base pay and requirements for being a cop were on the same scale as some of the lower-tier financial and law firms and competitiveness for these jobs were high, police departments would be much different (in a good way.) There are cops out there who would be able to be a cop with these heightened requirements; the point of the requirements would be to weed out those who really should not have that much power (or weaponry, for that matter) in society and attract new people who would live up to high standards.

Sean Bell Trial Set: NYPD Has No Trust in Queens Residents

Detective Michael Oliver
(NY Daily News)

The trial of three police detectives accused of murdering Sean Bell is slated to begin on February 25 according to State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Cooperman. The different thing about this trial, however, is that the typical twelve people will not be deciding the fate of Detectives Gescard Isnora, Michael Oliver, and Marc Cooper. Instead the officers, after losing a bid to get a change of venue, have opted for a bench trial, meaning that a single judge (in this case Justice Cooperman) will preside over the case and will render a verdict for the three.

This is highly advantageous to the detectives, as Justice Cooperman seems to like police officers. According to Judicial Reports Justice Cooperman is "reversed more often than any other judge in the city for overly harsh treatment of criminal defendants." Additionally, according to the same source, Justice Cooperman has been praised by the Daily News for "slamming cop-haters." The Daily News article that is alluded to is pretty mundane, however, as it seems that he has only given one guy an overly harsh sentence (a full year for biting a cop without injuring him). Additionally, Cooperman has sentenced cops to jail before, but the sentence seems a little light for the crime (a 1986 sentence of 2 to 6 years for cops who tortured a drug suspect with a taser.)

Detective Gescard Isnora
(NY Daily News)

In the taser case, two police officers - Seargent Richard Pike and Officer Jeffrey Gilbert - were charged and convicted in an incident involving their treatment of a drug suspect, Mark Davidson. In 1985 the 18 year old Davidson was held down in the 106th Precinct House and tased numerous times in an effort to get him to confess. The torture stopped when the officers threatened to tase Davidson's testicles and he falsely confessed. The case was indicative of a larger torture ring at the 106th Precinct House.

What is important here is that, while Justice Cooperman seems to hand down maximum sentences for those who hurt police officers, he does not do the same for police officers who hurt civilians. In a New York Times article published July 18, 1986 reporting on the conviction of Pike and Gilbert it states that Cooperman could have sentenced the two officers to the maximum sentence of 2 and 1/3 years to 7 years in prison for the torture but did not. While the maximum sentence is not much more than they got, it would have sent a symbolic message that police torture will not be tolerated, just as Cooperman had on other cases involving violence against police. This is slightly troubling, as it shows (albeit a relatively small) favoring of police officers.

Detective Marc Cooper
(NY Daily News)

About the trust issue: in our justice system we are supposed to trust 12 men and women to fairly assess the facts of a trial and make the correct decision. The cops tried to get a change of venue - a la Diallo's murderers - in order to get out of diverse New York City and go somewhere a bit more white (like Albany.)

This was denied, so in a last-ditch effort to avoid the judgement of the same people they have sworn to protect and to serve, they have opted for a bench trial. Unfortunately the Reverend Al Sharpton was right in his assertion that "we are asked to trust police who do not trust us." I say unfortunately because Sharpton tends to be a race-baiter who loves the limelight, but this time he has it right. We are asked to defer to police judgment and obey their every command at the risk of life and limb, but when the tables are turned those same police do not trust us and there is something inherently wrong with that.

The detectives said that they wanted a bench trial because they believed that the pre-trial publicity tainted the jury pool and they would not receive a fair trial. I would argue that the fact that they shot at Sean Bell and companions 50 times and then went out and partied after the indictments were handed down might sway the jury pool, but apparently in their minds it is the fact that media outlets are reporting on their behavior - not the behavior itself - that is wrong.

This trial is going to be interesting. Personally, I would like to see a justice not from New York take the case. In my opinion, the Department of Justice should bring in an outside judge to take it, but that seems like it is not going to happen. There is still hope for justice, as Cooperman might actually give these detectives jail time. Hopefully the citizens of New York will not be slapped in the face with another acquittal of murderous cops and Sean Bell's family will see justice.

Correction: A reader pointed out to me that in the second paragraph I stated that cops tortured a drug suspect with a taser in 1986. The sentence itself was handed down by Judge Cooperman in 1986. I have changed the wording of the paragraph to indicate this.

Daniel Talbot and Sean Sawyer Updates

Robert Iacoviello, Jr. (My Fox Boston)

Something Just Doesn't Add Up II
More information has come out of the ultra-secret case of Daniel Talbot - the Revere police officer who was killed while "socializing" behind Revere High at the end of September this year. There were various parts of the case that did not sit right with me (and a lot of other people from what I have read and heard.) Questions have remained unanswered: why were the officers hanging out behind Revere High at 1:30 in the morning? Why did they believe that their faces would arouse trouble at neighborhood bars? Why were search warrants sealed (which was later ruled as illegal)? What about the alleged confession? Who made it? My confidence in the prosecution's case waned even more as more pieces of information have been released as the case begins to enter the trial phase. It was revealed that a fourth police officer was at the scene - not just any officer, a sergeant. To make it even weirder, the other officers involved (Officers Soto and Bruzzese) in the incident have returned to work after being placed on administrative leave, but Sergeant Evan Franklin (the fourth officer) has not been allowed to return to work and remains on paid leave. What was Franklin's role in the whole incident? Good luck getting an answer. All we know is, according to the prosecutor, "When the shooting started, he left." When asked about why he was not back on duty like the others on the scene, Revere police spokesman Captain Michael Murphy said it was a departmental decision, adding "It's sort of an open-ended thing."

So what is the official story from the prosecutor? Apparently Derek Lodie was cutting through the Revere High area when he got into an argument with Talbot and his group. Words were exchanged, Lodie called up Robert Iacoviello Jr., a 20 year old from Revere, who came back to the park with Lodie and as Talbot and Soto approached Lodie, Iacoviello shot Talbot in the head. Soto shot back, missing both Lodie and Iacoviello, then went to tend to Talbot. What was their commanding officer, Sergeant Franklin, doing at this time? We do not know. Did the men identify themselves as cops? We don't know, but I'd imagine if they did the prosecution would try to hammer that point home. After killing Talbot, Iacoviello called up accomplices (who? the prosecution will not say), who helped him break up the gun and dump it in various storm drains. More questions: Why did the group get into an argument with Lodie? Why did they not identify themselves as cops? Why did they not call for uniformed, sober officers? Again, the prosecutor needs to explain these things, because the story he weaves seems to have holes in it, especially with so much information being withheld initially. Additionally, how much more do we not know about this case, given that Sergeant Franklin's presence was just recently released? I say turn this over to the feds so that no politics (or, at least, minimal politics) play into this.

Justice for the Tirado Family?

A memorial for Jayson Tirado (Free Republic)

Thanks to Xavier, the commenter on the Tirado post, for alerting me to new information regarding his friend's murder. It appears that Sean Sawyer was at a bar with an unnamed woman from the Queens DA's Office who says that all Sawyer drank was Coke - for 12 hours. Now, in my mind, it does not seem difficult to verify this story. Take a look at Sawyer's tab from the bar (if he paid with a credit card) or, if he paid with cash, talk to the bartender (who surely must remember Sawyer and this unidentified woman if they were there from the time Sawyer got off work [5 p.m.] to the time that Tirado was shot [7 a.m. the next day]). As far as X's assertion that Sawyer is "banging" the woman from the DA's office, the Post article that he linked to in his comment does not directly say that. It says that Sawyer argued with his wife before going to the bar with, as the Post puts it, his "lady friend." I will let you come to your own conclusions on that one. The Post article also points out that it is unclear how much time the pair spent together and when they split up. So we have a huge chunk of critical time before the incident happened during which Sawyer's whereabout and actions are unknown (don't forget the nearly 19 hours after the shooting when Sawyer pulled a disappearing act.)

The pressure on the NYPD has been mounting as of late, with shootings of unarmed black men occurring more frequently. The treatment of these officers after the shootings is also a bit prejudiced, with the cops always earning the benefit of the doubt (Sean Sawyer's case is the epitome of this). I have also read on various threads, etc. that this seems to be a New York phenomenon, with people suggesting that police are underpaid and undertrained. This may be true, especially considering that other police departments do not shoot the amount of unarmed dark-skinned people that the NYPD does (or, if they do, then it is not being reported on). Just look at the Sean Bell case and another case that is extremely similar with a white correctional officer up in Rhode Island. It would be interesting if someone (because I do not have the time right now) put together a data sheet of shootings of unarmed suspects in large metropolitan areas, broke it down by race, and then looked at it per capita to see if New York really does have a disproportionate amount of unarmed shootings of suspects, and if race plays a part in these incidents.