This week Alan Crotzer stepped into the warm sunlight outside the courthouse in Tampa, Florida after serving more than 24 years in prison for crimes he didn't commit. The 45-year-old was released after DNA testing and a co-defendant's extremely late admission convinced prosecutors he was not involved in the 1981 armed robbery and rapes that led to his 130-year prison sentence. Sadly this is the one hundred seventy-third (173) time The innocence Project has successfully argued for DNA or other evidence to be admitted into a case and a conviction and prison sentence have been overturned. In Mr. Crotzer's case he was identified by a witness when, in reality it was two brothers and a third male who committed the crimes. The two brothers were also captured and convicted but did not confirm Mr. Crotzer was not involved until approached by TIP.
This highlights one of the biggest, if not the biggest failures of the modern American Justice system. Sometimes by sloppy police work, sometimes over-zealous prosecutors, sometimes by well intentioned but incorrect witnesses, and yet other times by a tangle of these and other issues an innocent person CAN BE and IS convicted of a crime they DID NOT COMMIT. While this stirs thoughts of The Fugitive series or movie it is an all too real prospect for some.
As a dedicated law enforcement officer I take pride in my cases and can proudly state that I have never arrested and/or charged an innocent person with a crime. I, and all officers, am required to meet Probable Cause to show the person arrested is the person who committed the crime. The prosecutor then reviews my arrest affidavit and case file to ensure they can prove the facts of my case "beyond a reasonable doubt". If they can't prove it in court most Assistant State Attorney's will Nolle Prosequi or Non-Pros or No FIle the case (sh** can it) and the arrestee never goes to trial. So when a prosecutor brings a case to court I feel the case has been duly and properly vetted by law enforcement and the prosecutor.
Back here in the real world however, the State Attorney's Office works hard each day, but it helps to understand that most ASA's carry a high, double digit case load EACH WEEK. So a case can all too easily fall through the proverbial cracks. A common docket for the week could be seventy to eighty cases in your average size district, considerably more in others. Add that most defendants do not or cannot afford private attorney's and the Public Defender's Office ends up with an equally high case load. Finally, we as a society have gotten away from the principal of "innocent until proven guilty". I can't get away from those who say "he got arrested, so he's gotta be guilty", or "if he didn't do it you wouldn't have arrested him". WHAT?
If I arrest someone, did they do it, YES. Can it be proven in court, that remains to be seen. But to enter into the false assumption that arrest = guilt denies the defendant the very rights you would scream for if arrested, particularly if the cops got it wrong and you really were innocent. Yet it is citizens with this attitude that sit on our jury and detemine if you will go to prison, YIKES!
What can be done to prevent innocents from being convicted? Two things. First, demand accountability from your local law enforcement agency. Make sure they operate in the open, according to law, and without violating the right of citizens. This means getting involved. If your Police have a citizens review board, sit on it. If they have any civilian oversight groups, participate. If they operate citizen academies (where you see the inner working of your police) take one. And always remain informed and alert when questionable incidents occur. Now this does not mean that every time the police use a level of force to arrest someone it is illegal or excessive. Or their focus on the low income neighborhood blighted with drug dealers is racist. But if you are unfamiliar with your police, your city (county, state), and how they handle the crime in your area, it is easier for those few bad eggs to get by and go unnoticed until an innocent person is arrested and sent to jail. Secondly, demand the justice system be improved, re-worked, supported and bolstered to better handle the flood of cases they get each and every week. This too is not easy because it again requires you to get involved. Your votes (or lack of votes) let ineffective judges remain on the bench, your taxes need to go to support the improvements needed for personnel, technology, and facilities which will allow the system to run more smoothly and efficiently. Finally, use your voice to make not only your police accountable for the crime in your area, but also your Prosecutor or State's Attorney.
My main point is that a criminal justice system left to itself will do what is required and not much more. But a criminal justice system with accountability to its citizens from the police station to the courthouse will be more responsive, more accurate, and more determined to ensure an innocent person NEVER goes to prison.
As a quick exercise to make my point:
1) Name three (3) people from the cast of Friends
2) Name three (3) Survivor cast members
3) Name four (4) characters from The Simpsons
4) Name your Police Chief or Sheriff
5) Name your Prosecutor or State's Attorney
6) Name one (1) Judge in your distirct
How'd you do?
Nuff Said.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
I hate that I love those shows
Okay, I admit it! Just like you I love to watch mindless yahoos being chased down and busted by the good guys. The masterpiece of these ultimate, in-your-face reality shows is of course, Cops. But in the recent times it has been followed by a steady train of wanna-be shows: Worlds Wildest Police Pursuits, Maximum Exposure, Real Stories of the Highway Patrol, The Real Miami Cops, LAPD Life on the Beat, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (quiet nod to The King & I).
The simple premise: have a guy with a camera follow the cops, is actually a brilliant idea. It allows average citizens sitting in their living rooms to glimpse a fraction of the job done every day by those who serve in Law Enforcement. However, these shows also skew that image, sometimes to extremes, by ignoring all but the really exciting, scary, or crazy moments caught on tape during several weeks of taping (if not longer). Some other shows go the lazy way and actually attend Law Enforcement conventions and trade shows to solicit agencies to submit In-Car videos and other tapes for public consumption.
The stuff they show IS exciting otherwise these shows would not exist. Yet each time I watch a clip I can't help but shudder a little at the possibility the viewers will accept this to be ALL we do; chase people, fight with people, and act cocky around obviously disturbed individuals.
And let's not forget the paperwork. You see the arrest but never the "after" where the Officer is off the road for an hour or more processing the prisoner and completing his report. If the arrest was from a pursuit the Officer's night is over. He/she will be typing their fingers off 'till the next shift arrives for duty.
The biggest issues I have with what these shows present are 1) outdated, lax, and just plain stupid departmental policies and 2) cops trying to be actors. I can't tell you how many times these shows show traffic stops for "no turn signal", or "running a stop sign", or even "acting a bit suspicious" that freefall into full-blown vehicle and then foot pursuits. As a member of the Law Enforcement family I get chills when I see an agency that still allows such pursuits to occur. Most progressive agencies now limit pursuits to violent felony incidents such as robberies, rapes, and car-jackings. The immediate and articulable threat the suspect poses to the community should be such that a reasonable Officer can justify the risks of engaging in a pursuit. Now don't jump on me for this, I am NOT anti-pursuit, I am PRO intelligent pursuit. I can't look a mother in the eye and tell her her son or daughter is dead because a suspect was observed in a drug area, might have been buying or selling drugs, and did not use his turn signal so we pursued him until he crashed into their child's car at 110mph.
As for the "Hollywood" bug that seems to bite Oficers featured on these shows, let's face it people, if we were any good as actors we would not be cops. But stick a camera in an Officers face and suddenly he thinks himself to be The Lone Ranger, Batman, and Harry Callahan all rolled into one. If the poor bastard isn't spouting off about how much he loves his community and hates the criminals who frequent it, he's pontificating about the dangers he faces and that the good people of (your city, county, state here) should be glad to have him as their hero and saviour. I have long believed my actions speak volumes more than words ever could about who I am and what I believe. I recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill, "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." I would echo that sentiment and say that as Law Enforcement Officers it is our DUTY to defend FREEDOM and support JUSTICE by serving our communities with HONOR, MERCY, and HOPE.
The simple premise: have a guy with a camera follow the cops, is actually a brilliant idea. It allows average citizens sitting in their living rooms to glimpse a fraction of the job done every day by those who serve in Law Enforcement. However, these shows also skew that image, sometimes to extremes, by ignoring all but the really exciting, scary, or crazy moments caught on tape during several weeks of taping (if not longer). Some other shows go the lazy way and actually attend Law Enforcement conventions and trade shows to solicit agencies to submit In-Car videos and other tapes for public consumption.
The stuff they show IS exciting otherwise these shows would not exist. Yet each time I watch a clip I can't help but shudder a little at the possibility the viewers will accept this to be ALL we do; chase people, fight with people, and act cocky around obviously disturbed individuals.
And let's not forget the paperwork. You see the arrest but never the "after" where the Officer is off the road for an hour or more processing the prisoner and completing his report. If the arrest was from a pursuit the Officer's night is over. He/she will be typing their fingers off 'till the next shift arrives for duty.
The biggest issues I have with what these shows present are 1) outdated, lax, and just plain stupid departmental policies and 2) cops trying to be actors. I can't tell you how many times these shows show traffic stops for "no turn signal", or "running a stop sign", or even "acting a bit suspicious" that freefall into full-blown vehicle and then foot pursuits. As a member of the Law Enforcement family I get chills when I see an agency that still allows such pursuits to occur. Most progressive agencies now limit pursuits to violent felony incidents such as robberies, rapes, and car-jackings. The immediate and articulable threat the suspect poses to the community should be such that a reasonable Officer can justify the risks of engaging in a pursuit. Now don't jump on me for this, I am NOT anti-pursuit, I am PRO intelligent pursuit. I can't look a mother in the eye and tell her her son or daughter is dead because a suspect was observed in a drug area, might have been buying or selling drugs, and did not use his turn signal so we pursued him until he crashed into their child's car at 110mph.
As for the "Hollywood" bug that seems to bite Oficers featured on these shows, let's face it people, if we were any good as actors we would not be cops. But stick a camera in an Officers face and suddenly he thinks himself to be The Lone Ranger, Batman, and Harry Callahan all rolled into one. If the poor bastard isn't spouting off about how much he loves his community and hates the criminals who frequent it, he's pontificating about the dangers he faces and that the good people of (your city, county, state here) should be glad to have him as their hero and saviour. I have long believed my actions speak volumes more than words ever could about who I am and what I believe. I recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill, "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." I would echo that sentiment and say that as Law Enforcement Officers it is our DUTY to defend FREEDOM and support JUSTICE by serving our communities with HONOR, MERCY, and HOPE.
Shoot to wound...are you nuts?!?!?
This past week a teenage boy brandished what appeared to be to all invloved as a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and threatened several classmates with it before being cornered by a Deputy Sheriff. The Deputy repeatedly tried to get the boy to put the weapon down but sadly the boy pointed it at the Deputy. If things had gone just a little differently this could have ended happily.
However, when a person of ANY age points a gun at a Deputy Sheriff, Officer, or Trooper the ONLY option is deadly force. In this sad event the boy NOT the Deputy made the final choice to escalate the situation and it had deadly consequences. Consequences that tear, not only at the fragile fabric of the boy's family, but the local Sheriff's Office family, and the family of the Deputy Sheriff who fired the shot.
In the days following the shooting I heard multiple people, both civilians and reporters, asking why the Deputy had to kill the boy. Why couldn't the Deputy just wound him, shoot him in the leg or arm, or taser him. Folks, WAKE UP! If a person entered your home and pointed a gun at you, and you being a law abiding citizen had access to your gun, would you shoot to wound the intruder or to kill him?
As for a Taser, it can be a very useful piece of equipment and an effective intermediate weapon when used properly. However, NO ONE should expect a Law Enforcement Officer to take what amounts to a dart gun into a pistol fight. Have we become THAT afraid of lawsuits or of offending the sensibilites of some part, of some demographic, somewhere, that an Officer faced with a legitimate, articulable, Deadly Force situation who reasonably believes that his life or the life of your family member is in immediate danger should back down and lob a dart at the suspect in hopes that the suspect 1) won't shoot anyway, 2) won't accidently discharge the gun as his fingers twitch under the electric shock, or 3) won't avoid the taser shot and return fire on the Officer and those behind him.
PULEEESE !!!! A professional Law Enforcement Officer ALWAYS tries to avoid using Deadly Force unless absolutely neccessary. In this case, as in almost all others in recent memory, the descision to shoot is not made by the Officer, rather it is made BY THE SUSPECT when he/she chooses to point a weapon at a cop or a citizen.
The Deputy in this case has a long and distinguished history of service to his county. He takes his job very seriously and very personally. Most of all, and totally absent from ALL local coverage of the incident, is that he now must come to accept the fact that not only was he put in the difficult position of having a child at gun point, but all of his directions, pleadings, and attempts to bargain the weapon out of the child's hands were for nothing. This dedicated public servant protected all of the other students in harms way, put his own life and family on the line, but couldn't save the boy.
From personal experience I can state that if you could do it all again and keep the suspect alive most Officers would do so. The last thing an Officer wants to do is kill someone. However, sometimes Officers must step into the middle of ugly, rapidly evolving, dangerous situations and make that split-second descision to shoot or not shoot. All of us train, plan, practice, and hope to do the right thing when that terrible moment comes.
In this case, despite the pressure, the speed of the incident, and the armchair quarterbacking in the days that followed, that Deputy Sheriff, on that day, in that schoolyard, with that boy, not only did the right thing, he did the ONLY thing that could be done to stop the threat and protect himself and others.
A final note for those out there who would argue the point that the boy "only had a toy gun" so the Deputy should have known it was not real and had no reason to kill the child.....
you be the judge:
Does this look like a toy to you?
However, when a person of ANY age points a gun at a Deputy Sheriff, Officer, or Trooper the ONLY option is deadly force. In this sad event the boy NOT the Deputy made the final choice to escalate the situation and it had deadly consequences. Consequences that tear, not only at the fragile fabric of the boy's family, but the local Sheriff's Office family, and the family of the Deputy Sheriff who fired the shot.
In the days following the shooting I heard multiple people, both civilians and reporters, asking why the Deputy had to kill the boy. Why couldn't the Deputy just wound him, shoot him in the leg or arm, or taser him. Folks, WAKE UP! If a person entered your home and pointed a gun at you, and you being a law abiding citizen had access to your gun, would you shoot to wound the intruder or to kill him?
As for a Taser, it can be a very useful piece of equipment and an effective intermediate weapon when used properly. However, NO ONE should expect a Law Enforcement Officer to take what amounts to a dart gun into a pistol fight. Have we become THAT afraid of lawsuits or of offending the sensibilites of some part, of some demographic, somewhere, that an Officer faced with a legitimate, articulable, Deadly Force situation who reasonably believes that his life or the life of your family member is in immediate danger should back down and lob a dart at the suspect in hopes that the suspect 1) won't shoot anyway, 2) won't accidently discharge the gun as his fingers twitch under the electric shock, or 3) won't avoid the taser shot and return fire on the Officer and those behind him.
PULEEESE !!!! A professional Law Enforcement Officer ALWAYS tries to avoid using Deadly Force unless absolutely neccessary. In this case, as in almost all others in recent memory, the descision to shoot is not made by the Officer, rather it is made BY THE SUSPECT when he/she chooses to point a weapon at a cop or a citizen.
The Deputy in this case has a long and distinguished history of service to his county. He takes his job very seriously and very personally. Most of all, and totally absent from ALL local coverage of the incident, is that he now must come to accept the fact that not only was he put in the difficult position of having a child at gun point, but all of his directions, pleadings, and attempts to bargain the weapon out of the child's hands were for nothing. This dedicated public servant protected all of the other students in harms way, put his own life and family on the line, but couldn't save the boy.
From personal experience I can state that if you could do it all again and keep the suspect alive most Officers would do so. The last thing an Officer wants to do is kill someone. However, sometimes Officers must step into the middle of ugly, rapidly evolving, dangerous situations and make that split-second descision to shoot or not shoot. All of us train, plan, practice, and hope to do the right thing when that terrible moment comes.
In this case, despite the pressure, the speed of the incident, and the armchair quarterbacking in the days that followed, that Deputy Sheriff, on that day, in that schoolyard, with that boy, not only did the right thing, he did the ONLY thing that could be done to stop the threat and protect himself and others.
A final note for those out there who would argue the point that the boy "only had a toy gun" so the Deputy should have known it was not real and had no reason to kill the child.....
you be the judge:
Does this look like a toy to you?
Saturday, January 21, 2006
And so it begins....
Greetings and welcome to my attempt to merge into the fast lane of the information super highway without becoming the proverbial bug on a windshield. This Blogging thing was introduced to me by a family member with a blog of her own and I smuggly assumed I could do no worse. While that remains to be seen, I welcome you as witnesses to the ugliness, oddities, humor and pain that is law enforcement. I intend to speak my mind about issues not only in law enforcement but about social issues, public opinons, perceptions, Hollywood's take on cops, and any other tidbits that may fall from my table. Just remember, while I may not always be right, I will protect your right to tell me I'm wrong, but lets face it in my line of work EVERYONE has an opinion on how it should be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
