Cops Charged in Shooting were not even there

This sounds like a crazy lawsuit -- another example of blaming anybody but the person at fault

No one claims the police chief or his lieutenant fired a shot when officers gunned down a mentally unstable woman in the coastal Northern California city of Eureka last year. Yet they, not the officers who fired on her, are the ones charged with manslaughter in a case that has puzzled criminologists and law enforcement veterans, who say they've never heard of commanding officers having to defend themselves against criminal charges just for issuing orders. "It's a novel legal theory to indict people who didn't do something, particularly when they didn't say, 'Go ahead and shoot this woman,'" said David Klinger, a University of Missouri-St. Louis criminal justice professor who has studied police use of deadly force.

Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti were not part of the raid on Cheri Lyn Moore's apartment; they had been directing the tactical response from a command post elsewhere in the apartment complex. Both plan to plead not guilty to involuntary manslaughter when they're arraigned Feb. 21, said Bill Bragg, a lawyer for Douglas, who retired in October 2006, and Bill Rappaport, Zanotti's lawyer. If convicted, Douglas and Zanotti would face up to four years in prison. The officers who fired the shots have not been charged.

The indictments announced last week against the two commanders remains sealed. Humboldt County prosecutors could not be reached for comment by The Associated Press and have said little publicly about the since the day it happened.

On April 14, 2006, Moore was grieving the one-year anniversary of her son's death and began suffering a "mental health crisis" and called Humboldt County's mental health services line, according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed by another son. Police soon arrived at her apartment in Eureka, a remote city of 26,000 in the heart of California redwood country, but the welfare check turned into a standoff when she would not answer the door. The 48-year-old grandmother brandished a flare gun from her second-story window, threw clothes into the street and threatened to burn down the building, according to police. "She was an immediate threat to human life, to the building, to the officers, and to civilians surrounding that area," Zanotti testified at a September inquest into Moore's death.

After two hours, she was seen putting the gun down, and officers stormed the apartment. Moore was brought down by nine shots fired from a shotgun and an assault rifle; officers said she pointed the flare gun at them. She died at the scene.

Key to the manslaughter case against Douglas and Zanotti is whether their decision to send in a SWAT team showed judgment so poor that it amounts to criminal negligence. "It's pretty clear from the evidence that the problem came from the order to go into the apartment," said Gordon Kaupp, a San Francisco attorney representing the son in the wrongful death suit, filed in May. "The cops here knew she had a mental health history and chose to ignore (that)." Crisis negotiators should have had more time, and police should have used non-lethal weapons to subdue Moore, according to her son and mental health advocates.

Law enforcement groups and lawyers defending the officers argue that finding the commanding officers criminally liable for the split-second decisions they make in unpredictable and potentially violent situations could seriously hinder police. "It gives one pause to think what this most extreme kind of second-guessing will do to chill their willingness to keep facing those dangers for us," Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. Her office is overseeing the officers' defense in the civil case.

Even Ira Blatt, president of the Humboldt County chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, conceded that by the time police showed up at Moore's apartment, it might have been too late for a peaceful resolution. "I know that the police oftentimes get blamed when what you have is a failure of the mental health system," said Blatt, who believes Moore's death could have been avoided if she'd had better, more consistent access to treatment. "Law enforcement first responders have a very difficult job."

Report here





Australia: Just one year in jail for the anal rape of a child??

Because the kid is black???

TWO adults and two teenagers will each spend between one and 15 months behind bars for sexually abusing an 11-year-old boy at a remote Top End Aboriginal community. Rejecting pleas for wholly suspended sentences, Northern Territory Supreme Court judge Trevor Riley yesterday described the anal penetration of the boy between April and August last year at Maningrida, 500km east of Darwin, as "opportunistic" rather than predatory.

However, he said the males had taken advantage of the young victim, who was assaulted on three separate occasions at the community, as he sentenced the four offenders to a total of 32 months in custody. "The future of the victim remains uncertain and of significant concern," Justice Riley said.

The Territory's top prosecutor, Richard Coates, yesterday attributed the reluctance of Aboriginal children to give evidence as an explanation for the decision by the Crown not to pursue more serious rape charges, which could have led to jail terms of 20 years or life. The four offenders pleaded guilty to a total of eight charges, including sexual intercourse without consent. Justice Riley said he would have imposed higher sentences if they had claimed innocence.

The revelations in The Australian last week that nine males who gang-raped a 10-year-old girl in the Queensland Aboriginal community of Aurukun had escaped jail sentences has triggered nationwide debate about indigenous justice. Unlike the Aurukun gang-rape case, Justice Riley rejected pleas from defence lawyers to impose wholly suspended sentences on the offenders. But the sentences were still criticised as inadequate. "For Centrelink fraud and property damage, they'll send people to jail for three times that," Queensland indigenous human rights activist Gracelyn Smallwood said. "We've got to start getting serious about sexual abuse right across the country."

Indigenous activist Boni Robertson said it was important that courts sent a message to thepublic that sexual intercourse with children could not be tolerated. "And why did they call it sexual assault and not rape?" she said. "There's a responsibility to send a message that if you are going to interfere with a child then you are going to face the sternest wrath of the law."

Child sexual assault advocate Hetty Johnston said the sentences appeared to treat abuse as a "misdemeanour". "The length of time they're in jail is not as important as knowing whether they have had time to complete a treatment program and knowing whether they are safe to be released," she said.

The victim of the Maningrida assault has been living in Darwin since charges were laid last year. The court heard yesterday that he could be blamed in the community for any sentence imposed on his abusers. "The boys did bad things to me," he said in his victim impact statement.

Claevon Cooper, 20, was sentenced to three years and nine months behind bars, suspended after 15 months. Isiah Pascoe, also 20, was sentenced to two years and eight months, suspended after 10 months. An 18-year-old boy was sentenced to two years and six months in jail, suspended after six months. Justice Riley ordered a 14-year-old boy who breached bail conditions earlier this year to spend eight months in juvenile detention - suspended after one month - for gross indecency. The judge did not record a conviction against the fifth offender, 17, who fondled the victim's buttocks, instead imposing a 12-month good behaviour bond. He acknowledged defence claims that pornographic movies had influenced the behaviour of the males, but said: "Those matters do not excuse or justify what took place."

Mr Coates said the NT Director of Public Prosecutions had opted for section 127 of the Criminal Code, which made it unlawful for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child under 16 years. This did not require the Crown to prove the victim consented to intercourse, unlike section 192 which attracts a possible life penalty for sexual assault without consent. In 2006-07, the DPP laid 30 charges under section 127. Mr Coates conceded the reluctance of indigenous children to testify may be responsible for more lenient sentences than would have otherwise been the case. "With this charge, consent is not an element of the offence," he said. "The child is incapable at law of consenting. The prosecution do not have to prove a lack of consent to prove the charge."

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)