Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Having said all of that I believe that we must find a better methodology of investigating incidents wherein a police officer takes the life of a civilian. We need it because the default posture of so many citizens, politicos, and the media today is to immediately suspect or insinuate wrong doing on the part of law enforcement. That must change.

In the Judicial Circuit that I served, it was routine practice for most of the police agencies who were involved in a police caused death to immediately notify the State Attorney’s Office (there was a rep on call 24/7); then at least one rep from the office would immediately respond to the scene and be an observer of the investigation. Further, in most cases wherein a police officer wounded a suspect, the SAO was notified. If the wounding presented the likelihood of death, the SAO  rep responded to the involved PD to observe the investigation. That helped foster public trust and transparancy.

In many cases the States Attorney Office would actually conduct the investigation. I can recall one very incendiary case wherein rioting had ensued after a police caused death. Rioting and looting was in progress when the SAO was notified. People were being dragged from cars and being beaten. At the request of the involved police agency, the SAO was requested to lead the investigation.

When the lead SAO investigator arrived at the local PD, chaos ruled. The PD was mobbed with protestors. The lead SAO investigator addressed the mob from the PD’s front steps and invited community leaders to “sit in” and observe the investigation while it was in progress. The mob was permitted to name community leaders as observers. It was permitted with the condition that the selected community leaders could not say a word, only listen, while sitting behind the interviewee or observing from behind a two way mirror in an interview room. The leaders were encouraged to bring witnesses forward. Only one leader was permitted to observe each interview.

It worked, the rioting stopped. At the conclusion of the investigation, it was presented to a Grand Jury.

In that case the involved officer was indicted for Murder 2, went to trial, and after two trials was found to be not guilty.

Nonetheless, in each and every case, in our jurisdiction, investigations of a police caused death were presented to a Grand Jury. I don’t have the exact stats, but we did indict and prosecute several officers for homicide. In each case, an in depth Grand Jury report was issued and made public.

But, I believe that’s not enough in today’s world. I believe that each and every death by police officer should be investigated by a special team of homicide investigators from the FDLE and law enforcement agencies who have substantial experience in homicide investigation. The team would be an “on call” operation.  It would operate out of the Attorney General’s office. The team would consist of designated homicide investigators from each major jurisdiction in Florida. In the event of a police caused death, the involved agency would notify the AG’s office.

The team would be activated, a state plane would pick up the investigators and deliver them to the involved jurisdiction. In today’s Florida, such an “on call” team could be assembled and be “on the ground” anywhere in the state in very short order.  The team would operate very much like the NTSB’s “Go Teams.”

Under no circumstance would any of the investigators be acquainted with the involved officer(s) or witnesses. Every investigator would be from “out of town.” The investigators would report directly to Florida’s Attorney General. Each and every case would be presented to a State Wide Grand Jury, as opposed to a local Grand Jury. At the conclusion of each case, if the officer was not indicted or charged, the totality of the investigation would be made public record for the review of the media or concerned citizens.

In the event of the death of a civilian at the hands of a police officer, the involved agency would have only the responsibility of “freezing” the scene, collecting available evidence, and identifying and ascertaining the pedigree of witnesses. All but the most cursory interviews would be conducted by the special team of investigators.

As it stands today, there are no accurate stats to be had as to the number of police caused deaths. Nor is there any accurate method to determine whether or not such deaths are justifiable. The FBI stats are woefully inaccurate. The FBI gathers the stats from police agencies that voluntarily submit them. It is the police agency that tells the FBI: a) if there have been a police involved death, and b) whether or not the case is justifiable.

Police caused deaths are not uncommon, in 2013 the FBI reported that there were 461 felony suspects that died as a result of justified police action.  But, as noted the stats are not to be trusted. The FBI should not rely on the individual law enforcement agencies to report the episodes and to classify them. Each FBI field office should have the responsibility of monitoring such cases in their jurisdiction, record them and make an annual report for the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, classifying each case by its judicial disposition.

Frankly, the idea would be extremely difficult to put into place. Some law enforcement agencies can be extremely parochial and reluctant to cooperate with agencies that have oversight responsibilities.

But, the idea is worth consideration.  What do you think?

A POSTER WROTE: “I would like for FTR to provide one source for climate change denial that is not paid or supported by a special or political interest.  Just one!”

FTR’S RESPONSE:  A come on, you’ve got to be kidding! First, I join with most people who completely agree that our climate is changing. It always has and always will. Climate change has nurtured and destroyed civilizations as long as there have been civilizations.

As for funding; governments, especially our government spends billions to support “studies” and “research” with the aim of pushing the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share.  Data compiled by Joanne Nova  at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.” Link

In addition to public funding, five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions.

Need, need I mention that Al Gore has made tens if not hundreds of millions on global warming hysteria. Link

I urge the poster to provide us with the name of a single researcher who is convinced that anthropogenic climate change is not a valid theory who is “paid or supported by a special or political interest.  Just one!”