Don't Tase Me, Bro!

22 year old unarmed man, suspected of being involved in a subway train scuffle, is dragged face down on platform, and after being roughed up, shot in the back, execution style. 

Contra Costa Times reports

A BART police officer struggling to handcuff a 22-year-old man stood up over the facedown Hayward resident and fired a single shot into his back while a handful of officers watched, a video taken by a train passenger apparently shows.

The attorney for the family of Oscar Grant III, fatally shot by an unidentified BART officer early New Year's Day, said Sunday he plans to file a $25 million lawsuit against the department and asked prosecutors to consider filing murder charges against the officer.

The shooting occurred shortly before 2 a.m. Thursday after five officers responded to the Fruitvale station to reports of a fight on a train, officials said, though they have not confirmed whether Grant was involved in the fight.

The new video, obtained by television station KTVU, shows two officers restraining a struggling suspect. While the man is lying face down on the ground, one officer appears to be seen pulling out a gun and firing a single shot into his back.

Civil rights attorney John Burris, known for his work in several high-profile cases involving police abuse and corruption, said at a Sunday news conference that the shooting was "the most unconscionable" he has ever seen. He said the Alameda County district attorney should consider filing charges of second-degree murder or manslaughter against the officer.

"I've drafted a notice of claim against BART for $25 million I plan to submit officially," Burris said, adding that the officer had violated Grant's civil rights and wrongfully caused his death.

The Police Department is in the early stages of a thorough investigation, BART police Chief Gary Gee said Sunday at a news conference. He declined to discuss many details, as doing so "before all the facts are in could compromise individual recollections and do disservice to the truth and the answers we're all seeking."

BART police are cooperating fully with a parallel investigation by the Alameda County district attorney's office, Gee said.

Gee declined to identify the officer but said he is a two-year BART police veteran. The officer was given drug and alcohol tests before being sent home on administrative leave Thursday, Gee said.

The last BART officer-involved shooting occurred in May 2001, Gee said.

Mario Pangelina Jr., whose sister had a 4-year-old daughter with Grant, said he was on the same train as Grant that night, but on a different car. He said he saw Grant's interactions with police immediately before the shooting.

"First, an officer grabbed Oscar by the neck and pushed him against the wall," Pangelina said. "Oscar didn't fight him, but he didn't go down either. He was like, 'What did I do?' Then another officer came up with his Taser and held it right in his face. Oscar said, 'Please don't shoot me, please don't Taser me, I have a daughter,' over and over again, real fast, and he sat down."

Grant was the only man in a small group sitting against the wall who was not handcuffed, Burris said, so officers grabbed him away from the wall and pressed him belly-down onto the ground.

"One officer was kneeling over his neck and head, and another standing over him," Burris said. "He was not kicking, and one officer was pulling on his arm. The standing officer pulled out his weapon and, within moments, fired the gun into Mr. Grant's back."

Burris said the bullet went through Grant's lower back and ricocheted off the ground up into his lungs, killing him.

BART's 206 sworn officers attend the same academies and training programs as city police and sheriff's deputies. According to BART's Web site, its requirements go beyond state guidelines, as every officer applicant must have completed at least a year of college.

Police have one video of the incident in evidence, different from the video that local media have released, and the quality of that video makes it hard to reach a sure conclusion, Gee said.

"It's not clear to me why the officer felt he needed to shoot. I don't know, and from my perspective it doesn't matter," Burris said.

Two authorities on police use of deadly force, both former law enforcement officers, said the newly discovered tape leaves unanswered questions.

"Strictly on the basis of this video, it is impossible to determine whether the shooting was justified because the officer who fired the shot might have seen some imminent threat to his or others' lives that the camera does not detect at that distance, angle and resolution," said Michael Scott, a University of Wisconsin law professor, former police chief in Florida and co-author of "Deadly Force: What We Know."

Scott said he watched the video several times. If there was a threat, he wrote in an e-mail to the Times, it "would most likely have to be a firearm or other weapon in the possession of Mr. Grant. However, if it turns out that Mr. Grant had no such weapon, it is awfully difficult to imagine what might have justified the use of deadly force."

Curtis Cope agreed that the tape doesn't show enough to draw clear conclusions.

"There are so many things we don't know," said Cope, a former 30-year law enforcement officer who has conducted police training and provides expert testimony in police procedure cases. "We certainly don't know the reason why they decided to put him prone on the ground. We don't know what reactions were taking place, what orders were being given and whether or not he is then complying or not complying. "... You need to look at every possible angle of it. Those angles all take time."

Grant was a butcher at popular Oakland grocery store Farmer Joe's and a loving father, family members said Sunday.

"He was so happy with his daughter," said Lita Gomez, sister to the mother of Grant's child. "You could see he was just so happy when he looked at her. Now, he's not going to be there for kindergarten. He's not going to be there for her prom. He's not going to be there for her wedding. She was robbed of that."

Family members erected a memorial for Grant outside the Fruitvale BART station Saturday night, where they said they plan to continue honoring his memory for 10 days.

A public funeral service is planned for 11 a.m. Wednesday at Palma Ceia Baptist Church, 28605 Ruus Road in Hayward, family members said.

Gee asked anyone with information on the shooting to call BART investigators at 877-679-7000, ext. 7040, or the Alameda County district attorney's office at 510-272-6222.

Video here.

Thanks to RJ Horstmann

As the Amtrak marketing dept. invites photographers to "Picture Our Trains" Amtrak cops harass photographers who take them up on it.

NYCPhoto Rights reports

City's outdoor billboard ban targets local artist/entrepreneur's Statue of Liberty murals. 

Artist responds

 The following statement is being
issued today by artist Michael McNeilly --
    Murals of the Statue of Liberty have appeared on hi-rise buildings
throughout Los Angeles.  City officials in Los Angeles have cited the artist
and have threatened to file criminal charges.
    Councilman Jack Weiss who represents West Los Angeles and Hollywood,
stated the city should file charges against McNeilly.  "People shouldn't be
doing this. And the city attorney should go after them aggressively and throw
the book at them," he said., according to David Zahniser in the Los Angeles
Times, Jan. 1, 2009.
    "The murals of the Statue of Liberty are an artistic and political
expression protected by the First Amendment. The series of murals depict the
iconic symbol of freedom and liberty and the year 1969, a year of great
accomplishments and change in America. The seeds of the Internet sewn,
Woodstock, Vietnam war divides America and Apollo 11, man's first steps on the
moon. The three colors of the sky behind "Liberty" represented for the crisis
and challenges America faces now, white for clarity in seeing truth and
justice and blue for hope and change. The tear in the eye of Liberty is for
the sacrifices made by our soldiers, first responders and veterans protecting
our security, rights and freedom," responds artist Michael McNeilly.
SOURCE  Michael McNeilly

Brett Caruso, info@liberty1969.com for Michael McNeilly

Missouri state legislature moves to make sale of lighters that look like cartoon characters, animals, vehicles or food products illegal.

The Columbia Tribune reports

It has all the makings of a holiday toy: a miniature Santa Claus that lights up, chuckles "Ho, ho, ho" and sings a Christmas carol.
But there's a catch: To activate those cool features, a person has to flick the lighter switch and spark a flame. And that is why there's an effort to ban it, along with other novelty lighters.

State Rep. Ed Wildberger, a Democrat from St. Joseph and a former firefighter, has pre-filed a bill that would make it illegal to sell novelty lighters in Missouri. The proposed law would specifically prohibit lighters that look like cartoon characters, animals, vehicles or food products. Lighters that play music or have flashing lights also would be outlawed.

Fire groups across the country support such a ban because the entertaining lighters pose a risk to children. "One of the things that concerns us about novelty lighters is they look like toys, and that causes children to treat them as toys, increasing the potential for accidental fires to start," said Battalion Chief Gale Blomenkamp of the Boone County Fire Protection District. "When you see a lighter that looks like a football or a toy, kids are going to be more apt to play with them."

To demonstrate just how fun they appear to be, Columbia fire Battalion Chief Steve Sapp has a collection of novelty lighters he uses to educate parents. In addition to the singing Santa, Sapp has lighters that resemble a deer, a pig, a ladybug, a motorcycle and a race car hood. Many of the lighters make noises or flash lights, but not until there's a flame.

"Once there's an open flame, kids can get a little experimental," Sapp said. "They might burn little scraps of paper. Then, unfortunately, and sometimes unknowingly, they set other products on fire unintentionally."

Sapp said he understands that to adults, the lighters are simply novelty items. "But they're almost too tempting for a child to want to play with," he said.

Not everyone is on board with banning the items. Randy Trierwieler, manager of Midway Truck Plaza, where novelty lighters are a big seller, thinks it should be a parent's responsibility - not a lawmaker's - to keep lighters out of little hands. "If you have a Bugs Bunny lighter and a 3-year-old, don't leave it out," Trierwieler said. "I don't think it's something you need to pass a law for. There are a lot more serious problems in this country than passing legislation determining what can or can't be on a lighter."

Missouri isn't the only state where a ban has been proposed. Maine and Tennessee prohibited novelty lighters this year, and a few other states and localities are considering similar proposals, according to the U.S. Fire Administration.

There aren't a lot of data to illustrate just how dangerous novelty lighters are because fire departments don't separate them from standard lighters when tracking causes of fires, Missouri State Fire Marshal Randy Cole said. The state does track fires set by children, though, and last year 26 of the 76 fires caused by lighters were set by juveniles younger than 16. In 2006, 29 of 75 fires blamed on lighters were started by juveniles, Cole said, noting that not all fire departments report incidents into the state's system.

There are a handful of anecdotal reports from around the country in which children have been hurt playing with novelty lighters. Among the incidents cited by the U.S. Fire Administration:

● In 2007, a 15-month-old and a 2-year-old in Arkansas died after setting their family's apartment ablaze with a motorcycle-shaped lighter;

● A 6-year-old in Maine last June picked up a miniature baseball bat lighter in a grocery store, flicked the switch and burned part of his face.

● One child died and another was injured in Oregon after playing with a lighter that resembled a toy dolphin.

Until a ban on the lighters is adopted in Missouri, Blomenkamp urges parents to keep them away from youngsters. "Keep them out of sight and out of the minds of children," he said. "Kids are going to be curious, and if it looks like a toy, kids are going to play with it like a toy."

---

South Carolina school district forces withdrawal of publication claiming editorial would be "disruptive" to school community. 

Myrtle Beach Online reports

In 1991 Hamedeh Hassan, then a 24 year old living with her cousins who were low-level drug sellers, got caught up in the margins of their scene, as a crack cocaine user (totally uninvolved with the dealing end). She also became an early target of the draconian mandatory minimum sentencing policies being pushed by the Reagan-Bush sponsored federal war on drugs, sentenced to 27 years in prison, where she remains today. 

The D'Alliance reports

Perversion of Justice

Hamedah Hasan writes, "This experience has taught me that not one choice, action, or lack thereof is without consequence. This includes making laws without a sense of redemption -- that diminish the worth of human lives and attack the very foundation of the family unit."

She would know. In 1991, she was sent to prison, for what would be a 27-year jail sentence, for a first-time nonviolent drug-related offense. Escaping an abusive relationship, she went to live with cousins who were involved in the drug trade, and when they were all arrested she had no information to offer the cops, being only peripherally involved in her cousins' work. Because of her lack of involvement, and because they all had information with which to barter for lighter sentences, Hassan received far and away the longest sentence -- something like double that of those really involved.

Filmmaker and Unitarian Universalist minister Melissa Mummert created an award-winning short documentary with Hassan about her case. I was skeptical when I first heard about the film. A white lady in grad school telling a Black lady's story ... but in her commentary Ms. Hasan spoke a bit of their process together, and the obvious mutual respect between the two, so I am really interested in seeing it.

If you can, take a few minutes and watch the preview on the film's website: www.perversionofjustice.com. After you do, think about ordering the film and organizing a local screening. . People like to get together and watch movies anyway, so why not try it? Might even become a local tradition.

Hamedah is -- unbelievably -- still locked up. Holidays may be hard times for all kinds of folks, but can be especially difficult for those behind bars. You can write to Ms. Hassan at:

Hamedah Hasan
#13847-047
FCP Victorville
PO Box #5100
Adelanto, CA 92301

Citizen surveillance system, costing $2 million and composed of 13 closed-circuit cameras turns citizenry in to "virtual deputies" surveiling the border for signs of suspicious activity and illegality.  21 thousand virtual deputies from all across the USA have already volunteered, sending over 1000 reports of suspicious activity on the border. The result: one pot smuggling bust. BlueServo, a social networking site that is hosting the video feeds, sees opportunity to roll-out this participatory panopticon nationally.

Wired Threat Level blog reports

A new $2-million citizen surveillance system installed along the Tex-Mex border has yielded just one crime bust after about six weeks in operation -- three suspects who were allegedly caught hauling 540 pounds of marijuana over the border after someone spotted them online, according to the Houston Chronicle.

The expensive system of 13 closed-circuit cameras placed along the Rio Grande -- which is billed as a "virtual stakeout" for "virtual deputies" -- involves images from the cameras that are streamed online. Members of the public are invited to serve as "virtual deputies" by watching the images and reporting any suspicious activity they see.

Although authorities wouldn't provide any details about the arrest, saying they didn't want to give information that would reveal the location of the surveillance camera that spotted the suspects, it's presumed that the arrest was the result of a citizen report.

The project is the result of a partnership between the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition and BlueServo, a social networking site that is hosting the video. The Sheriffs Coalition insists that the system is focused on catching criminals, not illegal immigrants, although the sheriffs office may contact the U.S. Border Control to convey reports of suspicious immigrant activity as well. The executive director of the Sheriff's Coalition would not say how many referrals had been passed to Border Patrol authorities since the program was launched in November.

The exact location of the cameras is not disclosed, but according to a press release about the project, "a significant number of Texas landowners" requested that the cameras be placed on their property.

More than 21,000 people from several states, including as far away as Ohio, have signed up to be virtual deputies so far. BlueServo claims its web site has received more than 5 million hits, resulting in about 1,000 e-mail reports of suspicious activity. The average camera watcher spends about eight minutes on the site examining video.

What do virtual deputies get in return for their efforts?

Aside from the satisfaction of knowing they've done their part to combat crime, they get the opportunity to become targeted consumers.

The web site notes that "in the future, BlueServo anticipates that high volume of traffic to its website will generate advertising revenue to defray the operations cost of the Virtual Community Watch to the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition." To sign up to become a virtual deputy, the site requires you to provide your e-mail address, age, gender, and postal code.

According to the site, "virtual deputies" can also connect their own home and neighborhood surveillance cameras to BlueServo to create a virtual neighborhood watch. Presumably this increases opportunities for targeted marketing as well.

18 Year Old Canadian student hauled from shower by cops, arrested on suspicion of running meth lab. When that assumption turns out to be all wet, they continue to hold him on suspicion of maybe being a terrorist. When that turns out to be unfounded they "release" him but forbid him from doing science on his home kit, mandating supervision by the university lab.

io9 reports

A Canadian college student majoring in chemistry built himself a home lab - and discovered that trying to do science in your own home quickly leads to accusations of drug-making and terrorism.

Lewis Casey, an 18-year-old in Saskatchewan, had built a small chemistry lab in his family's garage near the university where he studies. Then two weeks ago, police arrived at his home with a search warrant and based on a quick survey of his lab determined that it was a meth lab. They pulled Casey out of the shower to interrogate him, and then arrested him.

A few days later, police admitted that Casey's chemistry lab wasn't a meth lab - but they kept him in jail, claiming that he had some of the materials necessary to produce explosives. Friends and neighbors wrote dozens of letters to the court, testifying that Casey was innocent and merely a student who is really enthusiastic about chemistry.

On December 24, Casey was finally released into his parents' custody, pending a trial to determine whether he was building what police called "improvised explosive devices." Yesterday Casey's lawyer told local journalists:

My client is a very intelligent young man . . . he's very keen in chemistry, a very curious young person and very capable, very knowledgeable in the area and he was always curious with regard to chemistry, chemical compounds, chemical reactions, that kind of thing. So from my client's point of view, it's completely innocent insofar as he had no intention of creating any explosives or explosive devices. As people probably know, anything in your house can constitute or be used in chemical or explosive devices, including sugar and cleaning compounds, Mr. Clean, bleach, detergents, all those sorts of things.

It's unclear what made police raid Casey's house. They claim that they got a tip from a woman who sold Casey fertilizer and was concerned about it. Certain kinds of fertilizer are used in the production of crystal meth.

The case is reminiscent of the Steve Kurtz case in 2004. Kurtz is a New York artist who uses biotech equipment in his work, and police arrested him on suspicion of terrorism after discovering his home chemistry lab.

Casey is now living at home, but he is no longer allowed to engage in chemistry experiments except under supervision in school labs. He is also required to inform the chemistry department of the charges against him. His trial continues on January 26.

This is a stark example of how scientific curiosity is still regarded with suspicion - even in an era where home labs are becoming more and more common. Good luck to Casey - let's hope his next home lab is even bigger and cooler than the one he recently lost.

Thanks to Eraser Girl

314 out of 315 ER docs agree. Police brutality is rampant.

Reuters Health reports:

In a survey of a random sample of U.S. emergency physicians, virtually all said they believed that law enforcement officers use excessive force to arrest and detain suspects.

The sample included 315 respondents. While 99.8 percent believed excessive force is used, almost as many (97.8 percent) reported that they had managed cases that they suspected or that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.

Nearly two thirds (65.3 percent) estimated that they had treated two or more cases of suspected excessive use of force per year among their patients, according to a report of the survey published in the January 2009 issue of the Emergency Medicine Journal.

Dr. Jared Strote of the University of Washington, Seattle, and a multicenter team also found that emergency physicians at public teaching hospitals were roughly four times more likely to report managing cases of suspected use of excessive force than those at university or community teaching emergency departments.

Blunt trauma inflicted by fists or feet was the most common type of injury cited in cases of suspected use of excessive force, followed by "overly tight" handcuffs.

Most emergency physicians (71.2 percent) admitted that they did not report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

A large majority (96.5 percent) reported that they had no departmental policies on reporting their suspicions or they did not know of a policy to guide their actions, and 93.7 percent said they had received no education or training in dealing with these situations.

However, most emergency physicians (69.5 percent) felt that it was within their scope of practice to refer cases of suspected use of excessive force for investigation and almost half (47.9 percent) felt that emergency physicians should be legally required to report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

These findings, Strote and colleagues conclude, "suggest that national emergency medicine organizations in the USA should become involved, jointly developing and advocating for guidelines to manage this complex issue."

SOURCE: Emergency Medicine Journal, January 2009.

Thanks to the Agitator

By all accounts Angel Chandler's been an ideal custodial mother to her two teen aged children since her divorce a decade ago, and her in-live in partner of several years has been judged a "positive parental influence" by the state's own psychologists. A Tennessee court, however, is using the state's "paramour law" to ban Chandler's partner from living in the household.

ACLU blog reports

I'm writing to tell you about a very important parenting case that is now in the Court of Appeals in Tennessee.  Here's the story.

Angel Chandler and Joseph Baker divorced ten years ago.  They had two children, a daughter, now 13 and a son, now 15.  They had joint custody and visitation with both children.  Ms. Chandler began seeing the woman who became her partner nine years ago, and Mr. Baker married the woman who is now his wife in 2003.

Earlier this year, Ms. Chandler and Mr. Baker went to family court to get approval for a modification of their parenting plan.  Following usual procedure, the court ordered an evaluation of both homes.  The evaluation said that Ms. Chandler's partner was a positive influence, and had a "parent-like" relationship with both of the children.

Nevertheless, the court put what Tennessee law calls a "paramour" restriction in its order approving the new parenting plan.  The order barred Ms. Chandler's partner from their home on any night when either of the children are there.  Since Ms. Chandler's daughter spends most of her time there, that meant that Ms. Chandler's partner had to move out of their home.

To maintain some semblance of their life but comply with this ridiculous order, Ms. Chandler quit her job, and she and her partner moved to North Carolina, where they could maintain two households.  Ms. Chandler's partner now sleeps in the second household whenever one of the children is present-which is most nights.

Ms. Chandler has a very clear constitutional right to raise her children as she thinks best.  And like the court-appointed expert, she thinks it would be best if her children could be in a home with both their mother and their mother's partner.  Ms. Chandler also has a very clear constitutional right to love and have a relationship with another adult.

The courts can't interfere with either of those rights without a very good reason, and there is no good reason here, where the court's own expert recommended that this family be left alone.

I wish I could say that this case was a quirk, but orders like these are not at all uncommon, particularly in the South.  Judges often deny that they are discriminatory, saying that they apply equally to unmarried gay people and unmarried heterosexuals.  In a state like Tennessee, which constitutionally bans marriage for same-sex couples, that would qualify as a bad joke if families weren't being broken up.  We hope to convince the Tennessee Court of Appeals to strike this order down, and give us the kind of strong decision we can use to start getting rid of similar orders throughout the region.

As always, I'll keep you posted.