Impunity Rules Supreme

Times-Standard's Matt Drange reports today that: “Fatal shooting ruled to be justified; report found no unlawful conduct in police shooting of Eureka man.”

This judgment was expected, but it is no less the tragedy. Not because another person is summarily shot down by the police, but because of the defacto license it gives all local police to continue and expand their assault on the general public.

Look at how the District Attorney Paul Gellegos and Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat's use of “after-the-fact” information to demonstrate unsubstantiated and unprovable “intent” to justify the killing, if not murder.

"Sequoia's system helps explain how such a senseless thing takes place,” Keat said in an e-mail to the Times-Standard. “He made it clear in an intense physical struggle over the gun that he intended to use it on the officers. It is a tragic thing but no part of the outcome was the fault of the officers.” [Emphasis added]

Previously EPD Chief Garr “Neilsen said that the report came back as he expected, adding that Sequoia would have killed Coon had the officers not reacted the way they did.”

There is absolutely no proof that what they say was justified at the time of the killing. 

The last time I checked, all law-abiding citizens possess the legal right to own and carry firearms for legal self-defense and other purposes. The reality however, is that in these Northern Counties, the mere possession of such a weapon will get you summarily dead. The police position and implementation, that is continued and justified in this ruling is that WITHOUT any proof of intent, other than simple possession, they are legally justified to act with lethal force.

Since the death of this boy, not one letter was published in the Times-Standard that addressed some of the outstanding issues and questions involved. As far as this community is concerned, no doubt due to how the Times-Standard used “after-the-fact” information to bias their reports, the police were totally justified right from the start.

What they reported is that David Sequoia was, without any justifiable provocation, physically assault by Kris Coon. At that point, Sequoia had the legal right to resort to a weapon in his self-defense. That's point number one. Point two is, neither one of those police officers knew for an absolute fact at the time they shot Sequoia that it was actually his gun. They just plain got lucky. To say he was going to kill Coon or the police officers is an unsubstantiated assumption that led to his unjustified death.

Point three is, Kris Coon's unwarranted and unjust actions mixed with police knee-jerk reaction to use lethal force as a first response caused that boy's untimely death. He is responsible and needs to bear some accountability too. Problem is, the only way you can justify what the police did is justify what Coon did.

The bigger problem that faces everyone, whether they like it or not, is that when people like Kris Coon can get away with going at their neighbor in the same way he obviously did, pits neighbor against neighbor. More than that it tends to make the police the enemy, rather than a friend to call on in a time of need.

The Joe Blow Report has written extensively about this right after the incident. The Report raised some questions, conflicts and contradictions about the incident as reported by the Times-Standard. They reported this outcome as a foregone conclusion - no harm no foul. The cozy relationship expressed in this kind of continued reporting exposes compromised reporters. This community deserves better. Here is the list, starting with the first article:

1. Who Really Killed David Sequoia? – March 19, 2010
2. Basic Freedom: No Right To Touch
3. Personal Safety in Eureka is an Illusion
4. Stacking the Deck – March 24, 2010

What we'd like to know is WHY no one at the Times-Standard or anyone else has not asked these outstanding questions and got some explanations for the rank contradictions. Everyone (mostly) seems to think EPD Chief Garr Nielsen is doing a good job with the police department. How that is justified when he can make this kind of a statement is beyond reason: "It appeared to be a pretty clear-cut case,” Nielsen said. “It seemed from the outset that the officers used necessary force given the circumstances.” When he answers and defines these "circumstances" maybe then he'll have some credibility. Until then, Impunity Rules Supreme.

--Joe

Stacking the Deck

[UPDATE :: TUESDAY, April 6, 2010:  "Eureka" Slaughter NOT an Aberration Either]
[UPDATE Below]

This is the Report's fourth commentary on the police shooting of David Sequoia. No doubt not the last either. The Times-Standard newspaper continues to tell everyone what happened according to the survivor's as if everything they say is the truth. They continue to refer to Sequoia as a criminal “suspect” in the process of assaulting everyone with a gun; “a grave threat.” That is the unsubstantiated opinion Greenson and the Times-Standard continue to publish made by Chief Garr Nielsen. This Report does not dispute the fact that those officers were put into a threatening situation. To say Sequoia put them there is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Thadeus Greenson continues his reports in the Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Times-Standard another one-sided account of what happened to David Sequoia in his article: “Two officers in Eureka shooting identified.”

If you hadn't read all the other reporting with some objective scrutiny or careful consideration you'd think that there was some wild-eyed, pistol-packing criminal type, some thief, rampaging through a peaceful neighborhood, threatening, shooting, attacking and fighting with innocent people, including a local resident trying to protect his family and property, when he was consequentially confronted by the police and subsequently shot when he “twice” pointed “his” revolver at a police officer. All open and above board, totally legal and justified.

Greenson doesn't say that the guy shot in the head execution-style had first been assaulted by the local resident, Kris Coon for simply “lurking about” in the alley. Notice how Greenson twists or slants what Coon earlier reported, “Coon said he wound up in a confrontation with Sequoia, who was still armed with a hand gun.” In another report, Greenson writes, “Once the officers saw the gun, which was still in Sequoia's hands, Coon said they instantly began yelling at Sequoia to drop the weapon.” Nielsen continues, “officers issued numerous verbal commands, and also attempted to physically wrestle the weapon from Sequoia.” Notice now what Coon says about what just transpired, “Finally, Coon said, his grip on the barrel of the weapon began to weaken, and he felt the gun turning toward him.” So what the officers actually saw was NOT a gun in Sequoia's hands, but a gun in both Coon and Sequoia's hands. So why did they jump to the conclusion that the gun belonged to Sequoia and that he was the aggressor? Coon had just said he had jumped Sequoia and slammed him to the ground in the mis-belief that Sequoia was a thief. He does say, however, that when the police officers arrived they found Coon and Sequoia on the ground fighting, as it turns out, over the possession of a handgun. Coon says he had a hold of the barrel, “desperately trying to keep it pointed away from him and his house, where his 12-year-old daughter and wife were inside,” and Sequoia apparently had the gun by its grip, the only way he could fire the gun if he was an actual threat to anyone. Greenson says both officers along with Coon tried to wrestle the gun away and when in the melee Coon supposedly pointed the gun at or near officer Patrick Bishop's face he shot him in the chest. The coroner says that was a fatal shot. When, somehow, Sequoia was still able to bring the gun to bear on Bishop his Sargent Rodrigo Reyna-Sanchez put his gun at the base of Sequoia's head and shot him instantly dead.

On the obvious face of this, what's wrong? First, according to Kris Coon, Sequoia did NOT threaten Coon. Coon “confronted” Sequoia. He freely admits he was the aggressor and jumped without any provocation Sequoia “slamming” him to the ground. Sounds to me like Coon was the stronger of the two. Next Greenson says the police officers, once they too realized there was a gun began wrestling with Sequoia trying to get the gun away from him; immediately identifying him as the “aggressor.” Apparently, this effort was done with only one hand because their other hand held their own guns. Point being, to hear their accounts you would think Sequoia was some kind of super-strong gorilla able to overpower all three men while holding onto the grip or butt of the gun. That would be the part with the least amount of leverage. It seems to me that if Sequoia was able to overpower three men sufficient to threaten their lives, two of the men trained police officers no doubt in good physical condition, he certainly could have overpowered Coon and shot him straight away. He certainly would not have waited to use that gun until slammed to the ground. At that point Sequoia had the legal right to use that gun for self-defense if he so chose. Apparently, according to Greenson, that is what he had just done when confronted in a dispute by two of his supposed friends over on California Street.

This Report is not taking issue with the Eureka City Police officers justifiable right to shoot that man to death given that he was an actual threat. Unfortunately, everything that was said by Kris Coon, the officers involved as reported by John Driscoll, Thadeus Greenson and the concurring statements of Chief Garr Nielsen do not justify that man's untoward death. What they do show is that everyone involved jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions, conclusions totally without merit and acted aggressively on them resulting in the untimely death of that man. That seems to be an inherent problem within the Eureka Police Department that Chief Garr Nielsen has done nothing to fix.

All our lives, regardless of what class, race or religion, are just as valuable as any police officer. No one forced any of these people to be police officers. Doing their job, dealing with ongoing situations of the type involving Coon and Sequoia obviously forces quick, life-changing decisions. That's what they freely and personally took on to themselves. That's part of their job. That is what all taxpayer's pay them to do. That does NOT make them heroes nor does it make them more important or their lives anymore valuable than anyone one else. When people inadvertently or purposely break the law, it is the “LAW” that they offend, not the police officer or the police department. Police officers routinely act like it is a personal affront anytime someone seems to personally impugn them or their integrity. The fact that they wear a badge and carry a gun does not make them god. It's too bad these reporters, and the Times-Standard management, don't understand that fact and report with a little more independent objectivity. In the long run, since it is the responsible thing to do for the community the Times-Standard supposedly serves, they just might save someone's life, even someone like Kris Coon.

[UPDATE :: Monday, April 5, 2010]

Filibuster Lying
What does it mean when we can't get the simple facts from the newspaper anymore? Either the news-conscious public are so inured or dumbed down the media believes they can say anything and everyone will go along. Tragically, the media and their whore-mongering politicians backed up by a corrupt judicial system seem to think they not only have the right to tell people what to think, but HOW to think.

It was this atrocity hitting the American news that began the end to the Vietnam War. That guy with the gun was a South Vietnamese General, Chief of National Police and the man he publicly executed a man in handcuffs ONLY accused of being a Viet Cong soldier. Why? Because the majority of American's couldn't stomach being responsible for such an atrocity. The atrocity wasn't the brutal and summary public murder of that young man, but the blatant, in your face attitude, repudiating rule of law, justice and human rights; everything America used to stand for and that was worth sacrificing your children for. These same atrocities are going on constantly, only this time they are carried out by U.S. forces in other obscure places. This time, because it is American men and women enforcing this despotic system of the wanton butchery of all that is right, decent and legal, while they try to hide behind their so-called rules of a phony war, it's okay to lie, stack the deck and preach incessant propaganda. This is the latest “act” of self-defense in this war against the masses: How Americans are propagandized about Afghanistan - written by Glenn Greenwald and contains the following Headline: U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it.

March 22, 2010, by Jerome Starkey, war correspondent for the Times of London. Here's a partial excerpt:

It’s not the first time I’ve found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.

There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military’s monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are “cowards,” NATO attacks on civilians are “tragic accidents,” intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.

If you think this kind of crap, lies to justify the murder, only exists in far away places, you'd better open your eyes, look down the street and think again. The local Times-Standard is no better than this:

But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American "journalism." And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this relentless propaganda machine never seems to diminish.

--Joe

Personal Safety in Eureka is an Illusion

[UPDATE Below]

The latest in the Sunday Times-Standard on the killing of a man simply trying to defend himself is offered “below the fold” and shows more police justification for their actions. One thing is for sure, there is NO counter information or argument coming from the dead guy. The headline reads: “Two officers fired weapons in fatal Eureka shooting.” Then quotes, “Chief: There was no alternative to using deadly force.”

“No alternative”? I would guess not when police policy, if not city government policy is to use overwhelming force to protect themselves at all times. Of course Chief Garr Nielsen is going to defend his personal policy within his department. The tragedy in this incident is that everyone of these individuals involved, including the Chief, HAD alternatives. History proves that whenever there is even the suspicion of some sort of weapon involved, the first proven “alternative” is “deadly force.”

This is what's really disturbing about this whole matter, the assumption that the guy supposedly with the gun was the “aggressor.” To quote: “The officers didn't initially know who was the aggressor and who was the victim in the situation.” Notice how quick they concluded who the aggressor was: “He says, (one of the officers says) 'gun, he's got a gun,' and the officers started making verbal demands for Sequoia to drop the gun.” At that point who is to say that the aggressor wasn't Kris Coon and that the gun belonged to him and that Sequoia was simply defending himself from Coon's assault? Who knew that Sequoia hadn't initially gotten the gun away from Coon? What was obvious is that both men were fighting over possession of the gun BEFORE the officers got involved. Based upon what Coon has already said and the Times-Standard has repeatedly reported, the only person actually defending himself was David Sequoia. Notice what happened to him: “'The officer took his gun, put it at the base of Sequoia's head, and fired a round into Sequoia's head,' he said, adding that the second shot ended the struggle and likely killed Sequoia instantly.” That is exactly how you execute someone.

If what Nielsen says was the truth, then no one has the right to defend themselves regardless the weapon, but especially with a gun. “On Saturday, Nielsen reiterated his belief that his officers acted appropriately in the face of a grave threat.” The question remains, Who caused the “grave threat”? Who placed these officers “in a position where they really had no alternatives other than to use deadly force in this incident”? It certainly was not the guy that got killed.

Nielsen continue, “I think the officers were placed in a position where they really had no alternatives other than to use deadly force in this incident,” he said, adding that the officers issued verbal commands and tried to physically take the weapon from Sequoia, who simply refused to comply. That left them with no other option than deadly force because they really felt like their lives were in danger, as was the life of Mr. Coon.” If the police officer's lives were really in danger it was because they put themselves there by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions the Sequoia was the "aggressor" threatening Coon. Nielsen substantiates his bogus argument when he tells Thadeus Greenson, reporting for the Times-Standard, that Sequoia had “fired the two shots at an acquaintance from whom Sequoia had allegedly stolen more than $1,500.” So what? At the time of the incident no one knew who had fired those shots, certainly not any of those police officers. It could have been Kris Coon for all any of them knew. Nielsen says, “he believes they were en route to the shots-fired call on California Street and just happened to come across Coon and Sequoia.” By going down an alley? Yet, the shooting is justified in his mind because his officer's promptly determined that Sequoia was the “aggressor” because he had the gun, actually he and Coon “had” the gun and they both refused to let go. Coon says he had hold of the barrel with all the leverage, but Sequoia was moving the barrel around threatening everyone. More like Coon was moving the barrel around.

The reason I wrote the above commentary is because from the very first day I was forced confront a bully I became a believer in my inherent right to self-defense. I own property and a nice home in Eureka, am married and we have family that lives and works here as well. I am a retired logger that worked in the woods during the time men physically fought first and talked later. I worked out in the mountains where there wasn't a police officer within two hours. Many times I was forced to defend myself and my family. I always reserved the right to call in the police whenever there was a personal threat to me, my family or my property. They rarely ever let me or my wife down. So, I don't want anyone to get some idea I am anti-police. I am not. I support the police and their legitimate right to exist within our society when they support all the people and that includes me. Their assumed right to use “deadly force” is our same right to self-defense. Sometimes that requires using deadly force. Tragically, the only one threatened here was the poor bastard that got killed for getting too close to Kris Coon.

The real problem here, consequently, is if the Eureka Police Department and the District Attorney leave this matter with Kris Coon unanswered, just to defend what he and the police officer's did in shooting that man, they put everyone one of us, everyone that lives in Eureka, in physical jeopardy to the Kris Coon's and aggressive officers with quick trigger fingers that jump to conclusions when someone doesn't just drop dead when they tell them to.

[Picture source]

[UPDATE :: Monday, March 22, 2010]

I just spent some time reading the 129 comments on “Slain suspect acquitted of murder in 2008” on the Humboldt Herald. [http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/slain-suspect-acquitted-of-murder-in-2008/]


If you want to see what a sick, pathetic city we live, go there to become enlightened. To start with you don't have to go any further than Heraldo's headline: “Slain suspect.” “Slain” to be sure. More like “executed.” But what made him a “suspect” worthy of being killed? The fact that he was fighting for possession of a gun? For all any of those officers knew that gun could have been the other guy's and the poor bastard that got executed had just got it away from him and was simply trying to defend himself. So, what does the fact that he was “acquitted” of a murder charge got to do with anything?

It's easy to see, when you read most of these comments, how the newspaper coverage of Chief Garr Nielsen in particular, along with such innocent sounding headlines and other comments prejudices and vilifies unjustly. David Sequoia or Barger may have been all the things everyone seems to think he is just because he packed a gun and a jury saw fit to exonerate him of a serious accusation. None of that was prescient or relevant to the decision made to execute him.

During all the years that I logged out in the mountains, every pickup on the road had a handgun under the seat or in the glove box. Do you think that the police, game wardens and the Sheriff's deputies didn't know that? They knew they were dealing with a potential weapon every time they stopped someone. Even so, they didn't make it a matter of policy to shoot on sight for want of personal threat! Of course that was not the police policy for all those pot growing hippies. I guess it paid to be a logger – better class of people, probably. Or, at least, that's what the police officers thought.

Did I have a gun in my pickup all those years? For me, I had a twelve-gauge shotgun prominently displayed in my back window for all to see. When I stopped logging I didn't think I needed it anymore so I got rid of it, that was over 20 years ago. Probably a good thing too. The way policing is done in Eureka, I don't know why I would need or want one again either.

Much safe is a cellphone with the speed dial set to 911. Does anyone think there's the slightest possibility it would be mistaken for a weapon?

--Joe

Basic Freedom: No Right To Touch

I opened up my Saturday, March 20, 2010, Times-Standard newspaper to the headlines that said: "I could have been killed so quickly." That statement was made by Kris Coon, the man that attacked David Sequoia. In my book, David Sequoia was the one that was in the right to defend himself against Coon. David Sequoia did absolutely NOTHING to physically threaten Kris Coon and his "family" other than "look scared" and "lurk around" in the alley. The simple truth is the Eureka Police shot the wrong person. They had no way of knowing that the gun was Coon's and that Sequoia was himself fighting for his life. When your involved in that kind of life and death struggle there's no way to hear or recognize a police officer's orders. Both men had a grip on the gun. Coon couldn't drop the gun if he wanted to. The mind is too focused on survival to hear anything. For Chief Garr Nielsen to say, under these circumstances, that Sequoia was pointing the gun at the officers is absolute nonsense.

Coon says, "I was fighting him" WHY? "Because I was thinking he was stealing from my carport." "THINKING" absolutely does NOT justify putting your hands on someone let along FIGHT with that person. Obviously, he was not stealing, he was running for his life. Too bad, Sequoia thought the guy chasing him with a gun was threatening his life, when all the time the real threat was from the guy living on Summer Street that believed he had the right to attack him for lurking in his alley.

It seems there are many people in Eureka that believe they have the right to touch someone whenever they want. Kris Coon, the guy that got David Sequoia or David Barger killed Thursday afternoon in Eureka enforced that right, the right to "search" the young man "lurking around" in the alley near his carport. Coon says he thought Sequoia was trying to steal his tools and demanded the right to search him and his possessions. When Sequoia refused Coon jumped him and threw him to the ground. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! At the least, Coon assaulted that man and at the most caused his untimely death.

Normally, I'd feel real sorry for the EPD officer or officers that shot and killed that boy under these circumstance. They were deprived of their legal right to deal with such issues in a controlled life-saving manner. Normally. Except for the simple truth that these police officers believe, act and enforce the fact that their defacto value superceeds ALL common citizens of this city, county, state or country. Why is it that, in the picture above, that officer is packing an assault rifle?

Not even the police have the right to just walk up and put their hands on someone unless they can prove in a court of law that they had probable cause to do so. Probable cause, in my book, means they have sufficient reason to arrest that person.

My wife and I walk the streets and alleyways of Eureka on a daily basis as do a lot of people, including school children. Does that mean we are all subject to being attacked by worried, paranoid people that simply “think” we are there to harm them? The question is, do we all need a gun and the trained expertise to use it to protect ourselves from our paranoid neighbor's and if so, who is going to protect us from the police that see all guns as a threat to them?

[Picture source]

--Joe

Who Really Killed David Sequoia?

What we know about this matter is what is reported in the Friday, March 19, 2010, Times-Standard “Man shot by Eureka Police dies” written by John Driscoll. What is obvious, is that, once again, someone reported to possess some sort of weapon, in this case a handgun, is shot to death by the Eureka Police. What's the problem with that? Nothing, if the person was actually threatening someone. Unfortunately, according to the reporting here, the only one threatening anyone was Kris Coon.

The newspaper's secondary headline says: “David Sequoia was reportedly armed and struggling with resident when shot.” The article continues to define this struggle, “Coon said the man pushed him, and Coon wrestled him to the ground, THEN realized the man had a handgun in his belt.” Next he says, “The man refused to comply with officers' orders to give up the gun and an officer shot the man pointblank in the head.” “They gave him every chance in the world to comply.” All this while Coon is holding and wrestling with Sequoia on the ground.

The police arrive in the midst of a violent confrontation with two men grappling on the ground and order the man with a gun to give it up, then shoot him in the head because he was pointing it at them? How do you give a man every chance in the world to drop his weapon while rolling around on the ground in the midst of a fight with a belligerent attacker?

The resident, Kris Coon finds an unknown young man in his carport. He says, "Lurking around, looking very afraid." Next he says the man shoved him. Why was Coon that close to the man? "Coon says he wanted to search him and he was fighting him off when the police arrived." The man was obviously NOT threatening Coon – Coon was threatening him and followed that threat up by “wrestling him to the ground.” If David Sequoia was an aggressive, belligerent threat he would have used his gun to either assault or defend himself when confronted by Coon. He apparently did neither. Later in the article Coon says, “people in the neighborhood don't put up with illicit activity, and that he was only protecting his family when he went into his carport to investigate the commotion. When you consider what he said regarding the “quick response and action on the part of the police” that supposedly saved his life, why did he think he needed to protect his family by physically confronting someone simply in his carport? That's what the police are for and by the results, damned good at it too.

The simple truth is Mr. Kris Coon caused that man to get killed. No different than if he had pulled the trigger himself – “we don't put up with illicit activity” in our neighborhood!

Nothing in this report indicates any “illicit activity” other than someone simply being on someone's property or messing with that property; in this case simply “lurking around”. Nothing, certainly not “lurking around,” indicates any kind of activity by Sequoia justifying a violent confrontation “in defense of Coon's family”. If Coon's rational is justified anyone walking down an ally that gets close to someone's carport poses a threat and is subject to a violent assault.

Couple that with the fact that if the police even think there is some kind of a weapon, like a gun, knife, stick of wood, or a rock within a half a block your life is in serious jeopardy. Just ask a police officer sometime what the hell he's talking about and you will find yourself three words away from being tazered into arrest for threatening and resisting an officer. You never want to raise your hand a point a finger. That finger could provoke deadly force in a heartbeat! Even so, considering the attitudes of guys like Kris Coon, I'd say the police are probably justified dealing with people the way they do. Had Kris Coon left the matter to the police, they probably would have been able, since the man was armed, to peacefully disarm him and deal with that issue in a controlled environment. Coon deprived them of that right and justifies the man's death by trying to say HE was only protecting his family. Even if the man was only rustling around in his garbage, where is the immediate threat?

I listened to Coon's interview on News Channel 3 and he made me sick.

In the News Channel 3 report, Coon says “he wanted to search him” and Sequoia resisted -- “pushed” Coon. What gave Kris Coon that right? Apparently Sequoia was resisting Coon, they were both on the ground and “the cop put his gun up to Sequoia's head and shot him because he wouldn't stop fighting and drop his gun.” That sounds like nothing more than a simple execution. You can view the report here. [http://kiem-tv.com/node/492]

Why is it that the police cannot effect an arrest anymore without getting the person's permission?

--Joe