Police Chief Andrew Mills Pulls A Fast One On Eureka

Chief Mills commits Eureka to his planned method of operation for policing the city or, the whole thing was a ruse to make Eureka believe they had some say. Either way, the people of Eureka got a fast one pulled on them. At least, on the face of it, I'd say that's how it looks as recently reported by one of the participants. The North Coast Journal's Thadeus Greenson reports his austere opportunity to contribute to Eureka's betterment by accepting Chief Mills invitation to sit on and participate in the selection of and recommendations for promotion of captains from within the E.P.D. in his Saturday, October 18, 2014 "Police Promotions." A distinctive opportunity, in and of itself, that should not compromise anyone's integrity.

No mention in that article if that process involved the individual police officers or their involvement in the latest shooting death of Tommy McClain or even if that was an issue. Of note, neither was there a mention by the Tuluwaa Crybabies, Eureka's leading wannabe authority on all matters ethical, moral and just in their response: In A Deft Move, Mills Manages To Compromise The Only Reporter Questioning The Allard St Murder. They, as usual, miss the forest for the tree and managed to skew Thadeus Greenson for participating - totally missing the real issue of importance as they join Chief Mill's compromising of all Eureka residents as exposed by these people's fast one of their own. 

I've had Thadeus Greenson number for a long time. I've written about his contradictory, conflicted and compromised reporting for years. So, what's the problem with the Tuluwaa Crybabies that they are, admittedly, just now getting somewhat of a picture of his true nature? His hypocrisy rivals only theirs. Eureka's police problems have hardly anything to do with wouldbe ingratiated police captains or their buddy Thadeus Greenson. Either way Eureka, you're committed now. Whatever happens, it won't be Chief Andy Mills fault. Just as it is no one's fault but Tommy McClain's for what happened to him. Get the picture?

--Joe

Resist AND Die – Why?

[UPDATE II :: March 30, 2012 :: Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]


[UPDATE below - Court ruling offers new details on EPD excessive force case or so says Thadeus Greenson about the murder of Martin Cotton]

Violent exchange culminates in death of a felon – Thadeus Greenson's take on the police shooting of a 26 year old man for doing nothing, but being a felon.

[This is an UPDATE on the posting below: Self-Defense Is a Bitch]

A good explanation for WHY is contained in today's Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Times-Standard: Fortuna shooting investigation continues – Details surface in police deadly force incident, written by Thadeus Greenson.

[A “deadly force incident” means someone got shot and killed by the Fortuna police, okay?]

What kind of an “incident” occurred in Fortuna? According to Greenson, Fortuna Police Chief William Dobberstein said officers were dispatched to a woman's report of a “crazed person banging on the door and yelling and screaming in her front yard.” A scary situation, to be sure, BUT nothing life threatening happening. The question I ask is, did this guy actually commit a crime here? Anything to justify his death? When the police get there the “suspect” is gone.  Nothing more than a little door banging and some hollering from the front yard. But, then notice what happens. The police identify the guy and find out he's “had numerous prior contacts with” the Fortuna police. So now they know who the guy doing all the “door banging and hollering is, (their favorite trashy troublemaking scumbag) Jacob Newmaker.

What happens next? He's spotted by the police “about three-quarters of a mile from the residence where the 911 call originated. No serious threat to anyone there – he's running away. The police chase him on his bicycle, “right behind him with his lights and sirens going.” In the melee he crashes his bicycle and the “officer confront[s] him.” Notice what happens next. Clearly the officer knows he's got a scared and agitated guy trying to stay away. What followed? “An altercation.” What does the officer do to control the situation, where at this point nothing's been done that is life threatening or even a crime? This guy was clearly “confronted” by the police officer. The police officer caused whatever “altercation” that occurred. He used his Taser to “shock” and already agitated individual that "hurts like hell." This is exactly what this agitated person REALLY needed right then, “a pain compliance technique” that "hurts like hell" used on a clearly agitated, or even“highly motivated” suspect.

Was Jacob Robert Newmaker threatening anyone? NO. He was motivated to run, to try to get away from the threatening police officer causing him pain. And that's all they did was cause him MORE pain, “Dobberstein said the officers then tried to get Newmaker into handcuffs, using pepper spray and batons strikes to the legs to try to gain compliance.” “Gain compliance” is just a fancy way of saying, “do what you're told.” That's usually what rapist say to their victims too.  Once the victim complies and submits to the rape, the rapist is justified and exonerated from any crime or criminal act because to victim willingly yielded or went along; complied.

And this is the real problem that caused this man his life. The police clearly using “pain compliance techniques” to effectively torture a person into submitting or yielding – doing what they are ordered to do establishes the lack of legitimate authority to enforce the law and effect a safe and sane arrest. When this country was governed by people that enforced the law, police  officers simple effected the arrest and that was that. Now that they ARE the law they use torture devices to force compliance with their dictates. Resist or question their legitimacy and you most often end up dead.

The most compelling statement in this newspaper report is by Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt: “He was armed with a deadly weapon.” Greenson elaborates: “Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” If this statement is true, then these police officers ARMED him and then used that situation to shoot him down like a dog. No different situation then what those two CHP officers did to Felix Omai in Garberville. They initiate a violent attack (what they call an arrest for some crime) then use their attack to justify why they made the attack or so-called arrest.
More importantly, look at yet another descrepency in Thadeus Greenson's reporting. Please note: “At this point, dobberstein said, the initial officer on scene attempted to use his baton to gain control of Newmaker's uncuffed hand, but the suspect was able to grab the weapon. (Note: “grab the weapon” the police officer was using on Newmaker) Quote Dobberstein: “Then, there was a tug-of-war for the baton, and he was able to wrestle it free.” Now note what Greenson says further along in the article: Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” Did he wrestle the “weapon” or a “baton” from the officer or did he pick it up off the ground?

This idea that a baton is NOT a weapon in the hands of a “trained” police officer and therefore becomes something “less than a lethal weapon” does not pass the smell test. If a 9mm handgun is a lethal weapon regardless of who is holding it so is a baton. If the police are justified using deadly force against someone holding a baton then anyone legally defending themselves is justified using deadly force. This idea as expressed in Greenson's somewhat propagandized article continuing to soft-pedal another police killing that there is a difference depending upon who is holding the weapon is a classic example of how the Rule of men enforce their law to defend and protect their criminal conduct and special privilege.

Thadeus Greenson, to his credit, did produce a rather all encompassing article. Or, to his discredit slanted and biased the report in his normal fashion. Even so, the part he included from Robert Feliciano, a former training sergeant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who now serves as a qualified expert witness on police us of force is well worth reading and considering. I've included that excerpt at the end of this article.

What's the over reaching message in this, yet another tragedy? I'd start with the general premise issued by the Eureka Chief Murl Harpham when he said we need "tough cops." A general definition of his kind of tough cop was illustrated in the Joseph Cotten murder. Where once again the police crime of murder is passed off as a passé, non responsible act of "excessive force." Then I would go to the heart of how local police officers are trained and how that training engenders a racist, bully-type attitude that is demonstrated in their conduct. In the Robert Newmaker situation that probably starts with Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt. Bottom line, this guy, Jacob Newmaker was vulnerable, the police officers knew that and took full advantage, to this man's death.

---

[UPDATE II Link to The Joe Blow Report - Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]

--Joe

Murl Harpham's EPD

[UPDATE Below]
Murl Harprham's Eureka Police Department – A Lesson In Toughness

A little over three weeks ago, Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham in an open letter to the citizens of Eureka published in the Times-Standard newspaper titled: Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws, protecting and serving all citizens. At that time he had just replaced the recent firing of Garr Nielsen  (without cause). To reassure everyone, he laid down a rather vague, but tacit baseline for how his officers would conduct themselves as they served the community and enforced the law.

How does the latest police incident measure up? On Monday, July 25, 2011, at about 5:00 p.m. there was a reported shooting at 14^th and H streets in Eureka. According to the Time-Standard report,

"Shortly before 7 p.m., EPD received a report of a silver car parked on H Street with its back windshield busted out. Responding officers parked on Eight Street and seemed to be keeping watch on the H Street apartment building, calling for backup. By 8 p.m., EPD had closed H Street to traffic and set up a perimeter around the three-block section. The Sheriff's Office SWAT team had mobilized and was standing by in a nearby parking lot before approaching at 11:30 p.m." And, “EPD and SWAT team members moved in on an apartment on the 800 block of H Street at about 11:30 p.m. Monday, after spotting Nelson's Mercury sedan parked on the street. Police began evacuating residents a 11:45 p.m. Police evacuated 16 people from their apartments.” *** “Nelson was not home when law enforcement forced their way into his apartment with a flash-bang device at 1:45 a.m. Tuesday.  EPD and SWAT team members ended their operation at 2:05 a.m. Tuesday without apprehending the suspect.” [Emphasis added to show disparity in Thadeus Greenson's reporting.]

The next day he turned himself in to the Sheriff's Department.

The newspaper reports are rather convoluted if not rambling accounts. The timeline involving the police response is there, you just have look for it. One thing seems sure, the Eureka Police officers didn't shirk from responding. Also they clearly demonstrated their toughness. Unfortunately, Chief Harpham's definition revolved around a singular, individual “tough cop.” Someone I would consider able and capable of serving the people's best interests as well as enforcing law because of their personal authority based upon and empowered by their singular, individual legitimacy. Not as gang of elite officers, a militarized squad comparable to the U.S. military's Special Operations “Hunter Killer Squads” whose first priority is to serve themselves.

The real message here, from my vantage point anyway, is that aggressive people, drivers, neighbors or anyone else should take to heart what happened here the next time they think to bully someone around. The right to self-defense is still a right in this country and in this state. Even though the only one's that seem to believe they actually possess that right are the police.

Lets not forget, from the newspaper report, I was wondering what happened to that "olive branch of peace"? Did it become a "flash-bang device"?
[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 1, 2011]

Notice in the Times-Standard today about: Eureka Council to start police chief hiring process – The empty process of listening to your constituents.

Side Note: Heraldo over at the Humboldt Herald has a decent post on this subject. As usual a lot of moronic comments, salted with a few thoughtful ones thrown in, but a worthwhile read nevertheless. Heraldo's sentiments:

The forums will cost around $3,000 and will be “professionally moderated.” This must mean forum goers will look at faces that appear to be listening rather than the usual smirk à la Councilman Mike Newman.

--Joe

Unintended Consequences of Firing WITHOUT Cause

[Update Below] [Update II]

There's more on the David Tyson firing of Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen in the Tuesday, June 28, 2011, edition of the Times-Standard. Front page headlines. Headlines that are competing with Governor Jerry Brown's gridlock problems trying to balance the budget when trying to deal with Ideological Believers that are beyond any reason. If the truth be known, the same problem is driving this issue. There is one new and refreshing ingredient in the mix this time, at least in Eureka: ANGER.

The headline: Police chief firing draws anger – "Forum highlights public discord; petition calls for firing of Eureka city manager."

Here, Thadeus Greenson for the T-S is reporting on what transpired during a “Community Forum” held Monday night to rally support against the firing.” The following noteworthy comment sets the tone of the proceeding, but really highlights the fundamental underlying problem in the firing of Garr Nielsen:

“I'm really ashamed to be a part of the city of Eureka now,” (current Councilwoman Linda) Atkins said, going on to charge that Nielsen's firing was done to “demoralize the community” and that the city council and Tyson are unresponsive to the will of Eurekans. “I waste time Tuesday nights at city council meetings with the way members of our council don't listen to their citizenry.” [Emphasis added]

Underlying Problem: The highhanded, arbitrary, authoritarian, ideologically driven believer's dictatorial governance and enforcement, neither answerable nor accountable to anyone. Many people in Eureka believed that they had finally got a police department that was actually responsive – actually served the people's needs with Chief Garr Neilsen. Getting that back or even the perception of a responsive police department is virtually impossible now. No man or woman worth a dime would ever take on the Police Chief's duties in Eureka under the present circumstances - The Sword of Damocles hanging over that job. To be sure, they'll fill the position, the moneys too good, but that person will be totally worthless and won't give a pinch of rat crap for the City of Eureka or its people. I'm not saying that Garr Nielsen did either or that he didn't have a skewed understanding of the people's policing needs. He, at least, as far as many people believed brought some positive changes in the past 4 years. If nothing else you at least got some positive response, even if it beggared a solution.

By getting the community to support him and his policies to the extent he was actually garnering, he was doing something else that threatened the City Council and their Manager, David Tyson. He was making the police department and every police officer, in and of itself and in and of themselves, legitimate in their job and in their authority. They didn't need to, either individually or collectively, bully, threaten or coerce anyone into going along with who and what they said they were. As police officers they may of even begun to get a little respect. That directly threatened these conservative believers and they certainly couldn't have any of that.

Are we looking at a little bit of the Arab Spring in Eureka, California? Will the tax-paying residents of Eureka begin to get the responsive and personal consideration required of legitimate elected representatives? I seriously doubt it when their imprimatur can operate in total secrecy to the perceived detriment of their responsive community. 

[Source]

---

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 28, 2011]

As usual you can find an interesting cross-section of blogger comments here and again here. (Latest addition here, same blog)  Take them for what they're worth, blogger comments being what they are. Interesting response to Linda Atkins comment. I'd say she put her finger right on the pussy sore infecting Eureka.

I'm not real impressed with Garr Nielsen's responses so far either. The best thing everyone involved in this mess could do is put out the facts so everyone can see. Force the City Council to be responsible and accountable. They will be in the end anyway. That is when everyone in Eureka feels the bite of their totalitarian government. If like Councilwoman Linda Atkins says, "members of our council don't listen to their citizenry" maybe it's time for that "citizenry" to take note of their neighbors that support, sustain and finance;  those that voted these non-responsive people into office that insist on governing in secret.

[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, June 29, 2011]
Two "My Word" articles appeared on the Times-Standard's A4 Opinions Page today. The first one, Perhaps it's time to clean up the city charter was written by Howard Rien, also quoted by Times-Standard's Thadeus Greenson in his report yesterday. Rien says, and since he apparently had a hand in setting up the current Charter, "[T]he city manager can, basically, fire any employee except the city clerk and the city attorney." The de facto reality is that the City Manager runs the city. The implications that had for the Eureka Police Department and in particular, Garr Nielsen are implicit and for the community at large, explicit.

The second "My Word" article is by the aforementioned Chief himself. His little bit of gutless whimpering is the obvious reason he was fired: "Godspeed to EPD and the Eureka community." Anyone purporting an ounce of manhood - self-worth and personal integrity that actually gave a damn about the EPD and the Eureka community would use this opportunity to clear the air. Show everyone some respect by letting them decide what is and what is not. No one is the least bit interested in being TOLD how to think; what is and what is vaguely NOT. This comment, with all his apologies, "taking personal responsibility for all his mistakes," plus this "And I am sorry that the end came in an abrupt and demeaning fashion, but it serves no purpose to abandon my dignity by wrestling in the mud or stooping to the level which seems to have been a remnant of all that was wrong with the police department." totally justifies David Tyson's actions.

What Garr Nielsen, the City Council and David Tyson thought they were doing to improve the EPD and their standing with the Eureka community, what we've all got as a consequence is exactly mirrored in this pathetic and rather arrogant example that sees itself as some sort of parental organization not answerable to anyone. Garr Nielsen's purported beliefs regarding the Eureka Police's standing in this community, as he tries to tell us, is as empty and hollow as he turned out to be.

--Joe

Ever Been Fired Without Cause?

Ever been blocked on Facebook or Twitter? Just terminated and told to go to hell? It's the same thing.
The front page headline in the Saturday, June 25, 2011, Times-Standard was: EPD Chief Nielsen fired after 4 years – EPD chief out after 4 years; Harpham named interim replacement.

When you read what Thadeus Greenson reports how and what happened, you've got to agree that what was done to Garr Nielsen was about as dirty as it gets. It was a personal insult, it sent a clear and concise message, exactly as it was designed to do. Let no one doubt in the City of Eureka who rules.

I suppose that works for the status-quo “good ol' boy network. Yes, there's a good ol' boy network, maybe even two of them. But even more in the sewer category is the fact that it was all done in secret. This case certainly makes it clear who runs the town of Eureka and that this person is NOT answerable to the citizens of Eureka. Nothing and I mean NOTHING ever changes in Eureka or Humboldt County.

Here's a link to another Times-Standard article that gives more background on this "personnel change" that affects the lives of everyone living in Eureka. Here's what Thatdeus Greenson wrote April 26, 2011 in his article: Four years later: Eureka police chief's tenure filled with change, tumult and community praise.

Four years later, officials say some old wounds have been healed and some old wrongs righted, but the ride has been anything but smooth. However, most say EPD is light-years ahead of where it was before Nielsen's arrival. [Emphasis added]

"Light-years ahead" sounds like a "crock-of-crap-snow-job" to me.

By the way, the problem with what happened is NOT with David Tyson. He's obviously doing exactly what everyone wants or he wouldn't still be the City Manager. The problem is with the City Manager type of city government. Based upon Garr Nielsen's public statements it's obvious who the REAL Chief of Police was - David Tyson. In the Report's observations, whether or not Garr Nielsen was either a "good" or a "bad" Chief of the Eureka police is not the issue. Obviously, neither the City Council or their City Manager had any justifiable "cause" for firing him. The irony of this whole mess is that Chief Nielsen got a dose of his own purgative medicine and he obviously didn't like it much.

Did Nielsen leave the legacy he had hoped for? Not when the City of Eureka was looking for and entertaining a Sheep Dog rather than a Shepherd.

--Joe

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

It's Official – Shooting Justified

Short notice on second page of the Friday, August 13, 2010, Times-Standard says: “Deputies going back on duty after shooting death.”

Another press release statement from the Sheriff's office reveals Sheriff Gary Philp's decision: “After reviewing physical evidence, officer statements and witness statements, Sheriff Gary Philp decided to return seven-year veteran Deputy Dave Lundie and Deputy John Fomasi to regular duty, according to a Sheriff's Office press release. Philp determined that neither deputy violated Sheriff's Office policy or procedure during the incident.” [Emphasis added]

“Press release” information doesn't provide much if any opportunity to ask the Sheriff any questions. Surely, there are people in this community that would like to know what “policy or procedure” justifies using lethal force to shoot someone for “refusing to comply with officers' orders”? I know I would. Be nice if the Sheriff would produce the “metal handle of a garden rake” so everyone could see the real threat that suppposedly confronted these officers that a three-foot heavy guage steel or 3/4 inch lead pipe could.

 Again we see the Times-Standard's propensity for their play on words when reporting on police action in this community. In the above referenced article they state: "He was shot multiple times after allegedly approaching officers aggressively with the metal handle of a garden rake [...]." That statement is considerably different than the "broken" three-foot" piece of a "handle" reported earlier. By the way, my rake handle is five feet long, it's not metal, but it's not a child's toy either.  For the record, the Tuesday, August 10, 2010, newspaper article reported that Sheriff's Lt. Steve Knight said it, “looked like a three-foot metal pipe.” He also says that Robert Garth was close enough to these officers that, “at one point, had contact with one of the officers.” So, they could clearly see if that “handle” constituted an actual deadly threat. It obviously DID NOT constitute such a threat to the victim – the guy that called in the assault.

Since this action by the Sheriff establishes a baseline for the justifiable use of lethal force, i.e., the mere perception of some sort of fear induced threat or failure to immediately comply with an order, this community needs to see and know exactly what the Eureka Police Department and Sheriff's Office's policies and procedures are. If nothing else, they certainly need to be explained for everyone's protection. Be interesting to see if there's any kind of follow-up by the Times-Standard or any other local media outlet on this latest incident and the related questions that have serious implications for everyone in this community.

--Joe

Lethal Force – Always the First Resort

... or:

Shoot first, ask questions later.

[UPDATE Below]

What's it take to get shot by North Coast police officers? What do we learn, if anything, from the latest reported police killing of Robert Garth on Saturday, August 7, 2010, by Humboldt County Sheriff's deputies?

First, by the time the deputies arrived at the scene of the incident, he apparently, as it was reported to the deputies, had a broken rake or garden tool handle in his hand that he'd been using to assault another man. Apparently, that man had time during the ongoing assault to call 911 and tell them about being assaulted with a rake. The report is he was treated at the hospital for head and chest wounds. The garden tool handle caused physical damage, but apparently not life threatening, since he declined medical assistance at the scene. Apparently, the assault with the "garden tool" didn't hurt him enough that when the deputies arrived that he couldn't “run away” as he is reported to have done. Was the rake handle a “deadly weapon”? Usually, such metal garden tools are made of flimsy material, as testified to by it breaking. Did it even matter? As soon as he turned on the deputies, the guns came out.

Who in their right mind, holding a flimsy piece of metal, advances on two police officers with drawn guns pointed directly at your heart? It is also reported that he was barefoot. Next, he was shot multiple times apparently by BOTH officers because he “kept advancing.” Apparently, Robert Garth was in “close” enough “proximity” so as to touch one of the officers. Are you telling me that they couldn't determine what Garth had in his hands and that two highly trained able-bodied Sheriff's deputies could not easily “stop the threat” or disarm this guy if they wanted? How much harm was he going to do after being shot a couple times? Where's the mortal threat here?

The Times-Standard's Thadeus Greenson reports that “Garth was arrested a number of times over the past handful of years, including arrests that resulted in convictions for possession of a deadly weapon and obstructing a peace officer in 2007 and for battery in 2005.” Robert Garth had a history with the local police. The question is, did these deputies know this guy?

Finally, notice “who” caused the deputies to fire their weapons: “Knight (Sheriff's Lt. Steve Knight) said the deputies repeatedly instructed Garth to drop his weapon but he did not comply and kept advancing, causing the deputies to fire on him as they retreated backward.” This is probably the most telling statement in the Police Press Release account of the incident. These deputies showed absolutely no capacity or intention to disarm Garth without using lethal force. As demonstrated, if he did not immediately do what he was told, he was dead. As far the the officer's were concerned their responsibility to this person ended right there. You either instantly submit or you die – simple as that. This man was obviously not rational and clearly posed a threat to others as well as to HIMSELF. Whatever happened to the police priority to protect and defend those that are not only a threat to others, but to themselves? [Emphasis added]

What, then, poses a “threat” to a police officer? This is important because the general public needs to know how to interact with these officers in order to protect their safety and lives. The fact that these deputies, as Knight says, “We're trained to stop the threat [...].” Begs the question, what does he say defines that “threat” in the context of their, police officer training and general attitude toward the general public? He says, “[T]hese officers were in fear for their safety, and in fear for their lives.” [Emphasis added]

Accept what he says, just for a second, that this is a valid reality. What in the hell does that say about the legitimacy and mental state of mind of the police officer's ability and capacity to safely enforce the law in this community? What triggers a “threat” to “personal safety”? They decide what or that there even is a “threat” according to their perceived “fears.” What actually puts these officers into “fear” for personal safety or life? Notice “lethal force” is activated for simple issues of “personal safety.” What are this “issues”? Non-compliance with officer “instructions,” that's all.

We've all experienced "fear" at one time or another in our lives. Fear caused by a genuine "threat" to one's "life," however is an extreme experience one usually never forgets. That is a different experience than "fear" caused by a "threat" to one's "safety." Here's the definition to fear:

1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.

3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.

What do we learn in this latest incident?

What I learned is that we have police officers operating on a hair-trigger in our community and that we live here at our own risk or peril. They justify the “shoot-first, ask questions later” based upon the “value” of their own perceptions of personal safety and NOT that of the general public they are supposed to serve and protect. That means, that anytime you do not instantly do what a police officer tells you to do, regardless of what that might be, you run the risk of lethal force – dying.

Does that remind anyone of the time your father told you to do something and when you didn't instantly move you got smacked upside your head or worse? It didn't take many “smacks” to learn that you NEVER threaten you father's authority; you never made your parent's look bad. Is that the kind of authoritarian society we live in today? Or, for that matter, want to live in?

More importantly, since we need the police, this kind of policing has negative consequences for them as well. While they may all answer to their respective governments, they need the community's backing and our personal support for legitimate operation and authority. Why they can't see that, I don't know. When this relationship is reduced to “it's either us or them,” we're in serious trouble. The picture in the newspaper says it all.

---

[UPDATE Thursday, August 12, 2010]

Initially, I had decided to let this shooting incident pass until I read in the paper how long it was before the police removed the body. That seemed rather unreasonable and disrespectful to the family. It also demonstrated "attitude," attitude that's consistently demonstrated in the above picture. What stands out is the effort of the policing authorities to make sure they did everything they could to protect and justify the shooting. It's going to be interesting to see if the forensic evidence is consistent with the officer's stated accounts.

Here are a couple of links with more information:

1. The Reporta:  Story:  Aftermath of the Blue Lake Shooting
2. Redwood Curtain Cop Watch:  Story  Sheriff's Officers Opened Fire On Robert Garth: "The cops didn't even give him a chance," says witness neighbor.

Let's see if there is any followup from the Times-Standard. Or are they going to continue to publish the unquestioned press releases as fact.

--Joe

---

Meaning of "first resort": "To have recourse."
"Shoot first, ask questions later" - Unintended consequences.
Versus: "Last Resort."
Times-Standard Articles: 1) Saturday, August 7, 2010: Deputies shoot, kill suspect near Blue Lake
2) Sunday, August 8, 2010: Deputies shoot man on SR 299
3) Tuesday, August 10, 2010: Blue Lake man shot on 299 identified

[Image: Great photo from the Times-Standard]

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