In the third full day of testimony the defense called a run of police officers, some testifying in crisp black uniforms, others in coat and tie.
But each one told the jury the same thing, that the front leg sweep and takedown of a 57-year-old Indian man did not violate the policy and training of the Madison Police Department.
"In that situation, I believe Officer (Eric) Parker did what he had to do to adapt and overcome," testified Officer Russell Owens on Friday.
"I didn't say slamming anybody to the ground is any part of our policy," snapped Sgt. Nicholas McRee during one back and forth with prosecutor Saaed Mody of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The judge twice warned Mody to stop arguing with the officers. McRee instead explained that the use of a takedown is consistent with policy and training if a suspect pulls away.
"Policy says we can use a reasonable amount of force to overcome resistance," testified Officer Wes Tates.
Not one said the leg sweep itself was standard technique covered in training. Instead, three different witnesses used the phrase "adapt and overcome," meaning that Parker improvised.
But the six police officers on Friday contradicted some testimony from fellow officers called by the prosecution earlier in the week.
Officer Charles Spence, third to the scene, testified on Wednesday that he saw no threats to officer safety before the takedown. Capt. John Stringer testified on Thursday that he saw no signs of attack or flight to prompt the takedown.
Cpl. Clint Harrell testified he was concerned when he found no evidence Patel had committed a crime.
But late Thursday, another officer, Charles Lorch testified he once saw Patel walking around with a walker in July. And three other officers on Thursday testified that Parker did not receive training in takedown techniques during his two years as a Madison police officer.
The small police force is clearly divided.
And no one made that more clear than Officer Jamie Emerson.
Emerson testified he had watched the video of the takedown with Chief Larry Muncey in a private session. That happened after Emerson sent an email to officers in support of Parker. Chief Muncey in February, just days after the incident, had moved to fire Parker and arrest him for misdemeanor assault.
The Department of Justice later indicted Parker for the far more serious criminal charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. The charge carries up to 10 years in prison, and the misdemeanor is on hold pending the outcome of this federal trial.
Emerson testified that Muncey told him what Parker did was wrong, but Emerson said he disagreed and did not see anything contrary to training. Emerson said he received counseling from a senior officer after his email.
Mody asked if Emerson and Parker are good friends. "I want to see he is handled justly," answered Emerson.
In all, 10 officers have testified for the defense and three officers were called to testify by the prosecution. The trainee, Andrew Slaughter, was the only one there during the entire incident. But he has told both sides he would not testify under the Fifth Amendment if called.
Mody on Friday asked Emerson about proper takedown techniques. Emerson said police are taught to protect the head and neck of suspects. Mody then replayed the video, at Emerson's request, showing Patel land on his face as Parker holds his hands behind his back.
So far, the prosecution has replayed the video 12 times over three days of testimony.
But the defense has argued that Parker couldn't know that Sureshbhai Patel had just arrived in the United States to care for his grandson, that he was just out for a morning walk when a suspicious neighbor called police to report a "skinny black guy" near his home.
The defense argues instead that a suspicious person tried to walk away, that he was non-compliant, that he pulled an arm away when Parker tried to control his hands. The defense has repeatedly argued that it was unfortunate there was a language barrier and unfortunate that Patel was injured, but there was no crime.
The Justice Department instead argues that evidence shows Parker could tell this was an older man who did not speak English, that Parker had his hands and the trainee had already patted him down for weapons when Parker slammed him to the ground.
At the start of the day on Friday, before the jury arrived, Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala pushed the Justice Department, poking holes in the federal case and seeming for the second time in two days to ponder throwing the whole case out.
She asked if it was not a requirement for citizenship that an individual learn English. Patel is a permanent resident. She said the call about a suspicious person and Patel's behavior could be interpreted as indicative of a burglar.
"We're talking about whether an objectively reasonable police officer might have questions," she said, laying out three factors. Patel does not speak English. He did not have identification with him. He walked away from officers.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Posey said the question should have been: Is there a language barrier? "They had no reason to try to think of a crime he may have committed," said Posey.
The judge said the federal argument uses the language barrier to disregard that he walked away. "You can't disregard that," she said. Plus, she said it's not necessarily true he committed no crime.
"Can an officer not stop an individual who said 'no English,' who was fleeing from them, because it is a crime to be in the country illegally?" she asked.
Posey said Patel was never "fleeing" and that police had no right "to shake him down for immigration papers." But the judge argued police were required to investigate due to the neighbor's call.
Posey suggested a jury might find Patel was neither resisting nor pulling away, which would make the takedown unreasonable. Posey called it a maneuver "guaranteed to cause some injury. Some injury. I'm not saying he meant to break his back."
In the end the judge said she was troubled by the assertions that police had no right to stop and investigate Patel, but had less trouble with the second part of the federal case questioning the takedown itself. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parker's action were willful, or that he intended to deprive Patel of the right to be free from unreasonable force.
Essentially, did Parker mean to use unreasonable force on Patel?
In Graham v Connor, the key U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1989 for determining if force is excessive, the police detained a diabetic man for suspiciously running in and out of a convenience store. Tuten pointed out the man was injured by police in that case, and the man had committed no crime. But the police were not held to be unreasonable.
"That's just another example of another one of those unfortunate situations," said Tuten.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court held: "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."
As for the details on this situation, the jury on Friday spent much of Friday morning hearing from Johnny Lee Smith.
Smith is a blackbelt who helped create the martial arts training program now used by police academies in Alabama, as well as in several other Southern states.
Tuten asked Smith about signs of passive resistance that might indicate the need for an officer to use force. "Refusing to move. Walking away. Leaning," said Smith, adding a few more, such as clenching a fist or ignoring an officer.
Active resistance? "Pushing, pulling, shoving," said Smith. Are officers trained to watch the hands? "The hands are what will hurt you. The hands are what will kill you," said Smith. What about pockets? "Often weapons are carried in pockets for easy access," said Smith.
But federal prosecutors quizzed Smith on Patel's actions that day. There was no crime? "In retrospect, we know that now," said Smith. Patel didn't have any weapons? "In retrospect, we know that now," repeated Smith.
Smith said when officers arrived they believed "crime may be afoot" and that Patel can be seen on the recording to take two, then four, then nine steps away. But the video shows small shuffling steps. "You wouldn't describe it as escape attempt," asked Mody. "No, sir," said Smith.
Mody argued that Parker knew four things by the moment of the takedown: Patel was an older looking man; on a public sidewalk; the man did not speak English; and Patel had no weapons, as the trainee had completed the pat down a moment before the takedown.
"I couldn't tell from the video if he completed the pat down," said Smith, referring to an area in the front waist band that's hard to see on the video and that a trainee may not have frisked Patel correctly.
But Mody asserted that even if Patel had been a burglar, Parker still doesn't get to slam him facefirst into the ground if he is not resisting.
Smith's most significant testimony may have been that Patel then moved his left foot forward and dipped his head. Smith asserted that this movement could suggest resistance.
"I think it's plausible he was trying to pull his left hand away," said Smith.
On Thursday, Madison police Captain John Stringer testified: "I saw no indications of resistance, or active resistance or aggressive resistance."
On Friday, Tuten asked Smith what he observed. "Passive borderline defensive resistance," said Smith, adding a moment later of Patel: "He was actively pulling away."
Updated on Sept. 4 at 7:10 p.m.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J Alabama police officer on trial, facing 10 years in federal prison for leg sweep of Indian citizen via top scoring links : news http://ift.tt/1EHxDOz
Put the internet to work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment