|
||||||||||||||||
Posted on 07/11/2002 4:37:33 PM PDT by socal_parrot
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The man who videotaped a police beating near Los Angeles that enraged black leaders and then dodged a grand jury inquiry into the matter was arrested on Thursday as he prepared to grant a television interview.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Crooks' arrest was videotaped and broadcast on local KCAL-TV, showing undercover officers hustling him into a sports utility vehicle with tinted windows outside the studios of CNN as the 27-year-old man repeatedly screamed for help.
Crooks had failed to appear on Thursday morning at Los Angeles Superior Court, where the grand jury was meeting, after telling a local radio program that he feared for his life.
"All we're doing is arresting him on the basis of a warrant," Los Angeles County District Attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said. "If there had not been a warrant, we would have escorted him to the grand jury."
"He is a witness and we need him to authenticate the tape recording, otherwise its value in court would be greatly diminished," Gibbons said. Crooks shot his videotape from a motel room across the street from the scene of the incident in Inglewood, which abuts south-central Los Angeles.
Crooks called a KFI-AM talk radio show hosted by John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou on Wednesday to discuss the case and said he was afraid that officers would be "coming after" him for videotaping the beating of 16-year-old Donovan Jackson.
'I FEAR FOR MY LIFE'
"I fear for my life," Crooks said. "They're going to kick my ass in a cell and take turns on me, probably."
Deputy District Attorney Kurt Livesay, who was also a guest on the show, then told Crooks over the air that authorities did not want to hurt him, and asked that he give his address to investigators. Instead, Crooks hung up the phone.
The videotape, first broadcast on Sunday, shows Inglewood Police Officer Jeremy Morse picking up Jackson and slamming him face-first onto a patrol car. Several seconds later, Morse is seen slugging Jackson in the face with a closed fist.
The tape sparked cries of racism and comparisons to the incendiary 1991 beating of Rodney King, which was also videotaped. The acquittal of four Los Angeles officers in that case led to the worst urban riots in modern U.S. history.
Several local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were investigating the altercation between Jackson and Morse, a three-year veteran of the Inglewood Police Department. U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) sent his top civil rights deputy to Los Angeles on the case.
Jackson and his 41-year-old father, Coby Chavis, who was present during the incident, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on Wednesday against the officers involved in their arrest, the city of Inglewood and the County of Los Angeles.
Black leaders, including congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat who represents the area, and Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dorn have called for Morse to be immediately fired and brought up on state or federal charges.
ATTORNEY: OFFICER DESERVES DUE PROCESS
But Morse's lawyer told Reuters in an interview that the 24-year-old officer had been condemned by public officials before all of the facts were known or the probes even begun.
"I think it's quite unfortunate that people who have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution would ignore the presumption of innocence and find individuals guilty before there's even been a trial," attorney John Barnett said. "I thought we stopped doing that a couple hundred years ago."
Barnett, who also represented one of the officers acquitted in King's beating, said public officials were offering inappropriate assurances that his client was guilty.
"This very same thing happened (in the King case)," he said. "That's why it was such a big surprise when they were acquitted with tragic, tragic consequences."
Barnett said that Morse lifted Jackson from the ground and heaved him onto the car because the teen had let his legs go limp in an effort to resist.
"After his hands were cuffed, Jackson was able to reach out and grab my client's testicles," he said. "And on that occasion the punch was seen in order to make that activity cease."
In Oklahoma, meanwhile, civil rights activists called for immediate disciplinary action against two white police officers who were videotaped beating a prone black suspect with batons.
The officers, Greg Driskill and E.J. Dyer, were to remain on regular duty pending the results of a probe. Oklahoma City police have asked the FBI ( news - web sites) to investigate.
Like I said, some people(the media?) are claiming that he is mentally retarded. And I would like to know of any developments in this area if anyone happens upon them. Unless of course you feel you've read every article on this case, and are an expert on it.
Unless you have direct contact with the child I think you erred by implying that you can diagnose to what degree he is afflicted by the disability.
I never did diagnose the "severity of the disability". But I do understand the mild to moderate way in which it can effect kids/adults. I have to understand this in order to deal with it everyday. And having been lucky enough to have my daughter tested by one of the doctors that devised some of these tests that help to diagnose these kids, and have had him explain it to me face to face was a great experience. I STILL stand by what I said previously, If this is IN ITSELF, the only problem this young adult suffers from, then I don't buy it one bit. But if this kid ALSO has behavior problems, does turn out to be effected by some form of mental retardation, or has ADHD coupled with central auditory processing disorder, then yes I can see this kids difficulties in dealing with this arrest. But like you having an OPINION, this is mine.
That is, unless you want to hold it against Donovan that he may not have tried hard enough to overcome the disability and that should have some bearing on the cops actions. In other words, lay partial blame on Donovan for the cop's actions because he (Donovan) may not have tried hard enough to overcome his disability.
Nope, I was merely pointing out that this "disability" is not some lifelong affliction to the likes of mental retardation, in which the sufferer has no other choice but to act like a idiot, in stressful situations like some may think, or equate central auditory processing as something even close to mental retardation.
I doubt he is faking it and the court will surely have him sufficiently evaluated.
Even if he's not faking CAPD, it's still doesn't add up. Anyway, But the rest of us are still debating this for the moment. But I'll say again... If central auditory processing is HIS ONLY disability no matter to which degree, I still think that's a piss poor excuse for him resisting arrest, IF in fact he was resisting.
Like I said, some people(the media?) are claiming that he is mentally retarded. And I would like to know of any developments in this area if anyone happens upon them. Unless of course you feel you've read every article on this case, and are an expert on it.
Do you really think your snot-nosed attitude is going to ingratiate me to help you get the information you seek? I'm through with this "discussion". Get a tissue and clean yourself up. You may have the last word.
When a policeman himself acts like a barbarian, then how can he truly protect civilization?
Don't compliment yourself, I was asking for general information about the disability issue from anyone that would know of any, in my original post, no where did it ask you for specific information (since you cannot possibly know everything about this case). And it was you who decided to respond to it, and I gave you an explanation to what you were commenting about, in no way did I get snotty, or sarcastic with you. If this is how you would like to end this debate by name calling, and by accusing someone of making snotty remarks WITH snotty remarks, fine.
You may have the last word.~Isn't that an oxy-moron? But thanks anyway for allowing me the "final word" even though I doubt you were serious when you wrote it. So much for a serious debate...
Very nice aphorism. But let's talk real world, shall we? If a cop is attacked or his efforts to lawfully take a suspect into custody are resisted, he has the right---excuse me, he has the duty----to use physical force. The issue in this matter is, was the cop's use of force justified? I don't think we have all the evidence on that issue, and I don't think the six seconds of video we've seen repeatedly are conclusive on the matter. And excuse me for saying this, but I don't think it's fair of you to have made a judgment about what really happened yet.
Well, you gotta hand to this crook, er, Crooks guy: he's keeping to his schedule---he's now claiming that, sure enough, those bad ol' powwicemens hurted him in jail!!! See thread here.
Editing is irrelevent. Chain of custody is only relevent for physical evidence. This tape isn't physical evidence. It will only be offered as "(witness), does this tape accurately depict the events that happened," to which the witness responds yes or no.
I have no doubt what you and I see on the news is edited. If it is true that an "edited" copy is the only thing that gets to the grand jury/court, then the answer to the above question will be "yes, but it doesn't show everything." To the extent that that is true, the factfinder weighs the oral testimony and gives the tape whatever value they deem. An edited tape is just as admissible as a raw one.
Well, if the tape had been edited before being shown in court or before the Grand Jury, and the witness asked "Yes or No: Does that tape accurately depict the events?" then they could answer "yes" without mentioning the editing.
I think the question would have to be phrased something like, "Does that tape depict accurately and completely the events in question?"
Who claimed I was his judge and jury? I've got eyes, a brain, and (probably to your horror) an opinion. And I don;t know where you got the idea that I don't want all the evidence examined. There may indeed be mitigating factors for some of what went on. The cop should be off the force in any case; the additional evidence, if any, will simply determine whether he should also be pursued civilly and/or criminally. That's my assessment and if it upsets you, tough.
He should be off the force in any case? Quite a snap judgment there, fellow. And nothing you could say or think could upset me---why should I let an ignorant proponent of kangaroo justice upset me? It just makes me thank God we still have a Constitution to thwart lynchers like you.
Here in Detroit, last year, a deaf man was shot and killed by police after not responding to a verbal order to put down a rake...
And the result was? What was the guy doing with the rake---cleaning his yard? When you leave out important details like that, you can distort the picture and condemn an innocent man, who sometimes happens to be a cop.
Map Kernow: When you leave out important details like that, you can distort the picture and condemn an innocent man, who sometimes happens to be a cop. 333
You certainly do know how to omit key context and create a straw man just so that you can kick the stuffing out of it -- as you have so clearly demonstrated below. Thanks for exposing your true colors.
* * *
Zon: Don't you two (er, make that three) just "love" it when a person jumps to conclusions or a person accuses others of things they didn't say or imply. Excuse me, I couldn't resist the drama of it all.304
Oh yeah, I hope nobody minds that I included the sentences between the brackets that were in JJ's original post.
Carry on... :-)
To: John Jorsett
[There's nothing kneejerk or conclusion jumping about my criticism. In a finger-pointing contest, I'll generally give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, since most of the people they deal with aren't the most truthful individuals.] However, when presented with videotaped evidence, I'm not going to deny my own eyes, nor my sense of what constitutes unnecessary force. If you want to go on thinking that expecting a peace officer to live up to a code of behavior that doesn't include roughing people up is anti-cop, that's your choice.
No one appointed you judge and jury of that cop's fate, sir, and it is not an endorsement of "police brutality," as you so primly and dishonestly put it, to insist that every piece of evidence, not simply the videotape you find so conclusive, be evaluated to determine whether the cop's actions were justified. And yeah, my "choice" of opinion is, you're anti-cop.
86 posted on 7/11/02 9:26 PM Eastern by Map Kernow
Who claimed I was his judge and jury? I've got eyes, a brain, and (probably to your horror) an opinion. And I don;t know where you got the idea that I don't want all the evidence examined. There may indeed be mitigating factors for some of what went on. The cop should be off the force in any case; the additional evidence, if any, will simply determine whether he should also be pursued civilly and/or criminally. That's my assessment and if it upsets you, tough.
330 posted on 7/12/02 4:24 PM Eastern by John Jorsett
Apparently Map Kernow thinks that any reader couldn't see her (or his) obvious intent to deceive the reader. And she has the gall to accuse her target/victim of being dishonest. Isn't that a hoot.
Even if it so happens to be true?
When I was a kid it was a metro St. Louis White pages and a billy club. With the phone book against your head all you saw after the club stikes was pretty little birdies going tweet tweet. No turban then when you went before the judge to be arrainged but your eyes still had "Tilt" written all over them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
