Dallas Police Chief's Crackdown on Trigger-Happy Cops Leaves Many Fuming

"Dallas Police Chief David Brown has started coming down hard on officers who are too quick to resort to deadly force. He fired senior corporal Amy Wilburn, who shot an unarmed carjacking suspect last month. Same with Carden Spencer, the cop who opened fire on a mentally ill man in a Rylie cul-de-sac in October, and Bryan Burgess, who ran over a suspicious-looking bicyclist during the spring.
Compare that with Houston, where every police shooting over the past six years has been declared justified, and Brown seems like a paragon of justice and accountability."

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/01/dallas_police_chiefs_crackdown.php

The stories the firings were based on:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/12/dallas_police_shoot_man_with_h.php

You'll remember this one.... mentally disturbed guy sitting on a roller stool in the cul de sac, cops pull up, scream at him, they drill him from 30 + ft. Then lied about him coming at them with a raised knife. Incident caught on neighbor's security camera.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/10/dallas_cops_shot_a_schizophren.php

This one I don't understand. Cop practices the standard operating procedure of running down and killing bicyclist because he "looked suspicious". That's what cops do, right? What's the problem? The world is a better place now with that suspicious bicyclist gone. Not only was this blue clad hero fired, he was arrested on a charge of criminally negligent homicide, which carries a potential sentence of six month to two years. PLUS the FBI is climbing up his rectum for civil rights violations involving the victim.

I like Chief Brown.

Yea for Chief Brown. He decided not to be an apologist for one reason or another, I hope he can win out against State backed Unions and their cronies in governemnt.

Fuller Malarkey said:

This one I don't understand. Cop practices the standard operating procedure of running down and killing bicyclist because he "looked suspicious". That's what cops do, right? What's the problem? The world is a better place now with that suspicious bicyclist gone...

I like Chief Brown.

Click to expand...

More on the bicyclist murder by cop.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/08/bryan_burgess_the_dallas_cop_w.php

Cool, go Dallas.

Nightmare said:

... He was not wearing a hat, so clearly suspiciously negligent /sarcasm.

Click to expand...

The bicyclist incident is interesting. Fred Bradford, the bicyclist, had no drugs or alcohol in his system, and he had no criminal record. There appears to be at least two patterns of corruption tying these cases together......one, unarmed people being preemptively exterminated. And two, each of these incidents involved police officers lying, and corroborating lies and attempts at covering up murders.

On the same day he was fired, Burgess was arrested on the charge of criminally negligent homicide.

Dallas County court records show there has been no action in the case since Sept. 6, when Burgess filed a motion for an examining trial.
He has not been indicted. That could indicate that chief police Brown may have more opposition in cleaning out corruption than the police union. The no indictment indicates foot dragging or resistance from the prosecutor to me. The police union may have control of the prosecutors office, indicating a much deeper culture of corruption.

On June 27, Virginia Bradford filed an excessive-force suit against the city and the officers for “more than $1,000,000.”

It was eventually moved to federal court, where records indicate a settlement was reached on Nov. 8.

Since 2001, there have been 68 killings of unarmed men by Dallas Police Department. Not one indictment. There has not been an indictment of a police officer for shooting in 40 years in Dallas.


A Dallas County Grand Jury indicted the first cop from that county in 15 years this past November.

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...ughter-charge-in-on-duty-fatal-shooting.html/

The Feds get a conviction here and there of Dallas police officers.

http://www.speroforum.com/a/15719/Dallas-police-officer-sentenced-to-30-months#.UswWqNJDvZo

In that one, a Dallas Transit cop "coerced" [why is it citizens get charged with rape in incidents like this, and cops get nicer sounding charges?] a woman to perform sex acts on him. The cop admitted that during the early morning hours of Oct. 10, 2004, he saw a woman at a Dallas convenience store, followed her, made a traffic stop of the car in which she was riding, and arrested her. Bonner then drove the woman to the Dallas County jail but did not take her inside. Instead, he drove her to an empty DART substation and told her he would release her if she engaged in sexual acts with him. The woman complied and, after they engaged in sexual acts, Bonner released her from custody. Bonner acknowledged that he violated the woman's constitutional rights and caused her bodily injury. Isolated incident 65,431. He got 30 months.

The Dallas chief needs to grow a set of eyes on the back of his head.

Personal opinion: The only way that I can think of to clean up these police departments is three-fold.
1. Completely do away with police unions. Notice that I wrote "unions". They can have organizations devoted to officer safety and welfare, but without bargaining rights or the freedom to strike. "Blue flu", calling in sick as a "work action" would be grounds for suspension without pay for the first proven offense and termination for the second.
2. De-militarize to the greatest extent possible. By this, I mean do away with no-knock warrants except under strict guidelines and minimize the amount of military-grade weaponry and equipment.
3. Institute independent citizen review boards for all law enforcement agencies. The members of such boards would be picked from the jury pool, serve for no more than one year, and meet not less than once a month. These members, while serving, would be under the same immunity rules as most state legislators are. They would also have independent legal counsel at their meetings, chosen in similar manner as the members of the board.

And OC for Me is right on the money when he says the chief had better grow a new set of eyeballs on the back of his head. There are very many good, honest police officers out there who are afraid to come forward because of the repercussions they will face. Francisco Vincent Serpico is a very good example of an honest cop who did the right thing and was made to suffer for it.

Maverick9]More on the bicyclist

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

... He was not wearing a hat, so clearly suspiciously negligent /sarcasm.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that he allegedly reached into a vehicle occupied by mysterious, unidentified and unknown persons of the same ethnic persuasion, (or worse, occupied by persons of not the same ethnic persuasion) and may possibly have retrieved something.

I'm willing to bet the thought, "How do we know that's not a drug deal?" was going through the officer's minds. The lack of helmet and lights just provided a legal opportunity to stop the individual.

edit- retroactively added the word 'allegedly.'


Fred Bradford Jr. dressed in what can no doubt be described as 'thuggish' clothing.

SFCRetired said:

Personal opinion: The only way that I can think of to clean up these police departments is three-fold.

Click to expand...

First, the PTB have to want to clean them up. Usually what prevents them is mutual blackmail.

SFCRetired said:

Personal opinion: The only way that I can think of to clean up these police departments is three-fold.
1. Completely do away with police unions. Notice that I wrote "unions". They can have organizations devoted to officer safety and welfare, but without bargaining rights or the freedom to strike. "Blue flu", calling in sick as a "work action" would be grounds for suspension without pay for the first proven offense and termination for the second.
2. De-militarize to the greatest extent possible. By this, I mean do away with no-knock warrants except under strict guidelines and minimize the amount of military-grade weaponry and equipment.
3. Institute independent citizen review boards for all law enforcement agencies. The members of such boards would be picked from the jury pool, serve for no more than one year, and meet not less than once a month. These members, while serving, would be under the same immunity rules as most state legislators are. They would also have independent legal counsel at their meetings, chosen in similar manner as the members of the board.

And OC for Me is right on the money when he says the chief had better grow a new set of eyeballs on the back of his head. There are very many good, honest police officers out there who are afraid to come forward because of the repercussions they will face. Francisco Vincent Serpico is a very good example of an honest cop who did the right thing and was made to suffer for it.

Click to expand...

It's obvious you've put some thought into solutions to this not so isolated problem. I believe everything you mention is what will be necessary for us to regain control of our police departments. I think we probably need more than "citizens review". Probably closer to "citizen control boards". This is a much misunderstood concept.....many buy into the police hype that meager citizens don't understand nor can they effectively investigate. There's many models of citizen control panels in use, the effective ones being hybrids tailored to fit the needs of the corruption being addressed and the desired outcome. Like jury nullification, it's a place citizens can attempt to regain control.

The only way to accomplish these is through a complete clean sweep of admin and LE. I think NO is the only one that did that.

SFCRetired said:

Francisco Vincent Serpico is a very good example of an honest cop who did the right thing and was made to suffer for it.

Click to expand...

Regina Tasca is another.

SFCRetired said:

Personal opinion: The only way that I can think of to clean up these police departments is three-fold.
1. Completely do away with police unions. Notice that I wrote "unions". They can have organizations devoted to officer safety and welfare, but without bargaining rights or the freedom to strike. "Blue flu", calling in sick as a "work action" would be grounds for suspension without pay for the first proven offense and termination for the second.
2. De-militarize to the greatest extent possible. By this, I mean do away with no-knock warrants except under strict guidelines and minimize the amount of military-grade weaponry and equipment.
3. Institute independent citizen review boards for all law enforcement agencies. The members of such boards would be picked from the jury pool, serve for no more than one year, and meet not less than once a month. These members, while serving, would be under the same immunity rules as most state legislators are. They would also have independent legal counsel at their meetings, chosen in similar manner as the members of the board. <snip>

Click to expand...

A grandjury where the prosecutor is on the out and not the defense. So, we have a grand jury to indict criminals and we should have a grand jury to indict cops. Then a cop can have his union defend him via paying legal fees for the trial, just as a citizen is sent to trial after the prosecutor got a "ham samitch" indicted.

My idea of the Citizens' Review Board would be not just another "rubber-stamp" agency, but an agency with some teeth to it. In fact, I would not be averse to granting such a board limited grand jury powers. This is also the reason they would have independent legal counsel.

Another problem area is the fact that so many of the local courts are entirely to cozy with the associated law enforcement agencies. I know this to be true in Alabama and have no reason to doubt that it is true in other locations. What might be necessary to break that connection, I have no idea at this time. A separate court for law enforcement offenses?

SFCRetired said:

My idea of the Citizens' Review Board would be not just another "rubber-stamp" agency, but an agency with some teeth to it. In fact, I would not be averse to granting such a board limited grand jury powers. This is also the reason they would have independent legal counsel.

Another problem area is the fact that so many of the local courts are entirely to cozy with the associated law enforcement agencies. I know this to be true in Alabama and have no reason to doubt that it is true in other locations. What might be necessary to break that connection, I have no idea at this time. A separate court for law enforcement offenses?

Click to expand...

funny, because in one county in Washington all police related deaths are brought before an actual jury and the family of the slain gets to have their own lawyer question the officer and witnesses, and when this jury usually acquits officers then the anti-cop people just say "well the jury was rigged" some people are never happy regardless of the set up.

EMNofSeattle said:

funny, because in one county in Washington all police related deaths are brought before an actual jury and the family of the slain gets to have their own lawyer question the officer and witnesses, and when this jury usually acquits officers then the anti-cop people just say "well the jury was rigged" some people are never happy regardless of the set up.

Click to expand...

You are, of course, right. There is an old saying, "You wouldn't be happy if they hung you with a brand new rope!":lol:

What I have been attempting to do, in my rather uneducated way, is to come up with a solution that would, at the very least, lend much more transparency than is now the case in too many instances.

When something goes wrong, we have police agencies investigating police agencies. Far too many times that results in a whitewash of the event. My "Citizens' Review Board" is my attempt to come up with an idea to reverse that situation. I am most familiar with happenings here in the Southeast and I can tell you that, while there are many good, honest officers and many agencies that are open and above-board, there are still too many that operate under unwritten rules that should have never been.

EMNofSeattle said:

funny, because in one county in Washington all police related deaths are brought before an actual jury and the family of the slain gets to have their own lawyer question the officer and witnesses, and when this jury usually acquits officers then the anti-cop people just say "well the jury was rigged" some people are never happy regardless of the set up.

Click to expand...

Well lets get a name on that county. I have no problem researching what led to this "jury" [me thinks this might be a "Coroner's Inquest"].

Fuller Malarkey said:

Well lets get a name on that county. I have no problem researching what led to this "jury" [me thinks this might be a "Coroner's Inquest"].

Click to expand...

King County, all police related deaths are brought before an inquest jury (which is not actually a Coroners inquest since King County is a charter government that doesn't have an elected coroner)

EMNofSeattle said:

King County, all police related deaths are brought before an inquest jury (which is not actually a Coroners inquest since King County is a charter government that doesn't have an elected coroner)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the county name. Here's some info on King County Washington Inquest Hearings:

"Inquests are fact-finding hearings conducted before a six-member jury. Under a standing Executive Order they are routinely called to determine the causes and circumstances of any death involving a member of any law enforcement agency within King County while in the performance of his or her duties.

Inquests provide transparency into law enforcement actions so the public may have all the facts established in a court of law. The ordering of an inquest should carry no other implication. Inquest jurors answer a series of interrogatories to determine the significant factual issues involved in the case, and it is not their purpose to determine whether any person or agency is civilly or criminally liable.

The order signed by the Executive requests King County District Court Presiding Judge Barbara Linde to assign a judge to set a date and conduct the inquest.

The ordering of inquests is a function vested in the county executive under the King County Code.

Conducting Inquests in King County

http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/policies/executive/publicaeo/phl711aeo.aspx

Document Code No.: PHL 7-1-1 (AEO)
Department/Issuing Agency: County Executive Office
Effective Date: March 16, 2010
Approved: /s/ Dow Constantine
Type of Action: Supersedes PHL 7-1 (AEO)
Signed document (PDF, 398 KB)

WHEREAS, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.24 authorizes the county coroner to summon a jury to inquire into the death of a person by suspicious circumstances; and

WHEREAS, Section 895 of the King Countycharter provides that "[a]n inquest shall be held to investigate the causes and circumstances of any death involving a member of the law enforcement agency of the county in the performance of his duties"; and

WHEREAS, King County Code (KCC) Chapter 2.24 created a division of the medical examiner within the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and assigned to it most of the coroner's duties under RCW Chapter 36.24, "except for the holding of inquests, which function is vested in the county executive" under KCC 2.24.110(A); and

WHEREAS, the County Executive, in exercising the authority to hold inquests, has discretion to determine how inquest proceedings are to be conducted, and to delegate the duty of presiding over an inquest to another impartial public official, and

WHEREAS, the County Executiveretains the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of the inquest power and the performance of the delegated duty.

NOW, THEREFORE, I Dow Constantine, King County Executive do hereby order, direct, and implement the policies and procedures at appendix 1 and appendix 2 for conducting inquests:

DATED this 16th day of March, 2010

/s/ Dow Constantine, King County Executive

ATTEST:

/s/ Tony Adams for Carolyn Ableman, Director

Records and Licensing Services Division

*******

For some reason, authorizing the county coroner to summon a jury to inquire into the death of a person by suspicious circumstances sounds a lot like a "Coroners Inquest", except in King County's case, the function of holding the coroner's inquest was bestowed upon the county executive.

What I'm not finding is whether this inquest can indict. It doesn't sound like it functions as a Grand jury would, determining probable cause to prosecute. It looks like the jury does pretty much what the coroner does.....determine that the subject is dead, and a general conclusion as to how the subject came to be that way.

Spokane County Washington has resisted attempts to hold Coroner's Inquests for their ever growing body pile of police inflicted deaths.

"Coroner inquests are quasi-judicial hearings in which the circumstances surrounding a death are publicly examined. They override privacy statutes that authorities believe bar them from discussing police-involved fatalities. Washington law allows inquests; in King County, inquests are required for all officer-involved deaths and juries help determine if the deaths were justified. The process is open to the public."

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/27/burns-asking-for-inquests/

Click to expand...

Doesn't say anything about indictments or findings used to initiate prosecutions.

"But Spokane County’s two medical examiners remain opposed to the idea, arguing that it would force politics into death investigations.

Medical Examiner John Howard said coroner’s inquests, during which attorneys representing the family of the deceased can ask questions, would waste public resources.

“It’s simply putting on a public spectacle,” Howard said. “It’s kind of like having the taxpayers pay for a deposition for them to go on a fishing trip.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/27/burns-asking-for-inquests/

Click to expand...

" Maggie McLetchie, the former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said that inquest system, which was based on King County’s, never took effect because of a legal challenge from a police union. Although courts upheld the ability to hold inquests, officials opted to toss the system. McLetchie was part of a commission that helped craft the law.

“All it was supposed to be about was to let people know what happened,” she said. “It never saw the light of day.”

Click to expand...

There ya go. "Patterned after King County"....and police union restrictions? How much does union contract agreements affect what transpires at an Inquest Hearing? Every cop called plead the Fifth Amendment or invoke their Garrity Rights? If that's the case the Inquest is a joke. Further, one of the people that helped craft the law for Inquests into ploice killings states "All it was supposed to do was let people know what happened". I'd have to agree that might just be a waste of time and resources. If we know that the subject is dead and who killed them, why go any further if the effort doesn't clear or condemn the killer?