Submit! A thread on the devaluation of life.
- Thread starter Tony Shelton
- Start date
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
This week the entire Use of Force Review Board in LAs Vegas has resigned, save one. They are tired of serving on a board that they claim is nothing but a sham.
Here is a story from 2 years ago from the Review Journal reporting the ongoing problems that has led up to this mass resignation:
By Lawrence Mower© 2011, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Former University of Nevada, Reno basketball star Charles Bush had his share of problems — drugs, a prostitute girlfriend and more than $5,500 in debt to the IRS — but until July 31, 1990, he had largely kept out of trouble with the law.
That night, as the casino floorman slept in the seedy residential motel room he shared with his girlfriend, three men gathered around his bed. One gave it a kick. In the ensuing fight he was choked to death.
The man who killed him was Las Vegas police Detective Gerald Amerson, who with two other plainclothes cops had entered the room without a warrant and without announcing themselves as police.
In Las Vegas, a transient town that struggles to muster outrage over anything, the circumstances of the death of a black man who was not involved in a crime — in his own home — at the hands of three white cops set off a firestorm.
More than 600 people rallied after a Clark County coroner's inquest cleared the officers. Hundreds protested on the Strip — "Welcome to Las Vegas. Visit exciting casinos. Win lots of money. Meet the local police and be murdered by them," one sign read.
When Clark County District Attorney Rex Bell declined to charge the detectives, Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa took the extraordinary step of charging all three with involuntary manslaughter. They were eventually acquitted by a hung jury, and Bush's family received a $1.1 million settlement.
To quell community outrage, Clark County Sheriff John Moran made his own extraordinary move. He created an internal review board to look at each incident where a Las Vegas cop uses deadly force. The board, five officers and two civilians, would recommend not only discipline for errant officers but also changes in training and policy.
That Use of Force Review Board was considered a seminal step in allowing the public more information about and influence over department operations. Then, as now, it is seen as the linchpin of the Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to police itself.
But those who know the board best say it has never been more than a rubber stamp for a department that avoids facing its problems and is slow to address embarrassing errors.
"It's just a crock," said Barbara Kowalczyk, who moved to Las Vegas after retiring from the Detroit Police Department and served as a review board civilian member from 2004 to 2008. "They try to make you think that they are doing something, but it's a crock."
Officers have appeared before the board 510 times, as of May. Department records show the board ruled in favor of the officer 497 times — a 97 percent clearance rate.
Not once has the board ruled against an officer in a fatal shooting.
Former Undersheriff Rod Jett, a Las Vegas cop for more than 30 years until he retired as second-in-command last year, said the board was created with good intentions but no longer functions as it should.
Jett said rulings adverse to the officer are so rare that either "every officer that walks to the board has done everything perfectly, or the board has lost its ability to be independent and come to independent conclusions about the use of force."
"In my opinion, the board lost its ability to objectively look at the facts of the case, even with civilians on the board, because civilians who would question whether or not an officer's actions were appropriate were often challenged or told they didn't have the expertise to even have an opinion," Jett said. "And also during those periods when we had commissioned officers on the board who had the character and the courage to raise issues as to whether or not the actions of the officer were appropriate, those individual officers were attacked."
DEADLY FORCE PROMPTS REVIEWS
Las Vegas police officers who use deadly force in the line of duty can face one or two reviews of their actions, depending on the incident's outcome.
If there's a death, homicide detectives investigate and the case is presented at a public coroner's inquest. Until recently, citizen jurors determined if the officer's actions were justified, excusable or criminal.
Inquests have been suspended for more than a year, however, because of a pending legal challenge brought by officers who object to last year's overhaul of the process by the Clark County Commission.
The department's Review Board also looks at fatal shooting cases to see if the officer violated policy, but it has never disagreed with an inquest jury.
When a shooting isn't fatal, it's investigated by homicide detectives and reviewed only by the Review Board.
For every shooting aired in a public inquest, two go only to the Review Board.
Review Board meetings are not open to the public. Rulings aren't announced, and the response to inquiries is limited to a curt word or two usually indicating that the complaint was unfounded or use of force was justified. Any disciplinary action recommended by the board is deemed a confidential personnel matter. Former Review Board members describe a system so weighted in favor of the officers and so intent on smoothing over problems that even legitimate inquiries that might lead to more effective police procedures and improve officer safety are routinely squelched.
Kowalczyk recounts one hearing after a man was shot because he grabbed for an officer's holstered pistol. She said she asked if the department uses holsters that have locking mechanisms and was cut short by officer-members who didn't want to discuss it.
REVIEW BOARD CRITICISM UNCOMMON
When it comes to use of deadly force, the Review Board seldom finds anything to criticize.
In January 2010, for example, officer Tylor Dominguez pulled over a sport utility vehicle at Las Verdes Street and La Pasada Avenue in the central valley after a reported kidnap attempt. Stopping his patrol car facing the SUV, he got out and unholstered his gun.
But he forgot to shift the car into park. It started driving away, and in the chaos Dominguez's gun went off.
An observer in a police helicopter watched the scene unfold and later said Dominguez jerked his gun hand like he was "spooked." In his report, the investigating detective wrote the people in the SUV "were like, 'What is going on.'"
The bullet went through the wall of a nearby home, shattering a mirrored closet door. Three people in the house were in another room and were unhurt. The patrol car came to rest against a stop sign.
Las Vegas officers are expected to notify dispatchers if they fire a weapon. Dominguez instead used a cellphone to tell his sergeant he'd crashed his car and had "squeezed off a round."
Because Dominguez didn't call dispatchers, the sergeant assumed the shot was an accidental discharge with no injuries, which doesn't require detectives to investigate. But when the sergeant arrived at the scene, Dominguez said he fired because he saw someone in the SUV reach down, perhaps for a weapon. The sergeant told investigators he didn't believe Dominguez's second version of events. No weapon was found in the SUV, and no one was arrested.
Although fellow officers expressed doubts about Dominguez's account, the Review Board cleared him. He left the force a few months later.
In another, much higher-profile case last year, the board found that Detective Bryan Yant was justified in killing small-time marijuana dealer Trevon Cole during a botched apartment raid.
Cole, 21, was unarmed and crouching in a darkened bathroom, trying to flush his stash when Yant shot him. The detective said Cole made a threatening movement toward him, but the county's own experts testified at inquest that forensic evidence contradicted his story. Yant remains on the force.
The board also said Sgt. Darrin Densley was justified when he nearly killed Leonard Greer Jan. 12 at a central valley apartment complex where Greer, 22, was getting into his car with some friends.
Densley, engaged in a never-explained "police activity," shouted at Greer to stop. Greer said he never heard the commands and looked up from his driver's seat to discover the cop's gun in his face. Greer said he was asked to prove he lived in the complex, told Densely he had a rent receipt and reached for it after the officer told him to do so.
For reasons never publicly explained, Densley fired his pistol mere inches from Greer's head. Both the young man and the cop were lucky that night. The door window was rolled up, and it deflected the bullet. Police cited the badly shaken but otherwise unharmed Greer with obstructing a police officer. The charge was quickly dismissed.
CITIZEN MEMBERS FAULT BOARD
While the Use of Force Review Board was initially seen as a move toward openness and accountability, citizen members soon discovered problems. And in some cases, the citizens were the problem.
The board was created in part to spotlight trends and recommend policy changes, but an early citizen member said opposing ideas were quickly dismissed.
John Ponticello said he voiced concerns over a 1991 incident where a man answered his door with a gun and was quickly shot and killed by two officers who had not identified themselves.
"I said, 'That's not right,'" said Ponticello, a board member throughout the 1990s. "You don't go banging on the door without announcing (yourself)."
But the cops on the board only defended the practice of not always identifying themselves. The issue was dropped and the officers were cleared of wrongdoing.
Citizen member Will Watson, who served from 1991 to 1993, said he had concerns when officers were allowed to sit next to each other and listen to each others' testimony during hearings.
"It seemed to be skewed in favor of police," he said.
Edward Ochoa, a citizen member from 1991 to 1993, said he was disturbed by arbitrary procedures. In a 1992 shooting review, board members were told that they had to reach consensus, he said. But after he voted to admonish the officer, the board was quickly dismissed without ever reaching a verdict. Official records, however, show the officer was cleared. The case was the second of three controversial killings by officer George "Gregg" Pease.
"I left questioning the whole process," Ochoa said.
More recent board members say little has changed.
Kowalczyk said that when the board reviewed the controversial 2006 killing of 17-year-old murder suspect Swuave Lopez, who was shot while handcuffed and running away, she was upset that it dwelled more on Lopez's crimes than on his death. Not that she's a bleeding heart. She was involved in a fatal gunbattle herself while on the job in Detroit.
Robert Kainen, who served from 2004 to 2008, said shooting investigations weren't thorough enough.
"You're not presented with any other side, other than the report from the police officers, and my feeling from reading the reports was that the questions from the detectives were made in such a way to produce a kind of response that would be the most positive for the police department," Kainen said. "There were no lies, as far as I could tell, but the questions weren't as probing as I thought they could be."
PRO-POLICE BIAS EMERGES
Any citizen can apply for a seat on the board, and the sheriff makes the appointments. While it started with five officers of different ranks and two citizens, over time it has shifted to its current configuration of four citizens and three cops.
That, however, hasn't meant a more critical eye on department actions.
Former Deputy Chief John Sullivan, who helped set up and initially supervised the board, said he recommended giving more seats to citizens in response to complaints the board was too dominated by police. Altering the mix would quell criticism without changing the outcome, he assured the sheriff.
"Sure enough, there was no difference," Sullivan said.
If anything, cops on the board are far more likely to be critical, he said.
"They (citizen members) were very sympathetic with the officer," Sullivan said, adding that they would often make comments like, "You couldn't pay me enough to do that job."
Sullivan said that he sometimes disagreed with the citizen-heavy board's lenient decisions, and expressed his opinion to Moran, only to be told, "I'm not going to go against them."
Little has changed in two decades.
Kowalczyk, the former Detroit cop, said her fellow citizen board members often talked about family members in law enforcement and were overwhelmingly pro-police.
SHERIFFS DEFER TO BOARD
Sheriff Doug Gillespie acknowledges the board's weaknesses and said he is looking at alternatives.
"My challenge with the use of force board, and this has been for a while, is the fact they are hesitant to administer discipline when they find officers in violation of policy," he said. "We've got to find a fix to that."
Former Sheriff Bill Young found he disagreed with the board's findings "many times."
Board decisions are only advisory, but Young does not remember ever overturning one. He said the fact that he personally disagreed with the officer's actions was not enough.
"Once you start putting your personal opinion in it ... you've lost your effectiveness as the sheriff, in my opinion," he said. What he and other sheriffs did was relegate some officers to desk duty, Young said.
Gillespie said he is gathering community feedback on how to change the board and that reducing the number of citizens is possible.
"I think when it comes down to it, citizens in general have a hard time telling a police officer they did something inappropriately under these circumstances," he said.
Other departments also have review boards, but with varying layers of oversight and civilian membership. Denver has an independent monitor who participates in board deliberations and discloses the results to the public in quarterly reports. That city's review board also has the ability to refer concerns about an officer's tactical decisions to a separate Tactics Review Board made up of department experts.
Las Vegas' relatively new Critical Incident Review Team, which studies tactics and policy violations after shootings, last year started presenting cases to the review board, with an emphasis on addressing those issues. Previously, homicide detectives made those presentations, though they're not experts on tactical issues.
Gillespie said the process is improved, and that he's not opposed to further changes that would get his department to a place where "the community feels as if we are being as transparent as we need to be."
Review-Journal reporter Brian Haynes contributed to this report.
OFFICERS ADMONISHED BY USE OF FORCE REVIEW BOARD
More than 500 times since 1991 officers of the Metropolitan Police Department have gone before the department's Use of Force Review Board.
Only a dozen have been admonished for an improper shooting.
Ten of the cases involved firing at a car, usually as it was driving away from them and posing no danger. They were:
■ Erik Lloyd, who in 1991 fired five shots when he tried to stop the driver of a stolen car in a 7-Eleven parking lot.
■ George Curtis, who twice fired a shotgun at a stolen SUV with three passengers to disable it in 1994.
■ Undercover officers Thomas Lau and Alan Klein, who in 1995 instigated a confrontation with another driver on the freeway and then fired at him several times, riddling both cars with holes but hurting no one. They never gave a clear explanation of why they chased the man, whose only crime was speeding.
■ Donald Evans, who in 2000 tried to stop a man suspected of involvement in a drug deal, then fired at the car as the man drove away.
■ Darren Hecker, who in 2000 fired several times at a car as it was leaving the scene of a "shots fired" call at a public park, slightly wounding a passenger. Occupants of the car were actually witnesses to the incident, not suspects.
■ Nathan Chio, who in 2000 stopped a car because it was registered to a parole violator, then fired twice into a pile of clothes in the back seat, thinking someone was hiding there. No one was.
■ Christopher Holmes, who in 2002 fired at a vehicle that posed no danger. His partner also fired and was ruled justified on a 4-3 vote.
■ Sgt. Thomas Carlson, a canine officer who, with his dog's leash in one hand and a gun in the other, fired into a car when it drove toward him following a lengthy car chase in 2004.
■ Jesse Gerstel, who shot at a sport utility vehicle as it was leaving a routine traffic stop on the Strip in 2009. Gerstel acknowledged he was not in danger from the SUV.
Officers involved in the two cases that did not involve cars were:
■ William Butler, who in October 1994 stopped a man he thought was involved in a robbery. Lying face-down with another cop on top of him, the man reached to his waist to turn off his headphones. Butler fired a shot, saying he feared the man was reaching for a weapon. The bullet missed the unarmed man and the other cop.
■ James Breed, who in 1998 chased a man after seeing what he thought was a drug deal. He fired several times, he said, after the man turned and pointed a gun at him. It's unclear what Breed did wrong — in response to a public records request, the department released only a four-paragraph statement by another officer who said he didn't see anything.
Las Vegas police would not say what, if any, punishment the officers faced. Five of them — Lloyd, Evans, Chio, Holmes and Curtis — are still with the department.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
Here is a story from 2 years ago from the Review Journal reporting the ongoing problems that has led up to this mass resignation:
By Lawrence Mower© 2011, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Former University of Nevada, Reno basketball star Charles Bush had his share of problems — drugs, a prostitute girlfriend and more than $5,500 in debt to the IRS — but until July 31, 1990, he had largely kept out of trouble with the law.
That night, as the casino floorman slept in the seedy residential motel room he shared with his girlfriend, three men gathered around his bed. One gave it a kick. In the ensuing fight he was choked to death.
The man who killed him was Las Vegas police Detective Gerald Amerson, who with two other plainclothes cops had entered the room without a warrant and without announcing themselves as police.
In Las Vegas, a transient town that struggles to muster outrage over anything, the circumstances of the death of a black man who was not involved in a crime — in his own home — at the hands of three white cops set off a firestorm.
More than 600 people rallied after a Clark County coroner's inquest cleared the officers. Hundreds protested on the Strip — "Welcome to Las Vegas. Visit exciting casinos. Win lots of money. Meet the local police and be murdered by them," one sign read.
When Clark County District Attorney Rex Bell declined to charge the detectives, Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa took the extraordinary step of charging all three with involuntary manslaughter. They were eventually acquitted by a hung jury, and Bush's family received a $1.1 million settlement.
To quell community outrage, Clark County Sheriff John Moran made his own extraordinary move. He created an internal review board to look at each incident where a Las Vegas cop uses deadly force. The board, five officers and two civilians, would recommend not only discipline for errant officers but also changes in training and policy.
That Use of Force Review Board was considered a seminal step in allowing the public more information about and influence over department operations. Then, as now, it is seen as the linchpin of the Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to police itself.
But those who know the board best say it has never been more than a rubber stamp for a department that avoids facing its problems and is slow to address embarrassing errors.
"It's just a crock," said Barbara Kowalczyk, who moved to Las Vegas after retiring from the Detroit Police Department and served as a review board civilian member from 2004 to 2008. "They try to make you think that they are doing something, but it's a crock."
Officers have appeared before the board 510 times, as of May. Department records show the board ruled in favor of the officer 497 times — a 97 percent clearance rate.
Not once has the board ruled against an officer in a fatal shooting.
Former Undersheriff Rod Jett, a Las Vegas cop for more than 30 years until he retired as second-in-command last year, said the board was created with good intentions but no longer functions as it should.
Jett said rulings adverse to the officer are so rare that either "every officer that walks to the board has done everything perfectly, or the board has lost its ability to be independent and come to independent conclusions about the use of force."
"In my opinion, the board lost its ability to objectively look at the facts of the case, even with civilians on the board, because civilians who would question whether or not an officer's actions were appropriate were often challenged or told they didn't have the expertise to even have an opinion," Jett said. "And also during those periods when we had commissioned officers on the board who had the character and the courage to raise issues as to whether or not the actions of the officer were appropriate, those individual officers were attacked."
DEADLY FORCE PROMPTS REVIEWS
Las Vegas police officers who use deadly force in the line of duty can face one or two reviews of their actions, depending on the incident's outcome.
If there's a death, homicide detectives investigate and the case is presented at a public coroner's inquest. Until recently, citizen jurors determined if the officer's actions were justified, excusable or criminal.
Inquests have been suspended for more than a year, however, because of a pending legal challenge brought by officers who object to last year's overhaul of the process by the Clark County Commission.
The department's Review Board also looks at fatal shooting cases to see if the officer violated policy, but it has never disagreed with an inquest jury.
When a shooting isn't fatal, it's investigated by homicide detectives and reviewed only by the Review Board.
For every shooting aired in a public inquest, two go only to the Review Board.
Review Board meetings are not open to the public. Rulings aren't announced, and the response to inquiries is limited to a curt word or two usually indicating that the complaint was unfounded or use of force was justified. Any disciplinary action recommended by the board is deemed a confidential personnel matter. Former Review Board members describe a system so weighted in favor of the officers and so intent on smoothing over problems that even legitimate inquiries that might lead to more effective police procedures and improve officer safety are routinely squelched.
Kowalczyk recounts one hearing after a man was shot because he grabbed for an officer's holstered pistol. She said she asked if the department uses holsters that have locking mechanisms and was cut short by officer-members who didn't want to discuss it.
REVIEW BOARD CRITICISM UNCOMMON
When it comes to use of deadly force, the Review Board seldom finds anything to criticize.
In January 2010, for example, officer Tylor Dominguez pulled over a sport utility vehicle at Las Verdes Street and La Pasada Avenue in the central valley after a reported kidnap attempt. Stopping his patrol car facing the SUV, he got out and unholstered his gun.
But he forgot to shift the car into park. It started driving away, and in the chaos Dominguez's gun went off.
An observer in a police helicopter watched the scene unfold and later said Dominguez jerked his gun hand like he was "spooked." In his report, the investigating detective wrote the people in the SUV "were like, 'What is going on.'"
The bullet went through the wall of a nearby home, shattering a mirrored closet door. Three people in the house were in another room and were unhurt. The patrol car came to rest against a stop sign.
Las Vegas officers are expected to notify dispatchers if they fire a weapon. Dominguez instead used a cellphone to tell his sergeant he'd crashed his car and had "squeezed off a round."
Because Dominguez didn't call dispatchers, the sergeant assumed the shot was an accidental discharge with no injuries, which doesn't require detectives to investigate. But when the sergeant arrived at the scene, Dominguez said he fired because he saw someone in the SUV reach down, perhaps for a weapon. The sergeant told investigators he didn't believe Dominguez's second version of events. No weapon was found in the SUV, and no one was arrested.
Although fellow officers expressed doubts about Dominguez's account, the Review Board cleared him. He left the force a few months later.
In another, much higher-profile case last year, the board found that Detective Bryan Yant was justified in killing small-time marijuana dealer Trevon Cole during a botched apartment raid.
Cole, 21, was unarmed and crouching in a darkened bathroom, trying to flush his stash when Yant shot him. The detective said Cole made a threatening movement toward him, but the county's own experts testified at inquest that forensic evidence contradicted his story. Yant remains on the force.
The board also said Sgt. Darrin Densley was justified when he nearly killed Leonard Greer Jan. 12 at a central valley apartment complex where Greer, 22, was getting into his car with some friends.
Densley, engaged in a never-explained "police activity," shouted at Greer to stop. Greer said he never heard the commands and looked up from his driver's seat to discover the cop's gun in his face. Greer said he was asked to prove he lived in the complex, told Densely he had a rent receipt and reached for it after the officer told him to do so.
For reasons never publicly explained, Densley fired his pistol mere inches from Greer's head. Both the young man and the cop were lucky that night. The door window was rolled up, and it deflected the bullet. Police cited the badly shaken but otherwise unharmed Greer with obstructing a police officer. The charge was quickly dismissed.
CITIZEN MEMBERS FAULT BOARD
While the Use of Force Review Board was initially seen as a move toward openness and accountability, citizen members soon discovered problems. And in some cases, the citizens were the problem.
The board was created in part to spotlight trends and recommend policy changes, but an early citizen member said opposing ideas were quickly dismissed.
John Ponticello said he voiced concerns over a 1991 incident where a man answered his door with a gun and was quickly shot and killed by two officers who had not identified themselves.
"I said, 'That's not right,'" said Ponticello, a board member throughout the 1990s. "You don't go banging on the door without announcing (yourself)."
But the cops on the board only defended the practice of not always identifying themselves. The issue was dropped and the officers were cleared of wrongdoing.
Citizen member Will Watson, who served from 1991 to 1993, said he had concerns when officers were allowed to sit next to each other and listen to each others' testimony during hearings.
"It seemed to be skewed in favor of police," he said.
Edward Ochoa, a citizen member from 1991 to 1993, said he was disturbed by arbitrary procedures. In a 1992 shooting review, board members were told that they had to reach consensus, he said. But after he voted to admonish the officer, the board was quickly dismissed without ever reaching a verdict. Official records, however, show the officer was cleared. The case was the second of three controversial killings by officer George "Gregg" Pease.
"I left questioning the whole process," Ochoa said.
More recent board members say little has changed.
Kowalczyk said that when the board reviewed the controversial 2006 killing of 17-year-old murder suspect Swuave Lopez, who was shot while handcuffed and running away, she was upset that it dwelled more on Lopez's crimes than on his death. Not that she's a bleeding heart. She was involved in a fatal gunbattle herself while on the job in Detroit.
Robert Kainen, who served from 2004 to 2008, said shooting investigations weren't thorough enough.
"You're not presented with any other side, other than the report from the police officers, and my feeling from reading the reports was that the questions from the detectives were made in such a way to produce a kind of response that would be the most positive for the police department," Kainen said. "There were no lies, as far as I could tell, but the questions weren't as probing as I thought they could be."
PRO-POLICE BIAS EMERGES
Any citizen can apply for a seat on the board, and the sheriff makes the appointments. While it started with five officers of different ranks and two citizens, over time it has shifted to its current configuration of four citizens and three cops.
That, however, hasn't meant a more critical eye on department actions.
Former Deputy Chief John Sullivan, who helped set up and initially supervised the board, said he recommended giving more seats to citizens in response to complaints the board was too dominated by police. Altering the mix would quell criticism without changing the outcome, he assured the sheriff.
"Sure enough, there was no difference," Sullivan said.
If anything, cops on the board are far more likely to be critical, he said.
"They (citizen members) were very sympathetic with the officer," Sullivan said, adding that they would often make comments like, "You couldn't pay me enough to do that job."
Sullivan said that he sometimes disagreed with the citizen-heavy board's lenient decisions, and expressed his opinion to Moran, only to be told, "I'm not going to go against them."
Little has changed in two decades.
Kowalczyk, the former Detroit cop, said her fellow citizen board members often talked about family members in law enforcement and were overwhelmingly pro-police.
SHERIFFS DEFER TO BOARD
Sheriff Doug Gillespie acknowledges the board's weaknesses and said he is looking at alternatives.
"My challenge with the use of force board, and this has been for a while, is the fact they are hesitant to administer discipline when they find officers in violation of policy," he said. "We've got to find a fix to that."
Former Sheriff Bill Young found he disagreed with the board's findings "many times."
Board decisions are only advisory, but Young does not remember ever overturning one. He said the fact that he personally disagreed with the officer's actions was not enough.
"Once you start putting your personal opinion in it ... you've lost your effectiveness as the sheriff, in my opinion," he said. What he and other sheriffs did was relegate some officers to desk duty, Young said.
Gillespie said he is gathering community feedback on how to change the board and that reducing the number of citizens is possible.
"I think when it comes down to it, citizens in general have a hard time telling a police officer they did something inappropriately under these circumstances," he said.
Other departments also have review boards, but with varying layers of oversight and civilian membership. Denver has an independent monitor who participates in board deliberations and discloses the results to the public in quarterly reports. That city's review board also has the ability to refer concerns about an officer's tactical decisions to a separate Tactics Review Board made up of department experts.
Las Vegas' relatively new Critical Incident Review Team, which studies tactics and policy violations after shootings, last year started presenting cases to the review board, with an emphasis on addressing those issues. Previously, homicide detectives made those presentations, though they're not experts on tactical issues.
Gillespie said the process is improved, and that he's not opposed to further changes that would get his department to a place where "the community feels as if we are being as transparent as we need to be."
Review-Journal reporter Brian Haynes contributed to this report.
OFFICERS ADMONISHED BY USE OF FORCE REVIEW BOARD
More than 500 times since 1991 officers of the Metropolitan Police Department have gone before the department's Use of Force Review Board.
Only a dozen have been admonished for an improper shooting.
Ten of the cases involved firing at a car, usually as it was driving away from them and posing no danger. They were:
■ Erik Lloyd, who in 1991 fired five shots when he tried to stop the driver of a stolen car in a 7-Eleven parking lot.
■ George Curtis, who twice fired a shotgun at a stolen SUV with three passengers to disable it in 1994.
■ Undercover officers Thomas Lau and Alan Klein, who in 1995 instigated a confrontation with another driver on the freeway and then fired at him several times, riddling both cars with holes but hurting no one. They never gave a clear explanation of why they chased the man, whose only crime was speeding.
■ Donald Evans, who in 2000 tried to stop a man suspected of involvement in a drug deal, then fired at the car as the man drove away.
■ Darren Hecker, who in 2000 fired several times at a car as it was leaving the scene of a "shots fired" call at a public park, slightly wounding a passenger. Occupants of the car were actually witnesses to the incident, not suspects.
■ Nathan Chio, who in 2000 stopped a car because it was registered to a parole violator, then fired twice into a pile of clothes in the back seat, thinking someone was hiding there. No one was.
■ Christopher Holmes, who in 2002 fired at a vehicle that posed no danger. His partner also fired and was ruled justified on a 4-3 vote.
■ Sgt. Thomas Carlson, a canine officer who, with his dog's leash in one hand and a gun in the other, fired into a car when it drove toward him following a lengthy car chase in 2004.
■ Jesse Gerstel, who shot at a sport utility vehicle as it was leaving a routine traffic stop on the Strip in 2009. Gerstel acknowledged he was not in danger from the SUV.
Officers involved in the two cases that did not involve cars were:
■ William Butler, who in October 1994 stopped a man he thought was involved in a robbery. Lying face-down with another cop on top of him, the man reached to his waist to turn off his headphones. Butler fired a shot, saying he feared the man was reaching for a weapon. The bullet missed the unarmed man and the other cop.
■ James Breed, who in 1998 chased a man after seeing what he thought was a drug deal. He fired several times, he said, after the man turned and pointed a gun at him. It's unclear what Breed did wrong — in response to a public records request, the department released only a four-paragraph statement by another officer who said he didn't see anything.
Las Vegas police would not say what, if any, punishment the officers faced. Five of them — Lloyd, Evans, Chio, Holmes and Curtis — are still with the department.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
danwagner
Member
I didn't read the whole post, but there is no doubt that too many don't value principles that dignify human life.
In addition, take the millions of parents sacrificing their unborn on the altar of convenience, and parents and religious leaders sacrificing their young ones on the altar of war.
In addition, take the millions of parents sacrificing their unborn on the altar of convenience, and parents and religious leaders sacrificing their young ones on the altar of war.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
I agree on the first part. The second part has nothing to do with the parents. Each individual has to make their own choice.
I would be curious to know if you feel the same way about the war on drugs.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
danwagner
Member
However, Christian parents have the responsibility to raise their children correctly Eph. 6:4 NASB"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Does God still authorize the physical killing of his enemies as in the days of Joshua, the judges, and David? Did he ever authorize the taking of an innocent human life, born or not born?
Grown children can make their own choices, but they will make the right choice if the correct discipline and instruction from their father and mother are taken to heart.
Can you elaborate about the war on drugs?[/FONT]
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
There will always be war Dan. Your stance is wrong and disrespectful to the Roman Centurian, all the other Christian soldiers noted in the New Testament and most of all to the Theban Legion of 6000 Roman soldiers from Egypt who were struck down and buried in heaps because they refused to sacrifice to a false god in the second century.
War is a fact in this fallen world. I am sure you and I agree on many points about the future fate of those in power who use war for their own personal gain.
But a soldier can perform his duty, even if that duty is to kill if he is in combat against an enemy who would kill him given the chance.
That is where the war on drugs comes in. The war on drugs is a war against the weakest of our own people. Sure there are some "kingpins" who would kill the police given the chance as we have seen in Mexico. But most who are killed by the police these days have no intention or desire to kill the police. At worst many of them are just trying to defend themselves. At best many are killed in their own homes simply reacting too slowly or refusing to be treated like a dog.
The police MAKE their own enemy by continuing to enforce unconstitutional laws. When is the last time you saw a home raided for sodomy? Or a woman sentenced to prison for adultery? These things are against the law many states yet the police and prosecutors have made the law bill and void by refusing to enforce them.
If they had an ounce of decency they would do the same with the draconian unconstitutional drug laws that ruin the lives of our youth taking away their ambition and their future leaving us with a generation of felons that can't get a job to support their families.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
danwagner
Member
These subjects are vexing and painful to contemplate at times. Please don't think I'm giving you a hard time about your relating the war on drugs, but I'm still not following what you want me to give my opinion on. Obviously any non-medical use of addictive drugs is in many places still illegal, but far more importantly is prohibited in God's Word.
2 Cor. 7:1 "Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear."
Gal. 5:19-21 " Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism,....those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom."
Spiritism in original Greek is "pharmakia", meaning druggery.
As to your claim about Christian soldiers......"“From the end of the New Testament period to the decade 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army,” writes historian Roland Bainton of Yale University. “It is quite clear that prior to about A.D. 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers,” adds Guy Franklin Herschberger."
You assume that Cornelius, I'm guessing, remained a soldier after his conversion. Show me some evidence that he didn't 'beat his sword into plowshares'.
I don't know anything about the Theban Legion.
2 Cor. 7:1 "Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear."
Gal. 5:19-21 " Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism,....those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom."
Spiritism in original Greek is "pharmakia", meaning druggery.
As to your claim about Christian soldiers......"“From the end of the New Testament period to the decade 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army,” writes historian Roland Bainton of Yale University. “It is quite clear that prior to about A.D. 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers,” adds Guy Franklin Herschberger."
You assume that Cornelius, I'm guessing, remained a soldier after his conversion. Show me some evidence that he didn't 'beat his sword into plowshares'.
I don't know anything about the Theban Legion.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Hate, Adultery, worshipping false gods, laziness and gluttony are also prohibited, but they are not made into civil crimes that result in putting men and women in cages for years at a time.
Show me evidence that Cornelius did not remain a soldier. And any source from Yale is already suspect. There is VERY little evidence of ANYTHING that happened in the church from AD 70 to AD 150 or so. They were in hiding and being persecuted. We have the writings of Clement of Rome and a few others but evidence of Christianity as a whole was scant at this time.
Evidence is so scant that it has produced believers of the preterist persuasion who believe that Jesus in fact returned in AD 70, was witnessed by those who pierced him just as he said they would and his perousia resulted in a "meeting in the air" of the saints leaving nothing but his written word for the rest of us to study and follow.
The lack of evidence that there were soldiers during that time could be turned around and the case could be made that the lack of evidence of Christians at all means there were none.
Other is no evidence that anyone was ever told to remove themselves from their otherwise honorable job once they became saved. That includes the Phillipian jailer, Zaccheaus, and Cornelius.
Even slaves were told to remain as they were and SLAVE MASTERS were not told to release slaves.
They were simply expected to do their jobs with honor using the principals taught by Jesus.
Many in the military continue this tradition to this day. As do many in the police forces.
However it is the duty of Christians in either of these professions to do good when the opportunity arises. That means corruption should be reported and enforcement of illegal laws or illegal military killing should be resisted just as much as one would resist bowing down to a false god.
And by the way, "beating swords into plowshares" either refers to a time in our future or it is a false prophecy because it hasn't happened yet. Which on is it.
And use your Google search for Theban Legion. If you are right 6000 Christian soldiers, husbands and fathers, watched as every tenth man was slaughtered, refused again to sacrifice to a false god, again watched as every tenth man was killed till they were finally all killed.......all for nothing and with no future reward for their faith.
If heaven will not be populated with men such as this, I don't want to go there.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
danwagner
Member
Isa. 2:2-4 KJV "2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Turning war implements into farm implements comes from divine education, not from one side finally defeating the other. Suffering defeat is not a changing of one's heart. The LORD judges nations and individuals, nations and individuals don't judge each other.
So when will it be a good time to "not learn war anymore"? So you think we're not in the last days? (2 Timothy 3:1-5) If these are the 'last days' then in what phase will we beat our swords? If these aren't the last days, I don't think anyone will remain alive to witness when it does arrive.
At Acts 2:17 Peter quoted Joel 2:28 as having a fulfillment in that day.‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and YOUR sons and YOUR daughters will prophesy and YOUR young men will see visions and YOUR old men will dream dreams;
It was the 'last days' of the Jewish system which ended in 70 C.E.
Actually there are plenty of individuals, representatives, if you will, from all nations that are putting down their swords because of divine education. If I were to bear the sword against an unknown member of the human race in a battlefield, I'd want to be mighty sure I had the go ahead from God to do so.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Dan, here is the same prophesy from
Micah 4
King James Version (KJV)
4 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.
Now Dan, do you have your own fig tree that you sit under?
Yes, the kingdom of God has beaten its swords into plowshares. We, as Christians do not "make war". Our kingdom has no part of that. I sit under my own figurative fig tree and have no fear.
But we live in a world where the government holds the sword for the purpose of holding evil at bay. And that is what they would be doing if they weren't wasting so much time trying to make laws that prosecute and cage citizens for victimless crimes.
By your logic it would be wrong to lift a weapon of war to save a life. Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak to buy a sword. I guess they needed them so they could make them into plowshares. Lol.
I know I won't change your mind on this. And I don't want to. You have to stand before God with a clean conscience as do I.
I just wanted to know what you thought about the police going to war and killing American citizens.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
This thread is about the devaluation of life. Another example would be the laws that will put people in jail for disturbing turtle eggs but allows a doctor to cut a child's spine.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
danwagner
Member
Tony, I also want to be at peace and apologize for countering some of your beliefs in the sense of taking your original post on a tangent. It's true, you won't convince me about what the swords meant the night of Jesus' betrayal or of the justification to ever bear arms as a soldier to support the affairs of the nations.
But I agree that there is GROSS injustice and misapplication of Caesar's law and many are getting away with murder, sometimes literally.
Apparently, our view of the solutions is too far apart at this point, but I do know for sure that the solution will be carried out.
Peace.
But I agree that there is GROSS injustice and misapplication of Caesar's law and many are getting away with murder, sometimes literally.
Apparently, our view of the solutions is too far apart at this point, but I do know for sure that the solution will be carried out.
Peace.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Perhaps if God's grace is sufficient we can laugh together about our disagreements in heaven.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2