Here’s a letter to the editor of the Virginian-Pilot from Frederick’s attorney James Broccoletti in praise of Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney Earle Mobley. Mobley, you’ll remember, came forward to say that one of the jailhouse informants Special Prosecutor Paul Ebert called to testify against Frederick was so unreliable that other prosecutors in the area refused to use him. I can’t help but think his doing so really damaged the state’s credibility with the jury. It very well could have spared Frederick a life sentence.
Local TV station WTKR conducts an interview with Frederick, who sounds contrite, humble, and sorrowful. In a just world, Ebert and his team would lose their jobs for trying to portray this guy as some sort of cold-blooded, drug-crazed murderer.
The Tidewater Libertarian Party, courtesy of Don Tabor, will be requesting a citizens’ review of the investigation of Frederick and the raid on his home. I still think we need a federal investigation, one that grants immunity to informants Steven Wright and Renaldo Turnbull so they can speak without fear of retaliation.
Virginian-Pilot columnist Roger Chesley says Frederick’s jury got it right. I obviously don’t agree, but it certainly could have been worse. What’s most unfortunate is that Chesapeake PD has repeatedly stated that it has no plans to alter the way it investigates drug offenders or executes search warrants.
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 16th, 2009 at 4:16 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, Police Informants, Police Militarization, Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
What’s most unfortunate is that Chesapeake PD has repeatedly stated that it has no plans to alter the way it investigates drug offenders or executes search warrants.
This is pathetic. These little authoritarians are afraid that if they make any changes it would be tantamount to admitting some responsibility in the death of their colleague. So they are going to continue to engage in deadly behavior because they are overwhelmed by cowardice. They would rather risk their own lives and the lives of others (innocent and guilty) than admit their failures. It’s mind blowing.
You’re off about Chesley’s take on the verdict, Chesley didn’t say the jury got it right, but instead that Frederick got about the best a jury is willing to give. The closest would be where Chesley uses “fair” to describe the verdict, but that is fair in the sense of what similarly situated persons can expect.
Why would they bother to alter the way they assault non-violent individuals? It’s very rare for the police to actually come out on the losing side in a conflict between a non-violent person and the police, because first, even if the person is armed, they are usually very hesitant about using their weapon, while the police, as you know if you’re paying attention, can shoot anybody the moment they see them holding a gun, even one not pointed at them, or anything that looks remotely like a gun. Second, the police get the benefit of bulletproof vests and sometimes riot shields when they decide to assault said non-violent people.
Police deaths are usually the result of conflicts forced by actual, violent criminals. So with that in mind, there’s really very little risk to the police to continue about their way systematically terrorizing and assaulting non-violent people, and torturing and/or shooting them should the victim get uppity, or happen to be holding a coke, or if the officer otherwise “feels threatened” behind his riot shield & bulletproof vest. The increased risk to the rest of us is of little consequence to them.
By their actions you shall know them.
Is there any indication that RF will appeal?
Ryan will appeal. He has multiple grounds for appeal, and each will be dealt with one at a time. He’s starting with an appeal of the judge’s decision to allow every level of murder and manslaughter to be considered by the jury. I don’t know why, because I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve heard from some local lawyers that this one is pretty strong.
Post #3 Zargon:
“Police deaths are usually the result of conflicts forced by actual, violent criminals.”
Actually, more police die in traffic accidents than anything else. Apparently, they’re really lousy drivers. You know how it is… you haven’t had a donut in a couple of hours and you get a little woozy behind the wheel.
Everything else you have in there is spot on. In addition, the ‘Police Culture’ dotes on every fallen officer as if they’re some kind of blessed martyr, bravely sacrificing themselves so society can wake up to another dawn.
Go to ANY police site, and you’ll find virtual shrines erected extolling the unblemished bravery of these brave soldiers of all that is good.
What I think is going on here is this is part of the kool aid of the ‘Police Culture’, an evolved mechanism that fortifies the ‘Blue Line’ of solidarity in the force. If you place someone with violent tendencies in that environment, they’ll quickly learn that they can get away with a lot because the rest of the kool aid drinkers will support them without reservation.
Have there been any interviews with the jurors reported? I am really curious what their mindset was in evaluating this case. To me, while it’s not my view, it is still possible that someone would generally believe the police account of events surrounding this case. But, given all the lies and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, I really have a hard time seeing how they couldn’t find reasonable doubt. Even on the lesser (and easier to prove) manslaughter charge, how can one say beyond a reasonable doubt that Frederick knew he was shooting at cops?
I think a tremendous injustice has been done to Ryan Frederick here, but the revelation with larger implications (in my view) is that juries simply do not understand the concept of reasonable doubt. Thinking someone “probably did it” is not enough to convict, but I am worried that has become the de facto standard. Either that or, because a cop has died and Frederick was the natural target, jurors feel some need to meet out justice, which is not their job at all. Regardless of which is the case, the result is that the system is very broken.
@3 & 6,
Bob’s right, you know… but to further that I did some crunching when the BLS released their 2007 Occupational Fatalities statistics in 08/2008 and found that the overall fatality rate for law enforcement officers comes in around 20.2 per 100,000 based on 2007 LE employment levels, which makes that occupation nearly 6 times safer than working as fisherman and twice as safe as working in a steel mill.
Then I did some further looking and found that it’s more dangerous, as far as job-related homicide rates are concerned, to be a civilian resident of several different metropolitan areas than it is to be a police officer in the US. I’d post the link but it’s to my own site and I don’t want to be like that Jason character who would post his links everywhere… and it would be a bit off topic anyway.
As for RF and any potential appeals, it’s good to hear that his lawyers are pursuing every angle there, hopefully they’ll be successful.
If the mainstream media were the guardian of democracy and all that is good like it claims to be, it would be all over this like white on rice. It would be a major scandal that the police would not change their tactics after it got one of their own killed and an average homeowner sent to prison for something that could happen to just about anyone.
Well, at least they’re not pretending about their arrogant irresponsible and deadly stupidity.
After police murdered Atlanta resident Kathryn Johnston, shooting her 5 times and leaving her bleed to death handcuffed on the floor of her home while they planted evidence, it only took a couple of years for the Drug Warriors to go back to their old dirty tricks.
I blame the corrupted system more than I do the guys pulling the triggers. That this county has been engaged in a hundred year War on Drugs says a lot for the politicians that intentionally exploit voters fears so that their fat asses can get re-elected.
If our elected officials can not behave responsibly in regard to this issue, perhaps we need to elect people that are more responsible.
Elected officials can not and will not solve this problem.
The FBI keeps pretty good stats on LEO’s killed in the line of duty. It has been quite a while since I looked at them, but, IIRC of LEO’s shot to death “on duty”, about 5% are killed by fellow LEO’s–which is another reason we should avoid kicking doors in.
There are enough “blue on blue” killings to justify a chapter in RB’s next edition of “Overkill.” (RB needs a summer intern research assistant more than any person I know.) Maybe there is a widow or two willing to talk about how idiotic Rambo tactics left her to raise kids by herself. (Writing tip to RB: After the widows have been interviewed, it is only at the end of the chapter that you mention that the cop was killed by a cop. Maybe that little literary device will get these idiots to think twice.)
I am enraged everytime I see some story were a cop does some “heroic” deed. Some B.S. propaganda were nothing short of normal “good will” was performed, if even that. These phoney stories give the green light for cops to stomp on hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I had my life ruined by sadists in uniform. A true Revolution is needed for change. Half of Husseins cabinet picks are confirmed criminals, yet he pats em on the back and defends them. A Federal investigation is needed for Ryan, but don’t hold your breath.
Then I did some further looking and found that it’s more dangerous, as far as job-related homicide rates are concerned, to be a civilian resident of several different metropolitan areas than it is to be a police officer in the US.
Which is larger:
1. the number of police who are shot by people who have no criminal records, while they (the police) are acting in civilized fashion, or
2. the number of people who have no criminal records who are shot by police?
Is #1 anywhere close to large enough to justify the common police refusal to act civilized?
“Praise the lord and pass the bong, we’re winning the war on drugs.”
(Or not.)
Supercat…
If you’re looking for factual information, I regret to say that there are currently not any sufficiently detailed statistics for me to do that sort of analysis since the feds don’t track what percentage of officer-involved shootings involve unarmed individuals or occur under questionable circumstances…
This, I think, is an unfortunate side effect of both the current lack of transparency built into more police departments that refuse to share such information and an unwillingness of the government to gather and share such potentially volatile information.
However, I can tell you that from 2007 statistics I generated from the available information, only 37% of law enforcement deaths (61/165) were ruled homicides compared to 54% of sales employee deaths (168/311) and 63% of sales manager deaths (93/148).
So, we can ask the following:
If police officers justify increased rates of use-of-force and shooting incidents as a matter of safety concerns, why do we not also hear about an increased number of questionable deaths caused by sales clerks shooting unarmed customers (or family pets) who they thought might have posed a threat as well?
The fact that we don’t see such a correlation should lead us to say that such an excuse is not justifiable.
Why?
Because a sales clerk knows that he or she would be successfully prosecuted for such a shooting incident and likely sued as well… a disincentive to act without forethought. A police officer knows that he or she probably will not be prosecuted and will be protected by qualified immunity if sued as well… a lack of such disincentives to be uncivil.
Of course… I know your question was rhetorical, but thought I’d take a shot at it anyway.
//Of course… I know your question was rhetorical, but thought I’d take a shot at it anyway.//
Actually, I would be interested in the answer, if those in power were willing to make such statistics available. They claim that dynamic-entry raids are for “officer safety”. For such a claim to be meaningful, there must be evidence that civilized searches and seizures are dangerous. So how dangerous are they, really?