REPRINTED FROM APRIL 1997.
Quality of life criminals are stored in the New York Police Department database. If a major crime takes place, then Mayor Giuliani will place his left hand behind Police Commissioner Howard Safir’s back as the Commissioner commands the police - in his best Captain Louis Renault impersonation - to round up the usual suspects. The mayor will smile for the cameras, will be careful not to move his lips while the Commissioner is speaking, and if Giuliani is feeling particularly bold, he might drink a glass of water while Safir is barking orders to the police.
Combating quality of life crimes is a fascinating strategy. The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones” such as a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling. The NYPD augments their vast database with more fingerprints of actual or potential criminals. Either the police solve an old crime, or have a potential suspect for a future crime. In addition, the NYPD will hold the careless ruffian in custody long enough to establish a connection to another crime.
It is not enough to arrest people for pissing in doorways, jumping turnstiles, or panhandling. More quality of life irritations should be criminalized. The police will have a larger database of suspects. Remember, “Those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.”
For example, Chris G. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for an overactive photographer. He was photographing the Crown Heights riots, was charged with assaulting the police, resisting arrest and obstruction after the police officers on the scene beat him. The charges were later dropped.
Oliver J. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a loud mouth who likes to stand on street corners. He “was standing outside his Bronx apartment [building] among a crowd of onlookers whom the police tried to move after arresting another man.” Somebody shouted, “Police brutality!” Oliver J. was charged with “stealing a police radio and resisting arrest” after the police on the scene beat him. The charges were later dropped.
Ron N. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for someone who does not mind his own business. Mr. N. thought he was witnessing a racist attack, but it turned out to be eight undercover narcotics cops beating up a drug suspect. Ron N. asked the men to stop, but instead was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction. The charges were eventually dropped.
Keith P. is another suspect if the police are looking for someone who is not minding his own business. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Keith P. was appalled when an officer threw his “female companion about 10 feet in the air. Several officers set upon him, wrestling him to the ground, kicking and beating him with their nightsticks” after he told the police “You can’t do that! This is our neighborhood.” The charges were later dropped.
Yet another person not minding her own business - Judith R. was “pulled from a cab by her hair, handcuffed, and arrested after she criticized an officer for berating her cab driver over a faulty tail light.”
Marcos M. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic armed robber. Marcos M. was working in a supermarket when two men entered to rob the store. “When the police arrived, one of the suspects fled, and the other - who was holding” Marcos M. hostage in the basement - “was shot in the face and wounded.” Marcos M. walked out of the basement with his hands up, “and told the officers that he worked in the store.” The police officers “handcuffed him behind his back, threw him on the floor, and repeatedly hit him on the back of the head with their pistols and nightsticks, and kicked him in the back, chest and legs.” Furthermore, “while handcuffed on the floor, an officer put a gun into his mouth, used an ethnic slur, and threatened to blow his head off.
Greg M. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a homosexual who was hit with a bottle, and complained about it. Greg M. “was harassed in Times Square by a group of teenagers who threw a bottle at him because he was gay. When he sought assistance from a police officer, he was allegedly hit, handcuffed, dragged across the ground and verbally abused by the officer who accused Greg M. of being a fag basher himself.”
Ann H. is a potential suspect if the police are looking for a 71-year-old diabetic drug dealer. She was driving her car when she felt dizzy. She stopped her car, and “was eating peanuts when the car was surrounded by three plain clothes police officers. Ann H. did not know the identities of the three men. She was too intimidated to open the door. Suddenly, the undercover officers “smashed the car window, forced the door open, and [dragged] her out of the car. She was taken to a hospital... and forced to have her stomach pumped.” The police officers thought she was swallowing evidence. “No drugs were found, but she was charged with assault and reckless endangerment.” The charges were later dropped.
Unfortunately, some New Yorkers will no longer be perpetual suspects. The police will spare them the indignity of continual harassment because they died in police custody - died because they committed minor irritations that some might consider quality of life crimes.
Ernest Sayon died in police custody, and will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for someone who disrupts police work with firecrackers. On April 29, 1994, the police were searching for drugs in a Staten Island neighborhood, “were in the process of arresting another man when a firecracker exploded, approached Ernest Sayon, and arrested him.” Mr. Sayon “suffocated because of pressure on his back, chest and neck while he lay face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind him. A private autopsy... found evidence of suffocation or asphyxiation, with lacerations also to the top of his head, bruises and contusions to his face and back.” It was “reported that Sayon” ran from the scene and resisted arrest - “a version contradicted by” several eyewitnesses.
Jacques Camille will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Haitian taxicab driver who doesn’t carefully screen his fares. On April 9, 1992, two men robbed an individual. The robbers hailed a cab, and tried to escape, but the victim memorized the cab’s number. The police were able to track the robbers down. Camille’s cab was stopped. “Several witnesses said that Mr. Camille’s hands were raised when the officer fired a single shot which destroyed a kidney and part of his liver.” The cabby was in his first week of employment when he “unwittingly taken the robbers on board.”
Anibal Carasquillo will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for someone who likes to peak into the windows of parked cars. On January 22, 1995, police officers witnessed Mr. Carasquillo “peering into parked car windows.” The police report stated he “was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a ‘gun stance.’ However, the New York City Medical examiner reported that the autopsy had shown he was shot in the back.” Remarkably, a grand jury panel failed to indict the police officer involved in the death of Anibal.
Ironically, Anibal Carasquillo’s relatives were arrested and charged with “obstructing governmental administration” while protesting the failure of the district attorney’s office failure to indict the police officer involved in the case.
Lydia Ferraro will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a white woman who thinks she is driving in the Daytona 500. On April 27, 1988, Ms Ferraro made an “improper turn against traffic lights.” Remember, “Those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” The police thought she was in East Harlem to buy drugs because that is the only reason for a white woman to be in that area. “Ms Ferraro’s was eventually cut off and stopped.” A police officer opened the car door, but she tried to get away. The police officer fired a shot at her. Suddenly, four police officers opened fire on Ms Ferraro. After the smoke cleared, sixteen shots were fired, and Ms Ferraro was a victim of multiple gun shot wounds.
Yong Xin Huang will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy who likes to play cops and robbers with his friends. On March 25, 1995 Huang and two other boys were playing with a pellet gun. A local resident with an overactive imagination called the police. The 911call described “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that might be a real gun. Unfortunately, the young boy died of a gunshot wound “at close range behind his left ear.” The police officer claimed the that the gun went off accidentally while struggling with a sixteen year old boy, but the officer could not account for the “blunt impact wounds to the top of Huang’s head, face and forehead.” Maybe Huang sustained those injuries when the police officer slammed his face “into a glass door at the side of the house which was shattered during the incident.” Predictably, “no criminal charges” were filed against the police officer involved in Huang’s death.
Douglas Orfaly will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic man sitting in a parked car. On March 3, 1992, a police officer was looking for a burglar. The amazingly perceptive officer thought Orfaly matched the description of the burglar because all Hispanics look alike. As the astonishingly alert police officer approached the car, he noticed Douglas made a sudden movement. Displaying amazing accuracy, the officer shot Mr. Orfaly “once through the head through the car window.” This police officer made New York City history when he was the first member of the NYPD “to be convicted of an on duty homicide since 1977.” He “was sentenced to one to four years’ in prison.” That is the price a police officer pays for murdering someone who was sitting in a parked car. It is interesting to note that a jury convicted the officer of “criminally negligent homicide.”
Anthony Baez will no longer be a suspect if the police are looking for a Hispanic man with a wild throwing arm. On December 22, 1994, Anthony Baez was throwing a football around with his brothers outside his family’s Bronx home at 1:30 a.m.
A squad car was parked when a second car parked next to it. An errant pass hit Police Officer Francis Livotti’s squad car. Livotti, fearing for the safety of the car’s roof lights, ordered the brothers to go home. The brothers were walking away when a second errant pass hit Livotti’s car. Instantly, the officer got out of the car, and in authoritative voice said: “Look, I thought I made it clear, I was asking you, now I’m telling you. Get the fuck home!” Officer Livotti was upset because “they weren’t doing what I told them to do. It always bothers me a little when people don’t do what I tell them.”
David Baez refused to leave. Officer Livotti arrested David, “then told Anthony Baez he was under arrest when he shoved him the chest. Baez refused to be cuffed and walked away.” Livotti dashed after Baez, tried to handcuff him, but Baez “locked his arms in front of his torso.”
Livotti asked Baez to “put your hands behind your back. Let’s not make a big deal about it.” But Baez refused. The police officer “grabbed him, placed him a choke hold; he and other officers present then allegedly knelt on his back while handcuffing him behind his back as he lay face down on the ground.” The police officers ignored Anthony Baez’s family appeal for restraint.
Anthony Baez died in police custody of an “asthma attack.” The Medical Examiner’s office contradicted the police, “concluded that Baez’s death was caused by asphyxia due to compression of the neck and chest as well as acute asthma, and classified the death as a homicide. A pathologist hired by the family found bruises on the scalp, wrists, hands and neck, and evidence of internal bleeding around the eyes (another sign of asphyxia).” Anthony Baez died because Police Officer Livotti was afraid an errant pass was going to “damage the cruiser’s roof lights.”
Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acquitted Francis Livotti of criminally negligent homicide in a nonjury trial.
New York City is safer today thanks to Mayor Giuliani’s aggressive police tactics. A few New Yorkers lost their lives, but that is the price the mayor is willing to pay to make us feel safe.
To combat the notion that cops are ruthless, the NYPD is promoting CPR (Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect), a public relations gimmick designed “to overcome minority communities’ distrust of police.” Unfortunately, “the NYPD leaves a trail of law enforcement tactics that African Americans charge are abusive.”
Rudolph Giuliani is not responsible for the havoc created by the vaunted NYPD. Some of these incidents occurred before he took office. But the mayor enjoys taking credit for all of their success, therefore he should be held responsible for all their failures as police officers and as human beings during his term. Mayor Giuliani should not have it any other way.
Andy Warhol once said that in a more perfect world everyone would be allowed to be famous for 15 minutes. Presumably, this would end envy, and we would all be happier. In Mayor Giuliani’s perfect world, or at least a more perfect New York City, every citizen would be fingerprinted, and register an address at the local precinct.
God bless you if you agree with the mayor’s approach to fighting quality of life crimes. Just don’t complain or curse the mayor’s ancestry when a cop gives you a ticket because your big butt took up too much space in the subway.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Crime Fighting in the Giuliani Era
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997.
1996 was the year law and order was finally restored in New York City. Statistics reflected a decline in the seven major crime categories. Murders decreased 16.6%, rapes 4.4%, robberies 17.8%, assaults 14%, burglaries 18.2%, grand larcenies 10.5%, and auto thefts 17.3% from the previous year.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was giddy enough to proclaim “New York is now at a stage where we have never been safer at any time in the 1990’s, 1980’s, 1970’s. You have to go back to the 1960’s to find a comparable period of time.”
The murder rate fell to 983 - the lowest figure since 1968. This unofficial figure is from the police department. Sometime after Election Day, the medical examiner’s office and the Department of Health will release the official total to the public.
Mayor Giuliani was obsessed with keeping the number of murders under 1,000. He ordered extra patrols during the last days of 1996 to keep the homicide rate at its lowest in almost 30 years. Giuliani believes any number under 1,000 is historically significant, and he doesn’t want some statistician ruining his reelection campaign.
It is likely the number of homicides will exceed 1,000 because the police do not count people who died while in police custody, and people who died in traffic accidents. Some accidents are later ruled homicides after the district attorney’s office has gathered enough evidence for an indictment.
Predictably, the mayor is taking full credit, and will use the reduction in crime as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Giuliani ran as a law and order candidate four years ago. The city’s homicide rate peaked at 2,245 in 1990. New Yorkers were appalled. Children were murdered in their own homes as a result of random crossfire. Newspapers were tracking this deadly urban phenomenon with bold headlines.
Presently, the mayor can exclusively claim to have delivered a safer city (Safe in fact if not in perception). Once again, children are more likely to be murdered by a relative, or a by someone they know (Like “Delores Walker, a 10-month-old baby who died of a fractured skull and child abuse” during the final days of 1996.), instead of a stray bullet.
Former Police Commissioner William Bratton was the other person responsible for implementing successful crime fighting strategies, but unfortunately the commissioner resigned. Bratton could not work with an anal retentive, ego maniacal, control freak of a mayor.
The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” For example, a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling is more likely to rob an armored car full of money than a person who has mastered the art of using a toilet, who pays his fare, or works for his money.
This strategy stopped a one-man crime wave last June. A young pianist was nearly beaten to death. Another woman - a Park Avenue dry cleaner - was murdered, and two other women were savagely assaulted. The police solved the crimes through a partial fingerprint at the site of the Park Avenue murder. It was matched with a fingerprint of a turnstile jumper - John Royster. Royster confessed to the crimes while in custody.
Another turnstile hurdler was apprehended. After running “David Livingstone’s name and fingerprints through a computer,” it was discovered he was wanted for the murder of Vernon Jolliff, a Manhattan bartender from Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. The deceased picked up the eventual turnstile hurdler “at a now defunct midtown gay bar called Gents.” Livingstone stabbed Jolliff in the latter’s New Jersey apartment.
Good old-fashioned police work led to the arrest of a crack smoking reverend. A miscreant made a deal with police that would have made President Clinton blush. He fingered Reverend Chester LaRue in exchange for a reduced charge. Reverend LaRue was arrested in the rectory with a crack pipe in hand while he was composing the Sunday sermon.
Another crime fighting strategy was targeting “drugs, guns and gangs as the main causes of violence.” Police concentrated in heavy drug and gang areas driving gangsters indoors, consequently eliminating outdoor shootouts.
The police developed a new approach known as COMPSTAT. “COMPSTAT’s twice weekly crime strategy meetings provide a venue in which strategies are developed and accountability for precinct and borough decision-making is insured. It furnishes an arena for testing the mettle of field commanders.” Statistics on crime locations, and time of occurrence are integrated with police deployment. “The specific needs of a precinct are addressed in terms of available resources, priorities, shared information, and the coordination of different police units. For the precincts, decentralized decision - making means more flexibility, improved anticipation and a faster response to community - specific problems.”
Criminologists have different theories on the reduction of crime. John Laub, a professor of criminology at Northwestern University, argues, “Fighting crime is like combating an epidemic... Acts of violence lead to further acts of violence, creating a contagion effect and a sudden jump in the crime rates that is hard to explain. This may be what happened when the advent of crack cocaine in the mid-1980’s produced a sudden, huge increase in violence.”
Professor James Q. Wilson of UCLA argues, “the adult homicide rate has been declining since 1981, and that the only reason the homicide rate rose in the late 1980’s was that juvenile violence tripled with the advent of crack. This form of cocaine brought youths into the drug trade and created a demand for automatic handguns. Many teenagers suddenly wanted a gun for safety or prestige. Unlike adult crime, teenage crime follows a fad-like pattern, where the changes come quickly. Just as teenagers’ taste in clothing are driven by trends, so was their jump into crack culture.” Children with guns act like cowboys and will fire their weapons at the slightest provocation.
Professors Laub and Wilson argue younger children are not lured into the drug culture “when they [see] the cost in death, hospitalization and prison time.”
Geoffrey Canada, the president of the Rheelen Centers for Children and Families in Harlem, detected the change in attitudes among teenagers. “The toll of death in their families, tougher police tactics and stepped-up efforts by neighborhood groups to combat violence have combined to reduce involvement in the drug trade... The drug market is still there, but it is more stable now, back in the hands of older people who treat it like a business.”
Drug habits have an impact on the murder rate. Marijuana and heroin use are rising, especially among young people. “While the use of those drugs is obviously troubling, it is rightly seen as less associated with a reckless, gun-toting lifestyle than crack.”
Medical technology also reduced the homicide rate. “The development of hospital trauma centers has saved more gunshot victims from death.”
Immigration patterns also have an impact on the reduction of crime in the city. “The new immigrants are mainly family-oriented, ambitious people with a disciplined approach to family life and work that stabilizes communities.”
Mayor Giuliani will insist police work reduced the crime rate, and the crackdown on quality of life crimes is the catalyst towards a relatively crime free society. Maintaining law and order will be the theme of the 1997 mayoral campaign.
A courageous opponent could claim that the mayor’s impact on crime reduction is negligible at best. “The number of killings and felonies actually began decreasing in 1991 and 1989 although at a much lesser rate.” In fact, “the largest drop in the murder rate occurred in 1994, and the administration’s new COMPSTAT strategies did not even begin until halfway through the first year.”
In addition, police response time to 911 calls increased from 7.7 minutes to 9.1 minutes during the Giuliani administration.
Moreover, currently 21% of the total police force is on foot patrol - a decrease from 25% before the mayor took office. Giuliani brags about hiring more police officers, but there are fewer cops on the streets than the previous administration.
Giuliani will respond in his usual understated manner. He will call his opponent an idiot, but will insist that New York is safer thanks to his inspired leadership.
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997
1996 was the year law and order was finally restored in New York City. Statistics reflected a decline in the seven major crime categories. Murders decreased 16.6%, rapes 4.4%, robberies 17.8%, assaults 14%, burglaries 18.2%, grand larcenies 10.5%, and auto thefts 17.3% from the previous year.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was giddy enough to proclaim “New York is now at a stage where we have never been safer at any time in the 1990’s, 1980’s, 1970’s. You have to go back to the 1960’s to find a comparable period of time.”
The murder rate fell to 983 - the lowest figure since 1968. This unofficial figure is from the police department. Sometime after Election Day, the medical examiner’s office and the Department of Health will release the official total to the public.
Mayor Giuliani was obsessed with keeping the number of murders under 1,000. He ordered extra patrols during the last days of 1996 to keep the homicide rate at its lowest in almost 30 years. Giuliani believes any number under 1,000 is historically significant, and he doesn’t want some statistician ruining his reelection campaign.
It is likely the number of homicides will exceed 1,000 because the police do not count people who died while in police custody, and people who died in traffic accidents. Some accidents are later ruled homicides after the district attorney’s office has gathered enough evidence for an indictment.
Predictably, the mayor is taking full credit, and will use the reduction in crime as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Giuliani ran as a law and order candidate four years ago. The city’s homicide rate peaked at 2,245 in 1990. New Yorkers were appalled. Children were murdered in their own homes as a result of random crossfire. Newspapers were tracking this deadly urban phenomenon with bold headlines.
Presently, the mayor can exclusively claim to have delivered a safer city (Safe in fact if not in perception). Once again, children are more likely to be murdered by a relative, or a by someone they know (Like “Delores Walker, a 10-month-old baby who died of a fractured skull and child abuse” during the final days of 1996.), instead of a stray bullet.
Former Police Commissioner William Bratton was the other person responsible for implementing successful crime fighting strategies, but unfortunately the commissioner resigned. Bratton could not work with an anal retentive, ego maniacal, control freak of a mayor.
The police concentrated on reducing crime by targeting quality of life crimes “on the belief that those who commit small crimes go on to commit big ones.” For example, a person pissing in a doorway, jumping a turnstile, or panhandling is more likely to rob an armored car full of money than a person who has mastered the art of using a toilet, who pays his fare, or works for his money.
This strategy stopped a one-man crime wave last June. A young pianist was nearly beaten to death. Another woman - a Park Avenue dry cleaner - was murdered, and two other women were savagely assaulted. The police solved the crimes through a partial fingerprint at the site of the Park Avenue murder. It was matched with a fingerprint of a turnstile jumper - John Royster. Royster confessed to the crimes while in custody.
Another turnstile hurdler was apprehended. After running “David Livingstone’s name and fingerprints through a computer,” it was discovered he was wanted for the murder of Vernon Jolliff, a Manhattan bartender from Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. The deceased picked up the eventual turnstile hurdler “at a now defunct midtown gay bar called Gents.” Livingstone stabbed Jolliff in the latter’s New Jersey apartment.
Good old-fashioned police work led to the arrest of a crack smoking reverend. A miscreant made a deal with police that would have made President Clinton blush. He fingered Reverend Chester LaRue in exchange for a reduced charge. Reverend LaRue was arrested in the rectory with a crack pipe in hand while he was composing the Sunday sermon.
Another crime fighting strategy was targeting “drugs, guns and gangs as the main causes of violence.” Police concentrated in heavy drug and gang areas driving gangsters indoors, consequently eliminating outdoor shootouts.
The police developed a new approach known as COMPSTAT. “COMPSTAT’s twice weekly crime strategy meetings provide a venue in which strategies are developed and accountability for precinct and borough decision-making is insured. It furnishes an arena for testing the mettle of field commanders.” Statistics on crime locations, and time of occurrence are integrated with police deployment. “The specific needs of a precinct are addressed in terms of available resources, priorities, shared information, and the coordination of different police units. For the precincts, decentralized decision - making means more flexibility, improved anticipation and a faster response to community - specific problems.”
Criminologists have different theories on the reduction of crime. John Laub, a professor of criminology at Northwestern University, argues, “Fighting crime is like combating an epidemic... Acts of violence lead to further acts of violence, creating a contagion effect and a sudden jump in the crime rates that is hard to explain. This may be what happened when the advent of crack cocaine in the mid-1980’s produced a sudden, huge increase in violence.”
Professor James Q. Wilson of UCLA argues, “the adult homicide rate has been declining since 1981, and that the only reason the homicide rate rose in the late 1980’s was that juvenile violence tripled with the advent of crack. This form of cocaine brought youths into the drug trade and created a demand for automatic handguns. Many teenagers suddenly wanted a gun for safety or prestige. Unlike adult crime, teenage crime follows a fad-like pattern, where the changes come quickly. Just as teenagers’ taste in clothing are driven by trends, so was their jump into crack culture.” Children with guns act like cowboys and will fire their weapons at the slightest provocation.
Professors Laub and Wilson argue younger children are not lured into the drug culture “when they [see] the cost in death, hospitalization and prison time.”
Geoffrey Canada, the president of the Rheelen Centers for Children and Families in Harlem, detected the change in attitudes among teenagers. “The toll of death in their families, tougher police tactics and stepped-up efforts by neighborhood groups to combat violence have combined to reduce involvement in the drug trade... The drug market is still there, but it is more stable now, back in the hands of older people who treat it like a business.”
Drug habits have an impact on the murder rate. Marijuana and heroin use are rising, especially among young people. “While the use of those drugs is obviously troubling, it is rightly seen as less associated with a reckless, gun-toting lifestyle than crack.”
Medical technology also reduced the homicide rate. “The development of hospital trauma centers has saved more gunshot victims from death.”
Immigration patterns also have an impact on the reduction of crime in the city. “The new immigrants are mainly family-oriented, ambitious people with a disciplined approach to family life and work that stabilizes communities.”
Mayor Giuliani will insist police work reduced the crime rate, and the crackdown on quality of life crimes is the catalyst towards a relatively crime free society. Maintaining law and order will be the theme of the 1997 mayoral campaign.
A courageous opponent could claim that the mayor’s impact on crime reduction is negligible at best. “The number of killings and felonies actually began decreasing in 1991 and 1989 although at a much lesser rate.” In fact, “the largest drop in the murder rate occurred in 1994, and the administration’s new COMPSTAT strategies did not even begin until halfway through the first year.”
In addition, police response time to 911 calls increased from 7.7 minutes to 9.1 minutes during the Giuliani administration.
Moreover, currently 21% of the total police force is on foot patrol - a decrease from 25% before the mayor took office. Giuliani brags about hiring more police officers, but there are fewer cops on the streets than the previous administration.
Giuliani will respond in his usual understated manner. He will call his opponent an idiot, but will insist that New York is safer thanks to his inspired leadership.
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997
Justice Denied
REPRINTED FROM APRIL, 1997.
White America breathed a collective sigh of relief after a jury of twelve unanimously concluded that O.J. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. A murderer, who was unanimously acquitted by a mostly black jury (some would say incompetent jury) in a criminal trial, was judged responsible for the deaths of two individuals in a civil trial – a less punitive forum. The verdict restored the concept of justice.
Simpson is guilty. The evidence gathered at the scene of the crime proves it. Forensic science can’t be wrong because science is neutral. The facts are irrefutable. Justice was restored.
Experts said throughout both Simpson trials that individuals in countless other cases were convicted and executed with less evidence. Bear in mind, there was a mountain of evidence proving Simpson was the murderer.
The murder scene pointed to Simpson. Christopher Darden described the night in his book In Contempt. Her killer stalked Nicole that night. The murderer wore a black ski cap, black clothes, gloves, and those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli rubber soled shoes. He stood outside her home, glared at her through a window as she lit some candles, and was incensed that she was getting ready for a romantic evening.
The stalker rang the bell, and waited for Nicole to come outside. He knew she had to come out because the killer knew the intercom was broken. Nicole looked out the window first. The killer saw her with a kitchen knife in hand. A small dog, an Akita, “came over and sniffed” the stalker. It had to be Simpson because the dog recognized him. A stranger would have caused a different reaction from the Akita.
Nicole answered “the door barefooted, in the skimpy black dress she’d worn to the recital.” The revealing dress was enough to set off a jealous maniac like Simpson.
The stalker punched Nicole in the face, then struck the back of her head with the knife handle. He held “her by the arm and drove the knife deep into her neck four times.”
Suddenly, someone opened the gate. The stalker turned around, and saw a shocked Ron Goldman standing at the gate. The murderer ran to him, “pulled him inside the gate, and lifted him to the left, where he was cornered by the fence and by the shrubs.” Ron put up a valiant struggle, but he was no match for a jealous maniac like Simpson.
After the stalker finished off Ron Goldman, he directed his attention back to Nicole. She was on the ground helpless. Her black dress was pulled up to her thighs. He “grabbed her by the hair, pulled her head back, put the knife to her throat, and drew it back with even more force, cutting all the way to her spine, damned near cutting her head off.”
Only a jealous ex-husband could have committed this crime. It was too obvious. Any reasonable person must conclude Simpson was the murderer.
Granted, the police had a mountain of evidence against Simpson, but this murder case was far from an airtight case. The police never found the murder weapon, the bloody clothes worn by the killer, or those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli shoes that left a trail of footprints at the murder scene. As Jaye Davidson said in the movie The Crying Game, “Details, baby, details.”
Who cares if Mark Fuhrman bragged about planting evidence on suspects in other cases? Who cares that he a history of framing minorities? Fuhrman said he didn’t plant the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate, therefore he didn’t do it. Regardless, there was enough evidence for a conviction.
White America is confident forensic science can determine the identity of a killer, and the exact manner a person was killed. That confidence is reserved for extraordinary cases only.
Presently, murderers are roaming free and unpunished because evidence is ignored. Perhaps it is because society has accepted these murderers as a necessary evil needed to maintain order in our lives. Maybe it is because the dead are unworthy of justice.
Anibal Carrasquillo died of a gunshot fired by a police officer on January 22, 1992. The Police Department “initially stated that Carrasquillo was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a gun stance.” But the New York City Medical Examiner contradicted the NYPD’s statement. Carrasquillo was shot in the back. Amazingly, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s failed to indict the police officer. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to charge the police officer with perjury.
On January 11, 1994, Shu’aib Abdul Latif died of gun shot wounds fired by police officers. Police raided an apartment building searching for illegal drugs. Latif, a seventeen-year-old black male, was hiding in the basement. He came out of hiding when he heard the voice of a neighbor. A police officer, who noticed Latif rising from a stooped position, shouted, “There he goes.” After the smoke cleared, five shots were fired. Latif was hit twice, and a police officer was hit once.
A grand jury was convened. On March 1995, the grand jury “concluded that no criminal charges should be brought against any officers involved in the incident.” Subsequently, the Brooklyn District Attorney defended the grand jury by arguing it had reached the conclusion “after a full review of all the evidence and careful deliberations.”
Furthermore, the Brooklyn District Attorney “gave a brief summary of the facts and circumstances of the shooting. Latif was shot after rising up suddenly and grabbing [a police officer’s] arm, that [the officer’s] gun went off accidentally as they fell during the struggle.” Afterwards, two more shots were fired; Latif got up, and tried to run away, but was shot twice. This became the official story.
However, some information was missing. The Medical Examiner’s report did not mention whether gunshot residue was found on Latif’s clothes - a critical forensic detail needed to verify the police department’s claim of a struggle. Also, the police failed to “test-fire the weapons to see at what range the gunshot residue would have disappeared” because the Medical Examiner’s report concluded the clothes had no residue.
It is interesting to note that Latif was struck with nyclad bullets. These bullets are encased with a “protective plastic coating to prevent lead contamination.” Latif was killed with an untraceable bullet. It was impossible to identify which officer killed the young man.
On March 24, 1995, Yong Xin Huang died of a gunshot wound fired by a police officer. The officer was answering a 911 call. A year later, a grand jury did not indict the police officer in the death of Huang, a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy. “The Brooklyn District Attorney issued a public statement immediately afterwards summarizing the facts of the case. The statement repeated the officer’s account of the incident which, the DA said, was consistent with the forensic evidence on both sides.”
The official story is that a police officer answered a 911 call describing “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that looked like a gun. Huang died after he struggled with the officer. Unfortunately, the nine-millimeter Glock semi automatic weapon went off accidentally.
Huang’s autopsy report contradicts the official story. He died of a gunshot wound at close range behind his left ear. In other words, the entrance wound was located in the back of his head. The gun was pointed behind his left ear. In addition, Huang was beaten on the top of his head, face and forehead. Eyewitnesses claim the police officer slammed “Huang’s face into a glass door at the side of the house.” Conceivably, he was beaten before the cop shot him. Otherwise, beating a dead boy was a case of overkill on the part of the officer.
Police officers are allowed to use a “minimum amount of force” to “effect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense.” Force is used when all other options are exhausted such as “verbal persuasion.” Police officers are allowed to use “unarmed physical force” to apprehend a suspect; “force using non-lethal weapons” such as pepper spray and mace; “force using impact weapons” such as police batons; and “deadly force only when an officer or another person’s life is in direct danger.”
Police officers are not allowed to use flashlights, radios, and handguns as impact weapons. If a police officer arrives on the scene, and other officers are using excessive force, then the arriving officer is supposed to intervene on behalf of the suspect. Failure to do so is against the law.
In addition, police officers are not allowed to use deadly force “to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person.” Cops are not allowed to fire warning shoots, use a gun in defense of property, to fire a moving vehicle “unless the occupants are using deadly force other than the vehicle itself,” that a “verbal warning should be given before firearms are discharged,” and that police officers are not allowed to hold a weapon “with the trigger raised in readiness for firing under any circumstances.” Keep in mind that “the primary duty of all police officers is to preserve human life.”
People have died in police custody, yet no one is punished. Perhaps it is because prosecutors are unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are countless cases of individuals injured or killed in police custody, but there is only one case since 1977 of a police officer convicted in the death of a citizen. The NYPD has a history of settling cases out of civil court where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead relies on a preponderance of guilt. Settling cases in civil court avoids scrutiny. Moreover, civil penalties do not include jail time.
Cops involved in the deaths of individuals are usually charged with criminally negligent homicide. Usually, it is a hard charge to prove because the district attorney must prove recklessness on the part of the officer. The police officer understood his actions were negligent, and that it could cause death, however continued to act in that manner with disregard for the safety of an individual. A prosecutor has to convince a judge that the officer knew he was acting with negligence, but didn’t care.
Judges acquit police officers because district attorneys can’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cops don’t have to face a jury trial. It is their privilege to allow a judge to render a decision on their case presumably because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is lesser with a judge than a jury.
A deep voice introduces each episode of the police drama “Law and Order” asserting that “in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.” Judges are not included in the equation, but they are equally important and significant component of the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors are either incompetent, or unwilling to indict and convict police officers. It’s been said that a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. The failure to indict, or convict police officers in these deaths are not due to incompetence.
Judges are reluctant to convict police officers. As in the case of Anthony Baez, evidence and eyewitness testimony is ignored. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acknowledged police officer Francis Livotti was a bad cop, and Livotti’s actions may have led to the death of Baez. However, the judge ignored the testimony of one police officer, and the medical evidence when he acquitted Livotti of criminally negligent homicide.
District attorneys, municipal judges and the police department are involved in an ugly partnership.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” To collude is to conspire, to plot.
Furthermore, a conflict of interest is “a real or seeming incompatibility between one’s private interests and one’s public or fiduciary duties.”
Prosecutors are partners with the police department in the criminal justice system. They depend on each other to maintain law and order; therefore any potential criminal matter involving a police office is a conflict of interest.
Police officers have a powerful role. They are the foundation of the criminal justice system. A criminal case against a suspect falls apart if the police work is weak. Prosecutors cannot indict suspects with weak evidence. Judges will not be able to sentence criminals to prison terms.
The NYPD is a brotherhood. Police officers are reluctant to testify against their fellow officers, and have a history of not cooperating with investigators involving criminal matters. The presence of peer pressure from within the police department cannot be ignored. Prosecutors and judges are extended members of this brotherhood.
In New York City, politics interferes with the judicial process. District attorneys and judges are elected officials therefore it is conceivable that unpopular decisions against the police department could impact future elections. This three-headed entity is incapable of policing itself.
The New York Police Department, the District Attorney’s of the five boroughs of New York City, and judges acted in concert after the fact in the deaths of Anibal Carrasquillo, Shu’aib Abdul Latif, Yong Xin Huang, et al.
The NYPD, the District Attorney’s office and municipal judges are in collusion. Prosecutors are implicated because they purposely ignored evidence during grand jury proceedings, and deliberately failed to convict police officers of criminally negligent homicide. Judges are involved because they ignore evidence, and acquit police officers of criminally negligent homicide. The NYPD deliberately obstructs investigations of criminal activity from within. The police department is incapable of investigating itself.
Victims of deadly police force are denied justice. Furthermore, their families do not have a forum to seek the truth.
To ensure justice, a new impartial system must be created. If an individual dies in police custody, then it becomes a federal matter. The Justice Department investigates the case; an attorney from the Justice Department argues the case in front of a grand jury; litigates the case, and a Federal Judge presides over the case. Politic, friendship, peer pressure and local loyalties are removed from the equation.
Otherwise, a second option is available. Eliminate the pretense. Have someone with authority come out and say that any death in police custody will not result in punishment. If you are apprehended by the police, and at some point die between arrest and arraignment, then the death will not be investigated. The police commissioner will just shrug in front of the cameras. “It was just one of those things,” he will remark, “like being struck by lightning.” The families of the deceased will have closure knowing there will not be a cover-up.
Death in police custody will be considered an inevitably like death and taxes. The Surgeon General’s office can create a warning label to be placed in plain view, on the bumper of every police car in the country affirming that, “entering this vehicle will be hazardous to your health, and may result in death. People of color will be more susceptible to death.”
Police department’s can create a new automated warning for fleeing suspects: “We are the police. Drop your weapons, and raise your hands. We have examined your intentions and have determined you will not get away with it. We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished. Your fingerprints and likeness will be added to our vast database. Resistance is futile.”
In the absence of justice, the people will have to settle for resignation. People will continue to die in police custody. There will be no answers, no explanation, no justice.
Reprinted from April, 1997
White America breathed a collective sigh of relief after a jury of twelve unanimously concluded that O.J. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. A murderer, who was unanimously acquitted by a mostly black jury (some would say incompetent jury) in a criminal trial, was judged responsible for the deaths of two individuals in a civil trial – a less punitive forum. The verdict restored the concept of justice.
Simpson is guilty. The evidence gathered at the scene of the crime proves it. Forensic science can’t be wrong because science is neutral. The facts are irrefutable. Justice was restored.
Experts said throughout both Simpson trials that individuals in countless other cases were convicted and executed with less evidence. Bear in mind, there was a mountain of evidence proving Simpson was the murderer.
The murder scene pointed to Simpson. Christopher Darden described the night in his book In Contempt. Her killer stalked Nicole that night. The murderer wore a black ski cap, black clothes, gloves, and those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli rubber soled shoes. He stood outside her home, glared at her through a window as she lit some candles, and was incensed that she was getting ready for a romantic evening.
The stalker rang the bell, and waited for Nicole to come outside. He knew she had to come out because the killer knew the intercom was broken. Nicole looked out the window first. The killer saw her with a kitchen knife in hand. A small dog, an Akita, “came over and sniffed” the stalker. It had to be Simpson because the dog recognized him. A stranger would have caused a different reaction from the Akita.
Nicole answered “the door barefooted, in the skimpy black dress she’d worn to the recital.” The revealing dress was enough to set off a jealous maniac like Simpson.
The stalker punched Nicole in the face, then struck the back of her head with the knife handle. He held “her by the arm and drove the knife deep into her neck four times.”
Suddenly, someone opened the gate. The stalker turned around, and saw a shocked Ron Goldman standing at the gate. The murderer ran to him, “pulled him inside the gate, and lifted him to the left, where he was cornered by the fence and by the shrubs.” Ron put up a valiant struggle, but he was no match for a jealous maniac like Simpson.
After the stalker finished off Ron Goldman, he directed his attention back to Nicole. She was on the ground helpless. Her black dress was pulled up to her thighs. He “grabbed her by the hair, pulled her head back, put the knife to her throat, and drew it back with even more force, cutting all the way to her spine, damned near cutting her head off.”
Only a jealous ex-husband could have committed this crime. It was too obvious. Any reasonable person must conclude Simpson was the murderer.
Granted, the police had a mountain of evidence against Simpson, but this murder case was far from an airtight case. The police never found the murder weapon, the bloody clothes worn by the killer, or those “ugly ass” Bruno Magli shoes that left a trail of footprints at the murder scene. As Jaye Davidson said in the movie The Crying Game, “Details, baby, details.”
Who cares if Mark Fuhrman bragged about planting evidence on suspects in other cases? Who cares that he a history of framing minorities? Fuhrman said he didn’t plant the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate, therefore he didn’t do it. Regardless, there was enough evidence for a conviction.
White America is confident forensic science can determine the identity of a killer, and the exact manner a person was killed. That confidence is reserved for extraordinary cases only.
Presently, murderers are roaming free and unpunished because evidence is ignored. Perhaps it is because society has accepted these murderers as a necessary evil needed to maintain order in our lives. Maybe it is because the dead are unworthy of justice.
Anibal Carrasquillo died of a gunshot fired by a police officer on January 22, 1992. The Police Department “initially stated that Carrasquillo was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a gun stance.” But the New York City Medical Examiner contradicted the NYPD’s statement. Carrasquillo was shot in the back. Amazingly, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s failed to indict the police officer. Furthermore, the prosecutor failed to charge the police officer with perjury.
On January 11, 1994, Shu’aib Abdul Latif died of gun shot wounds fired by police officers. Police raided an apartment building searching for illegal drugs. Latif, a seventeen-year-old black male, was hiding in the basement. He came out of hiding when he heard the voice of a neighbor. A police officer, who noticed Latif rising from a stooped position, shouted, “There he goes.” After the smoke cleared, five shots were fired. Latif was hit twice, and a police officer was hit once.
A grand jury was convened. On March 1995, the grand jury “concluded that no criminal charges should be brought against any officers involved in the incident.” Subsequently, the Brooklyn District Attorney defended the grand jury by arguing it had reached the conclusion “after a full review of all the evidence and careful deliberations.”
Furthermore, the Brooklyn District Attorney “gave a brief summary of the facts and circumstances of the shooting. Latif was shot after rising up suddenly and grabbing [a police officer’s] arm, that [the officer’s] gun went off accidentally as they fell during the struggle.” Afterwards, two more shots were fired; Latif got up, and tried to run away, but was shot twice. This became the official story.
However, some information was missing. The Medical Examiner’s report did not mention whether gunshot residue was found on Latif’s clothes - a critical forensic detail needed to verify the police department’s claim of a struggle. Also, the police failed to “test-fire the weapons to see at what range the gunshot residue would have disappeared” because the Medical Examiner’s report concluded the clothes had no residue.
It is interesting to note that Latif was struck with nyclad bullets. These bullets are encased with a “protective plastic coating to prevent lead contamination.” Latif was killed with an untraceable bullet. It was impossible to identify which officer killed the young man.
On March 24, 1995, Yong Xin Huang died of a gunshot wound fired by a police officer. The officer was answering a 911 call. A year later, a grand jury did not indict the police officer in the death of Huang, a sixteen-year-old Chinese boy. “The Brooklyn District Attorney issued a public statement immediately afterwards summarizing the facts of the case. The statement repeated the officer’s account of the incident which, the DA said, was consistent with the forensic evidence on both sides.”
The official story is that a police officer answered a 911 call describing “Asian males” ranging in the ages of 14 - 16 playing with something that looked like a gun. Huang died after he struggled with the officer. Unfortunately, the nine-millimeter Glock semi automatic weapon went off accidentally.
Huang’s autopsy report contradicts the official story. He died of a gunshot wound at close range behind his left ear. In other words, the entrance wound was located in the back of his head. The gun was pointed behind his left ear. In addition, Huang was beaten on the top of his head, face and forehead. Eyewitnesses claim the police officer slammed “Huang’s face into a glass door at the side of the house.” Conceivably, he was beaten before the cop shot him. Otherwise, beating a dead boy was a case of overkill on the part of the officer.
Police officers are allowed to use a “minimum amount of force” to “effect an arrest or prevent the commission of an offense.” Force is used when all other options are exhausted such as “verbal persuasion.” Police officers are allowed to use “unarmed physical force” to apprehend a suspect; “force using non-lethal weapons” such as pepper spray and mace; “force using impact weapons” such as police batons; and “deadly force only when an officer or another person’s life is in direct danger.”
Police officers are not allowed to use flashlights, radios, and handguns as impact weapons. If a police officer arrives on the scene, and other officers are using excessive force, then the arriving officer is supposed to intervene on behalf of the suspect. Failure to do so is against the law.
In addition, police officers are not allowed to use deadly force “to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person.” Cops are not allowed to fire warning shoots, use a gun in defense of property, to fire a moving vehicle “unless the occupants are using deadly force other than the vehicle itself,” that a “verbal warning should be given before firearms are discharged,” and that police officers are not allowed to hold a weapon “with the trigger raised in readiness for firing under any circumstances.” Keep in mind that “the primary duty of all police officers is to preserve human life.”
People have died in police custody, yet no one is punished. Perhaps it is because prosecutors are unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are countless cases of individuals injured or killed in police custody, but there is only one case since 1977 of a police officer convicted in the death of a citizen. The NYPD has a history of settling cases out of civil court where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead relies on a preponderance of guilt. Settling cases in civil court avoids scrutiny. Moreover, civil penalties do not include jail time.
Cops involved in the deaths of individuals are usually charged with criminally negligent homicide. Usually, it is a hard charge to prove because the district attorney must prove recklessness on the part of the officer. The police officer understood his actions were negligent, and that it could cause death, however continued to act in that manner with disregard for the safety of an individual. A prosecutor has to convince a judge that the officer knew he was acting with negligence, but didn’t care.
Judges acquit police officers because district attorneys can’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cops don’t have to face a jury trial. It is their privilege to allow a judge to render a decision on their case presumably because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is lesser with a judge than a jury.
A deep voice introduces each episode of the police drama “Law and Order” asserting that “in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.” Judges are not included in the equation, but they are equally important and significant component of the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors are either incompetent, or unwilling to indict and convict police officers. It’s been said that a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. The failure to indict, or convict police officers in these deaths are not due to incompetence.
Judges are reluctant to convict police officers. As in the case of Anthony Baez, evidence and eyewitness testimony is ignored. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Gerald Sheindlin acknowledged police officer Francis Livotti was a bad cop, and Livotti’s actions may have led to the death of Baez. However, the judge ignored the testimony of one police officer, and the medical evidence when he acquitted Livotti of criminally negligent homicide.
District attorneys, municipal judges and the police department are involved in an ugly partnership.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.” To collude is to conspire, to plot.
Furthermore, a conflict of interest is “a real or seeming incompatibility between one’s private interests and one’s public or fiduciary duties.”
Prosecutors are partners with the police department in the criminal justice system. They depend on each other to maintain law and order; therefore any potential criminal matter involving a police office is a conflict of interest.
Police officers have a powerful role. They are the foundation of the criminal justice system. A criminal case against a suspect falls apart if the police work is weak. Prosecutors cannot indict suspects with weak evidence. Judges will not be able to sentence criminals to prison terms.
The NYPD is a brotherhood. Police officers are reluctant to testify against their fellow officers, and have a history of not cooperating with investigators involving criminal matters. The presence of peer pressure from within the police department cannot be ignored. Prosecutors and judges are extended members of this brotherhood.
In New York City, politics interferes with the judicial process. District attorneys and judges are elected officials therefore it is conceivable that unpopular decisions against the police department could impact future elections. This three-headed entity is incapable of policing itself.
The New York Police Department, the District Attorney’s of the five boroughs of New York City, and judges acted in concert after the fact in the deaths of Anibal Carrasquillo, Shu’aib Abdul Latif, Yong Xin Huang, et al.
The NYPD, the District Attorney’s office and municipal judges are in collusion. Prosecutors are implicated because they purposely ignored evidence during grand jury proceedings, and deliberately failed to convict police officers of criminally negligent homicide. Judges are involved because they ignore evidence, and acquit police officers of criminally negligent homicide. The NYPD deliberately obstructs investigations of criminal activity from within. The police department is incapable of investigating itself.
Victims of deadly police force are denied justice. Furthermore, their families do not have a forum to seek the truth.
To ensure justice, a new impartial system must be created. If an individual dies in police custody, then it becomes a federal matter. The Justice Department investigates the case; an attorney from the Justice Department argues the case in front of a grand jury; litigates the case, and a Federal Judge presides over the case. Politic, friendship, peer pressure and local loyalties are removed from the equation.
Otherwise, a second option is available. Eliminate the pretense. Have someone with authority come out and say that any death in police custody will not result in punishment. If you are apprehended by the police, and at some point die between arrest and arraignment, then the death will not be investigated. The police commissioner will just shrug in front of the cameras. “It was just one of those things,” he will remark, “like being struck by lightning.” The families of the deceased will have closure knowing there will not be a cover-up.
Death in police custody will be considered an inevitably like death and taxes. The Surgeon General’s office can create a warning label to be placed in plain view, on the bumper of every police car in the country affirming that, “entering this vehicle will be hazardous to your health, and may result in death. People of color will be more susceptible to death.”
Police department’s can create a new automated warning for fleeing suspects: “We are the police. Drop your weapons, and raise your hands. We have examined your intentions and have determined you will not get away with it. We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished. Your fingerprints and likeness will be added to our vast database. Resistance is futile.”
In the absence of justice, the people will have to settle for resignation. People will continue to die in police custody. There will be no answers, no explanation, no justice.
Reprinted from April, 1997
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Suicide by Execution Post Script
On May 3rd 2006, the jury of nine men and three women was unable to unanimously impose the death penalty on Zacarias Moussaoui, therefore the only man brought to trial involving the terrorist attacks on the United States will spend the rest of his life in jail – without the possibility of parole.
After seven days of deliberations, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui had limited knowledge of the plot to crash four airplanes into landmarks located in the United States. In addition, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui’s involvement in the plot was minor.
Zacarias Moussaoui refused to stand and sat slouched in his chair as the verdict was announced in the courtroom. However, Moussaoui shouted, “America, you lost… I won,” as he was escorted from the courtroom.
After seven days of deliberations, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui had limited knowledge of the plot to crash four airplanes into landmarks located in the United States. In addition, three jurors believed Zacarias Moussaoui’s involvement in the plot was minor.
Zacarias Moussaoui refused to stand and sat slouched in his chair as the verdict was announced in the courtroom. However, Moussaoui shouted, “America, you lost… I won,” as he was escorted from the courtroom.
Suicide by Execution
The trial of the alleged “twentieth hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui is in the penalty phase, and the jury of nine men and three women are currently deliberating his fate. To be executed, the jury of twelve must vote unanimously. Otherwise, Judge Leonie M. Brinkma must, by law, impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
On April 22, 2005, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six conspiracy charges in connection with the tragic and horrible events on September 11th. The charges listed in the indictment are: Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, Conspiracy to destroy aircraft, Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, Conspiracy to murder United States employees, and Conspiracy to destroy property.
The twelve jurors voted unanimously that Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty because they believed Zacarias Moussaoui “willfully concealed his knowledge of Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes” into pre-selected targets in the United States, thus “allowing the plot to go forward” on September 11th.
Raised a Catholic; belief in the sanctity of life from conception to unassisted and natural death is a core value – even for criminals despicable enough to plan and murder innocent individuals on a grand scale. Moreover, I find state sponsored executions appalling.
However, arguing for a life sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui is a daunting task. Jurors may feel pressured into imposing the death penalty on Zacarias Moussaoui. Gerald Zerkin acknowledged that fact when he “told the jurors they would have to show courage.”
September 11th is the most traumatic event in the recent history of the United States. Naturally, a jury of twelve would want to hold someone responsible for the tragic loss of life on that infamous day. It is probably impossible to sentence anyone connected with the September 11th attacks to a life sentence – even without the possibility of parole. As Americans, we may feel entitled to our pound of flesh.
Jurors considering the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui must consider a “series of complicated factors” such as did Zacarias Moussaoui intend to cause “a grave risk of death to more than one person.”
Zacarias Moussaoui’s federal public defender Gerald T. Zerkin argued in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Zerkin used the usual “sentence the defendant to life in prison instead of the death penalty” arguments such as the lousy childhood defense (Zacarias Moussaoui “unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family resulted in [Zacarias Moussaoui] being placed in orphanages”), race (Zacarias Moussaoui, the disadvantaged minority living in France), and the defendant’s mental condition (Zacarias Moussaoui is crazy). Zacarias Moussaoui’s antics during the trial will certainly be a factor in any future appeals. However, another defense strategy was introduced during the penalty phase: the religion of Islam.
Before continuing, it is important to make the following suppositions: Zacarias Moussaoui is what he says he is, the twentieth hijacker who conspired with nineteen others to crash four planes into landmarks in the United States. Secondly and more importantly, Zacarias Moussaoui is of sound mind.
Mr. Zerkin argued that Zacarias Moussaoui wants to become a martyr, and the death penalty will achieve that goal. He told the jury, “he came to America to die, and you are his last chance.”
There are two reasons that should be considered in sentencing Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
First, martyrdom is a powerful concept in the religion of Islam, as is fighting in the cause of God. Such is stated in the Holy Quran, “Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain, - verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; - A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards.”(3:195)
In addition, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (9:111)
Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad tried to convert the pagan Arabs to monotheism. However, the pagans rejected Muhammad’s call to Islam, and the Arab prophet was forced to flee from Mecca to Medina. Moreover, the pagan Arabs continued to perceive Islam as a threat to their way of life, and engaged the Muslim minority in battle. The above revelations served as an exhortation to fight in the cause of God, and any Muslim who died in battle was comforted in the knowledge that he died fighting in the cause of God, and God would reward the deceased with paradise.
Regarding martyrdom, Mohammad was quoted as saying “who asks martyrdom with sincerity will be ranked by [God] among the martyrs even if he dies on his bed.
Once, a man approached Mohammad, and declared, “I testify that there is no true god except Allah, and you are his slave and messenger.” Later on the man went into battle and died. Mohammad said, “He has done little, but shall be given a great reward.”
Zacarias Moussaoui believes he is fighting for a good cause, fighting for God. The fact he was caught before finalizing his mission does not change how he perceives himself. In his mind, the only way to achieve martyrdom is to be executed by the “enemies of God.”
If sentenced to death, it is important to imagine the state of mind of Zacarias Moussaoui as he is about to be executed for his crimes. Do you believe he will be anxious, will feel remorse, will feel regret, will confess his sins, pray for forgiveness, and find comfort through his confession? Or will Zacarias Moussaoui find comfort in the fact that God’s enemies will execute him?
In his mind, Zacarias Moussaoui is not being punished for a crime, but rewarded for fighting in a greater cause – for God. His attitude probably will not be any different than the American patriot Nathan Hale’s who famously said before his execution, “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Zacarias Moussaoui will have peace of mind, not because he acknowledged his role in the horrific crime of September 11th and has repented and is at peace because of his repentance. He will die at peace with himself because he was a loyal soldier in God’s army who wanted to engage “The Great Satan” in battle. Before his death, he will probably utter “La Ilaha Illallah” – There is no deity except Allah – a statement Muslims are instructed to say before their death. Moussaoui will be comforted with these words.
As a country, will we find closure executing someone will look forward to his execution, and will be at peace with himself and with God when he dies? The answer is no.
The second reason for not executing Zacarias Moussaoui will be drawn from personal experiences. From my early teens until my late thirties, I have contemplated committing suicide. It must be baffling and contradictory for someone to believe in the absolute sanctity of life and suicide at the same time. Truthfully, the decision to end my own life was always agonizing.
As previously mentioned, suicide became an option during my early teens, after encountering a near death experience. For the sake of brevity, I will not detail the events leading to the experience, but instead will describe the experience briefly.
I was unconscious, after falling face down on a pavement. While unconscious, I had a “dream” in which I was walking down a dark, damp tunnel towards a bright light. I recall the moisture on the walls of the tunnel. As I got closer, the light became brighter and brighter. Suddenly, I heard a voice commanding me not to continue. “Its not your time yet,” said the voice. While I was in this state of unconsciousness, I felt completely at peace. It is a feeling I have yet to experience in my life. Eventually, I regained consciousness, with a rather large bump on the right side of my head.
During periods of turmoil, stress, rage, desperation and anxiety I longed for that feeling of peace, and I thought the only way of achieving that sense of peace was through death. Life is complicated. Life is not neatly arranged or orderly. Death was an end to the struggle, and an escape from the daily grind, the never-ending challenges faced in a lifetime, the sense that life was never going to get better, and will only get worse. This is a perspective on death most people could not comprehend, but dare say people who have contemplated suicide do understand.
Not only will Zacarias Moussaoui escape this life upon his execution, but he will be entering the next life with peace of mind. According to our Christian religious belief system, he will be punished in the afterlife for the “crimes” he committed. However, it is his state of mind we should be considering – not our Christian belief system.
Death is not a punishment for Zacarias Moussaoui. It is an escape from this life. Executing Zacarias Moussaoui will spare him the suffering of the daily grind that will be prison life.
We must consider the deprivation, the waste, the agony, and the harshness a long prison sentence imposes on an individual’s mind. A life sentence without the possibility of parole will be agonizing. A long life in a small prison cell is a far greater punishment than a needle delivering poison into the right arm of Zacarias Moussaoui.
In conclusion, Zacarias Moussaoui is no different than the distraught man who is afraid to commit suicide, yet waves a gun at a police officer hoping the latter will put the former out of his misery.
On April 22, 2005, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six conspiracy charges in connection with the tragic and horrible events on September 11th. The charges listed in the indictment are: Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, Conspiracy to destroy aircraft, Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, Conspiracy to murder United States employees, and Conspiracy to destroy property.
The twelve jurors voted unanimously that Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty because they believed Zacarias Moussaoui “willfully concealed his knowledge of Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes” into pre-selected targets in the United States, thus “allowing the plot to go forward” on September 11th.
Raised a Catholic; belief in the sanctity of life from conception to unassisted and natural death is a core value – even for criminals despicable enough to plan and murder innocent individuals on a grand scale. Moreover, I find state sponsored executions appalling.
However, arguing for a life sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui is a daunting task. Jurors may feel pressured into imposing the death penalty on Zacarias Moussaoui. Gerald Zerkin acknowledged that fact when he “told the jurors they would have to show courage.”
September 11th is the most traumatic event in the recent history of the United States. Naturally, a jury of twelve would want to hold someone responsible for the tragic loss of life on that infamous day. It is probably impossible to sentence anyone connected with the September 11th attacks to a life sentence – even without the possibility of parole. As Americans, we may feel entitled to our pound of flesh.
Jurors considering the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui must consider a “series of complicated factors” such as did Zacarias Moussaoui intend to cause “a grave risk of death to more than one person.”
Zacarias Moussaoui’s federal public defender Gerald T. Zerkin argued in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Zerkin used the usual “sentence the defendant to life in prison instead of the death penalty” arguments such as the lousy childhood defense (Zacarias Moussaoui “unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family resulted in [Zacarias Moussaoui] being placed in orphanages”), race (Zacarias Moussaoui, the disadvantaged minority living in France), and the defendant’s mental condition (Zacarias Moussaoui is crazy). Zacarias Moussaoui’s antics during the trial will certainly be a factor in any future appeals. However, another defense strategy was introduced during the penalty phase: the religion of Islam.
Before continuing, it is important to make the following suppositions: Zacarias Moussaoui is what he says he is, the twentieth hijacker who conspired with nineteen others to crash four planes into landmarks in the United States. Secondly and more importantly, Zacarias Moussaoui is of sound mind.
Mr. Zerkin argued that Zacarias Moussaoui wants to become a martyr, and the death penalty will achieve that goal. He told the jury, “he came to America to die, and you are his last chance.”
There are two reasons that should be considered in sentencing Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
First, martyrdom is a powerful concept in the religion of Islam, as is fighting in the cause of God. Such is stated in the Holy Quran, “Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain, - verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; - A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards.”(3:195)
In addition, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (9:111)
Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad tried to convert the pagan Arabs to monotheism. However, the pagans rejected Muhammad’s call to Islam, and the Arab prophet was forced to flee from Mecca to Medina. Moreover, the pagan Arabs continued to perceive Islam as a threat to their way of life, and engaged the Muslim minority in battle. The above revelations served as an exhortation to fight in the cause of God, and any Muslim who died in battle was comforted in the knowledge that he died fighting in the cause of God, and God would reward the deceased with paradise.
Regarding martyrdom, Mohammad was quoted as saying “who asks martyrdom with sincerity will be ranked by [God] among the martyrs even if he dies on his bed.
Once, a man approached Mohammad, and declared, “I testify that there is no true god except Allah, and you are his slave and messenger.” Later on the man went into battle and died. Mohammad said, “He has done little, but shall be given a great reward.”
Zacarias Moussaoui believes he is fighting for a good cause, fighting for God. The fact he was caught before finalizing his mission does not change how he perceives himself. In his mind, the only way to achieve martyrdom is to be executed by the “enemies of God.”
If sentenced to death, it is important to imagine the state of mind of Zacarias Moussaoui as he is about to be executed for his crimes. Do you believe he will be anxious, will feel remorse, will feel regret, will confess his sins, pray for forgiveness, and find comfort through his confession? Or will Zacarias Moussaoui find comfort in the fact that God’s enemies will execute him?
In his mind, Zacarias Moussaoui is not being punished for a crime, but rewarded for fighting in a greater cause – for God. His attitude probably will not be any different than the American patriot Nathan Hale’s who famously said before his execution, “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Zacarias Moussaoui will have peace of mind, not because he acknowledged his role in the horrific crime of September 11th and has repented and is at peace because of his repentance. He will die at peace with himself because he was a loyal soldier in God’s army who wanted to engage “The Great Satan” in battle. Before his death, he will probably utter “La Ilaha Illallah” – There is no deity except Allah – a statement Muslims are instructed to say before their death. Moussaoui will be comforted with these words.
As a country, will we find closure executing someone will look forward to his execution, and will be at peace with himself and with God when he dies? The answer is no.
The second reason for not executing Zacarias Moussaoui will be drawn from personal experiences. From my early teens until my late thirties, I have contemplated committing suicide. It must be baffling and contradictory for someone to believe in the absolute sanctity of life and suicide at the same time. Truthfully, the decision to end my own life was always agonizing.
As previously mentioned, suicide became an option during my early teens, after encountering a near death experience. For the sake of brevity, I will not detail the events leading to the experience, but instead will describe the experience briefly.
I was unconscious, after falling face down on a pavement. While unconscious, I had a “dream” in which I was walking down a dark, damp tunnel towards a bright light. I recall the moisture on the walls of the tunnel. As I got closer, the light became brighter and brighter. Suddenly, I heard a voice commanding me not to continue. “Its not your time yet,” said the voice. While I was in this state of unconsciousness, I felt completely at peace. It is a feeling I have yet to experience in my life. Eventually, I regained consciousness, with a rather large bump on the right side of my head.
During periods of turmoil, stress, rage, desperation and anxiety I longed for that feeling of peace, and I thought the only way of achieving that sense of peace was through death. Life is complicated. Life is not neatly arranged or orderly. Death was an end to the struggle, and an escape from the daily grind, the never-ending challenges faced in a lifetime, the sense that life was never going to get better, and will only get worse. This is a perspective on death most people could not comprehend, but dare say people who have contemplated suicide do understand.
Not only will Zacarias Moussaoui escape this life upon his execution, but he will be entering the next life with peace of mind. According to our Christian religious belief system, he will be punished in the afterlife for the “crimes” he committed. However, it is his state of mind we should be considering – not our Christian belief system.
Death is not a punishment for Zacarias Moussaoui. It is an escape from this life. Executing Zacarias Moussaoui will spare him the suffering of the daily grind that will be prison life.
We must consider the deprivation, the waste, the agony, and the harshness a long prison sentence imposes on an individual’s mind. A life sentence without the possibility of parole will be agonizing. A long life in a small prison cell is a far greater punishment than a needle delivering poison into the right arm of Zacarias Moussaoui.
In conclusion, Zacarias Moussaoui is no different than the distraught man who is afraid to commit suicide, yet waves a gun at a police officer hoping the latter will put the former out of his misery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
