Once again we have a case of police using unnecessary force on a driver of color. He is now suing the police department.
Army Lt. Caron Nazario filed suit against police officers Joe Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker last month, and video from the officers’ body cameras and Nazario’s cellphone has gone viral in recent days.
Nazario seeks $1 million plus punitive damages from the officers, saying they violated his constitutional rights.
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said the videos raise the question of whether the officers overreacted and used more force than necessary.
The videos “make it seem that Lt. Nazario has a persuasive case,” Tobias told USA TODAY.
The officers said in the police report that they stopped Nazario’s Chevrolet Tahoe because it didn’t have a rear license plate, although the report acknowledges the officers later noticed a temporary plate displayed in the back window.
The fact the Nazario was released at the scene and not charged and that the two police officers “threatened to destroy the lieutenant’s military career with “baseless” criminal charges if he reported them for misconduct” show that the police realized that they had gone too far.
You can see for yourself.
I am amazed the Nazario was able to speak so calmly while being threatened and humiliated by people pointing guns at his face.
I keep posting these because I feel that these cases must be widely publicized to build the case that the police in the US need serious reform and curtailment of their powers. We simply should not let these things pass and become seen as normal.
Jesus christ, USA has a police force straight out of a movie about some banana republic ruled by a despot. Spray, tasers and the like are supposed to be deployed when someone is unruly, struggling against control or similar, but these guys use it whenever they want to dominate someone. And the willingness to draw guns at the drop of a hat, what the fuck.
The cops were “fired” which means that the police unions will find them a job travestying justice in some other jurisdiction.
@1, “USA has a police force straight out of a movie about some banana republic ruled by a despot.”
Pedantic correction: Police forces are at a local level in the States city / town, county (sheriff), state (e.g., highway patrol, etc.). National “police” forces are restrained (e.g., FBI either because the villians / crimes are interstate (and some other reasons)), National Parks “police” for the national parks, and so on. There is no “national” police force in the sense perhaps implied; i.e., nothing like the Irish Garda Síochána na hÉireann or other examples. (The US Marshalls are perhaps the closest I can think of, but they are still largely restrained.)
This probably contributes to the problem, as it means the resources and standards for training vary considerably. Indeed, in many locales, the county sheriff is elected (as are some judges), more-than-less throwing the entire idea of competent professionalism out the window. Then made all the worse by being “overseen” by a mixture of themselves and the local politicians / lawyers. (Then there’s the police unions.) One result is concepts such as deescalation — successfully used in some other countries — is rarely considered, understood, or taken seriously. (I suspect the concept of “policing by consent” is also largely absent.)
The programme(s?) which unload military surplus kit onto localised forces without adequate training for either the military kit, or for simply doing their job, is not a help. Then there is the problem of “qualified immunity”, a dubious legal oddity which protects police (and often other government offices) from suites / prosecution in an ever-widening set of circumstances, which an ever-narrowing chance of challenging the awarding of “qualified immunity”.
There has been some movement on “qualified immunity”, with New Mexico recently banning it (in its entirety(?) for all governmental officials); Colorado and New York City have previously banned(? limited?) “qualified immunity”, but only for the police.
blf,
How much is professionalism worth when the profession is steeped in racism? I’ve been quite happy to see some prosecutors replaced by advocates of reform by voters.
@4, It’s arguably steeped in racism — and authoritarianism — because the entrance requirements are low to non-existent. (Police unions, again, in part.) This cannot be the only reason, of course; e.g., the British(? London Met?) police were famously determined to be “institutionally racist” by the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Yet, as a whole, they are more professional than the nazi yahoos infesting policing throughout the States. (Loads of problems of their own, very definitely including and not limited to racism, but — as an example — calling for an armed response unit over a minor traffic stop is not one of them.)
Please stop repeating the lie about Colorado. They did no such thing. It was advertised in the news as such, but the law did no such thing. If anything, it provided slightly larger protections for individual officers.
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2020a_217_signed.pdf
So, now instead of a judge deciding whether the individual cop must pay, now it’s the cop’s boss, another cop, who decides whether the individual cop must pay. Brilliant!
There are guns being pointed at this man who knows full well that if his hands stop being visible, he could well die. Of course he’s going to want to keep his hands in full view and not open the door or take off his seatbelt. If the cops stop killing so many people, maybe they’ll be quicker to comply.
ACAB.
blf,
I’m also referring to your comment about electing prosecutors and judges. I have no faith in appointed judges and prosecutors. They are just as bad.
A cop’s employer can also mean the City
More cities are firing cops quickly
Mano,
That’s what leader do.
Jeff