Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
I still say they were lucky this didn't turn into a true tragedy.
Some weeks back, I wrote this:
So, your 12 year old daughter is in your yard. Three men suddenly pop out of a van on the street nearby, come onto your property, grab your daughter (and hit her when she resists their abduction), and attempt to make off with her as she cries "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." What would be your natural reaction?
Yeah, though I don't have kids, that would be my reaction too. People would get hurt.
I was writing about the case of Dymond Milburn in Galveston, who in 2006 was arrested under conditions which can only be described as a complete debacle: after receiving a complaint of three white women soliciting and two men dealing drugs, three police officers found 12 year old Dymond (who is black) out in her yard blocks away from the location of the complaint. As I quoted previously:
It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn's home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.
As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."
Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.
As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.
Well, the police, once they realized their mistake, didn't just apologize and see that the girl received medical attention. Nope. They filed charges against her for felony assault, claiming that she had struck one of them in the face. Last week, that case went to trial.
Now, when I first wrote about this, there were some questions about whether there was more to the story or what. I can't say. But the trial ended in a mistrial, with 5 of the six jurors wanting to acquit the girl. And significantly, the DA decided that the county would not seek a retrial:
After eight hours of deliberation, a jury of three men and three women told Judge Roy Quintanilla they were hopelessly deadlocked in the case charging Dymond L. Milburn, now 15, in the Aug. 22, 2006, assault of Galveston police officer David Roark.
Quintanilla declared a mistrial in the case, and Galveston County Criminal District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk said that, based on discussions with jurors after trial, the state won’t prosecute the case again.
* * *
Sistrunk said prosecutors gave jurors every piece of evidence available, and that the state couldn’t ask for more from the jury.
“The facts of this case aren’t going to change for either side in a subsequent trial with another jury,” Sistrunk said.
“And based on what this jury had to say, there is no reason to expect that the outcome would be any different than another split decision.”
That, right there, is an admission that the cops screwed up so badly in this case that there's no way the charges will stick. Expect to see a large settlement in the federal lawsuit the family has filed in the matter before it goes to trial later this year.
One last note. I said this in the comments on that earlier post:
I think this is what really pisses me off. There have just been so many instances of police para-military abuse of our civil rights that it is relatively easy to believe that these cops actually did what was reported.
As I have said before, the trade-off for handing police the authority to use deadly force and to deprive people of their freedom means that they *must* be held to account for when they abuse that power. They are our servants, not our superiors. But all too often thanks to the misguided "War on Drugs" and the new "War on Terror" police are allowed greater latitude without increased accountability. And that is very dangerous, both in terms of specific cases like this and in the general health of our republic.
Well, this is a good outcome, and I'm glad to see that the system worked to be self-correcting, at least to the extent that Dymond was not found guilty of resisting arrest. And I still say that it was extremely fortunate that this didn't turn into a true tragedy, with the loss of life due to the unconscionable actions of the police.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Little less prison, little more treatment
Wonder what the cops side of the story was? It obviously wasn't anywhere near credible enough to get a conviction. Makes you wish we didn't live in so much of a police state-we spend untold billions of dollars locking millions of people up to protect them from their own bad choices about using drugs and having sex for money (usually to pay for drugs). That money could be spent far more effectively providing treatment for drug addictions, imho.
Damn, I agree!
I think our "justice" system is extraordinarily mean. The pettiness and nastiness of it diminishes us all.
These cops need to do jail time
That, right there, is an admission that the cops screwed up so badly in this case that there's no way the charges will stick. Expect to see a large settlement in the federal lawsuit the family has filed in the matter before it goes to trial later this year.
I have no problem with the family getting some compensation, but what good does a large settlement do? It's just taxpayer money after all, so the people of that community end up paying for it in the end? What would have a much better effect would be if the people responsible for this travesty were actually made to pay for it. I'm not talking money here. I'm talking jail time. If people in power are allowed to get away with crap like this without any fears of incarceration then they will merely continue to do these types of things.
I understand that police work is inherently dangerous. But people who decide to go into that line of work know that as well and they have decided that they are willing to put themselves into dangerous situations and that they may get hurt or even killed. That's a part of the job description. But they still have a duty to protect us and presume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Rather, it seems that they would much rather shoot first and ask questions later. So they'll go ahead and beat the crap out of a young girl because she could be dangerous. You know what? Every person you encounter could be dangerous because you picked a dangerous line of work. If you are uncomfortable with that fact and are unable to resist your urges to use unwarranted force then you should probably find a new career.
Police brutality needs to be dealt with just like any other crime, throw them in jail. Maybe then they will be a little more careful about when they need to use force.
large settlement
To Bruce,
I agree that the better outcome would be to punish the cops instead of the taxpayers.
However, given that the cops are more likely to get promotions than even a slap on the wrist what is a lowly citizen (non government employee) to do? The ONLY recourse an abused civilian has is to sue for money. (Granted, in one in 100,000 of these abuse cases the feds might get interested. re: They wouldn't even get involved in the Nifong mess) Considering 1/2 of the jurors, which are the local taxpayers, apparently wanted to convict the child I won't worry that the money ultimatum is payed by them.
Not half of the jurors.
Only 1 of the 6 jurors didn't want to acquit the girl.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
It's a good outcome
But the jury deadlocked? I can't imagine why they wouldn't have fully acquitted.
I see that as a little bit of a travesty.
Galveston Police beat 12 year old child
Hi, there were many uniformed officers in the courtroom staring down the jury. People in Galveston are afraid of the police. I think it's quite likely one of the jurors was intimidated.
Jury deadlock
I would imagine it worked out that way because the District Attorney spun it to make the girl look like a danger to good, honest police officers, and idiots on the jury believed him.
Consider that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have huge audiences -- some people will believe anything an authority figure says, regardless of whether or not it's in the same universe as truth.
You are right on the money.
You are right on the money. Add to the numbers of people you mentioned above the ones whom actually believe and are influenced by the views of PROFESSIONAL buffoons and clowns like Al Franken and Michael Moor and it’s no wonder its said that one can never guess which way a jury will vote.
Al and Mike
Michael Moore is a bright, goodhearted person, a necessary gadfly who gets most of it right and only occasionally goes over the top. Al Franken is smart as hell, and has a cool sense of humor.
Note that both of those guys aim their wit at corporations and government officials. Both of them are good Americans, in my opinion.
Bill O'Reilly is a truly nasty human being, a pompous bully and a loud-mouthed coward who thinks nothing of making personal attacks against average people. Rush is pretty much the same, and a drug addict to boot. Both of them are pro-torture, and anti- just about everything I think of when I think of American ideals.
Rush Limbaugh has said outright -- on the air before an audience of millions -- that he hopes our president FAILS to solve critical economic and political problems that affect every one of us. To put it bluntly, he's a cheap hateful fuck, an embarrassment to Freedom of Speech.
Rush and Bill also have legions of non-thinking followers who listen to them every day ... which is not the case with either Moore or Franken.
The two sets are nowhere near equivalent.
If you're going to quote, quote it right
Sheesh - whatta shallow misquote.
I was listening when he said it. And clarified it. And re-clarified it again.
He does not want Obama to fail to solve the problems. His position is that Obama's 'solutions' will make things worse, not better, and in that he hopes Obama fails in doing THAT.
It's simple -- If you believe Mr. Obama's stated policies are right, you want him to succeed. But if you believe them to be wrong, Why would you want him to succeed in adopting what you to believe will make things worse?
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
kid or teen
One thing that I wonder though: would the jury have been split that way if the trial occurred while she was still 12? Admittedly kids can hit pretty hard, but I really can't see a jury not taking pity on a kid unless they have underlying racial biases.
Honestly, the whole thing sounds crooked.