California Cop Convicted For Fatally Shooting Unarmed Mentally Disturbed Man 9 Times…

The case has been made repeatedly that American cops have no obligation to protect the public, black or white; they are mere tools of the corporate power structure to protect property and extract revenue for states and municipalities.
It is hard to argue against this point of view when we are getting a clearer look at how departments and individual officers operate.
Additionally, a Federal court has ruled that their job is not to protect the public.

Following Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shoot­ing in Parkland, Florida, some stu­dents claimed local gov­ern­ment offi­cials were at fault for fail­ing to pro­tect stu­dents. The stu­dents filed suit, nam­ing six defen­dants, includ­ing the Broward school dis­trict and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and cam­pus mon­i­tor Andrew Medina. However a fed­er­al judge ruled that the gov­ern­ment agen­cies ” had no con­sti­tu­tion­al duty to pro­tect stu­dents who were not in custody.”

Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a gen­er­al duty upon police offi­cers or oth­er gov­ern­men­tal offi­cials to pro­tect indi­vid­ual per­sons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a pro­fes­sor and asso­ciate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch some­one attack you, refuse to inter­vene and not vio­late the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeat­ed­ly held that the gov­ern­ment has only a duty to pro­tect per­sons who are “in cus­tody,” he point­ed out.

Journalist Ryan McMaken in a piece for (Misesinstitue) wrote; “This lat­est deci­sion adds to a grow­ing body of case law estab­lish­ing that gov­ern­ment agen­cies — includ­ing police agen­cies — have no duty to pro­tect cit­i­zens in general:
This memo will even­tu­al­ly find its way into the heads of all Americans in time, some ear­li­er than oth­ers. In the mean­time, some police offi­cers con­tin­ue to act on their bias­es as they place their own free­doms in the most shock­ing instances that they are held account­able to demon­strate that they are cor­po­rate secu­ri­ty guards. ( mikebeckles)

SAN FRANCISCO 

A California police offi­cer has been con­vict­ed of assault with a firearm in the 2018 fatal shoot­ing of an unarmed men­tal­ly ill man in a wealthy San Francisco sub­urb. A jury in Contra Costa County agreed Tuesday that Officer Andrew Hall was guilty of the charge in the death of 33-year-old Laudemer Arboleda, an unarmed Filipino man who was slow­ly dri­ving away from police when Hall shot him nine times. The jury dead­locked on a sec­ond count of vol­un­tary manslaugh­ter. The assault con­vic­tion shows that jurors believed Hall wrong­ful­ly fired his gun as Arboleda tried to evade police offi­cers. The events unfold­ed after a res­i­dent called 911 to report that a man lat­er iden­ti­fied as Arboleda was knock­ing on doors and lin­ger­ing out­side homes in a Danville cul-de-sac. When offi­cers arrived, they saw Arboleda get into his car and dri­ve away. Arboleda led offi­cers on a nine-minute slow-speed chase through Danville, a wealthy San Francisco sub­urb. Hall was not involved in the ini­tial pur­suit but stopped his vehi­cle at an inter­sec­tion to block Arboleda’s car. Police video footage shows Hall step­ping in the path of Arboleda’s vehi­cle and fir­ing a vol­ley of shots into the wind­shield and pas­sen­ger-side window.

During a three-week tri­al, pros­e­cu­tors and defense attor­neys pre­sent­ed com­pet­ing nar­ra­tives of the shoot­ing, alter­nate­ly ask­ing the jury to sym­pa­thize with the officer’s need to make split-sec­ond deci­sions and the trou­bled vic­tim whose only crime was not stop­ping for police. Prosecutors argued Hall used “exces­sive, unrea­son­able and unnec­es­sary” force. Hall’s lawyers said the offi­cer feared for his safe­ty and used body cam footage to show the right front tire of Arboleda’s car was point­ed at Hall when the shoot­ing start­ed, indi­cat­ing it was head­ing in his direc­tion. The fatal shoot­ing cast a spot­light on what crim­i­nal jus­tice activists call a case of delayed jus­tice and its dead­ly con­se­quences. Felony charges were announced against Hall more than two years after Arboleda was shot. During that peri­od, Hall, who is white, fatal­ly shot Tyrell Wilson, a Black home­less man whose fam­i­ly said was suf­fer­ing from depres­sion or para­noia.
The Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office, which has a con­tract to pro­vide police ser­vices to Danville, had cleared Hall of mis­con­duct after a nine-month inves­ti­ga­tion into Arboleda’s shoot­ing. Hall has been on paid admin­is­tra­tive leave since the shoot­ing of Wilson, which remains under inves­ti­ga­tion. (This sto­ry orig­i­nat­ed at Huffpost​.com)

»»»»»

Since they are allowed to inves­ti­gate them­selves, they delay and drag their feet, all while the pub­lic, part gullible, part com­plic­it, believes and con­tends that these years-long inves­ti­ga­tions are nor­mal and or necessary.
While any­one with any law enforce­ment back­ground can attest that there are no inves­ti­ga­tions going on two years after the case was opened; nei­ther does any part of those inves­ti­ga­tions take near­ly as long to con­clude. Police are mere­ly tak­ing advan­tage of the fact that they get to inves­ti­gate them­selves, so they drag their feet and wait for pub­lic sen­ti­ment to die down, a lux­u­ry no oth­er Americans have.
In the mean­time, anoth­er blood­thirsty cor­po­rate pro­tec­tor fatal­ly drew inno­cent blood again, because the sys­tem failed to hold him account­able when they allowed them to inves­ti­gate them­selves, and find he act­ed with­in policy.

.

.

Mike Beckles is a for­mer Police Detective, busi­ness­man, free­lance writer, black achiev­er hon­oree, and cre­ator of the blog mike​beck​les​.com.