Palm Springs Police Chief Apologizes For Using Epithet

There is an update on the story about the Palm Springs public sex sting that MadProfessah has been following rather closely since this summer. Palm Springs Police Chief David Dominguez who had previously angrily denied the reports tat anti-gay epithets had been hurled during the public sex sting, has apologized for calling the gay men arrested "a bunch of filthy motherf***ers."

Palm Springs City Manager David Ready released a report which admits wrongdoing by the police department.

As a result of the accusations against the police department, the city opened its own investigation into the sting.  The city's report admits that "portions of the operation were not conducted according to professional standards."

The mistakes highlighted in the report include:

• Not notifying hotels, businesses and residents of the Warm Sands neighborhood of the complaints
• Using undercover decoys instead of just surveillance cameras
• "Disturbingly offensive remarks" were made during the operation

The report says disciplinary action has already been taken, and there will be more actions taken in the future.  However, under California law, names of officers and the punishment handed out cannot be released.
As a result of the city's investigation, no decoy operations will ever take place unless there is "careful pre-operation training."  All officers have received Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual sensitivity training.  The city will also create a "LGBT Employee Resource Group" in which city employees can provide a forum to discuss LGBT issues in Palm Springs.

Apparently there will be a hearing on January 20, 2011 to determine the status of the men who were arrested and whom the Riverside County District Attorney was insisting plead guilty to crimes which would lead them to be forced to register for life as sex offenders with the state of California. Their attorney, Roger Tansey, is seeking a dismissal of all charges due to the "discriminatory intent" the Palm Spring Police Department exhibited towards the gay men.

MadProfessah will continue to follow the story until it is completely resolved.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Town

I finally saw the film The Town directed by Ben Affleck which has a 94% rating at rottentomatoes.com while I was in Washington, D.C. on a business trip at the Ballston Mall.

The Town is a surprisingly good film, starring Affleck as Doug MacRay, the brains behind a gang of bank robbers in Boston, Massachusetts. In fact, a statement at the beginning of the movie claims that the Charlestown section of Boston (i.e. "The Town") has the most bank robbers and armored car robbers per capita of any community in the country. Also starring in the film are Jeremy Renner (Oscar nominated for last year's The Hurt Locker), Jon Hamm (star of television's Mad Men) and Rebecca Hall (The Prestige, Vicky Christina Barcelona). The film also features Oscar-winner Chris Cooper (Adaptation) as Doug's father, Stephen MacRay.

The plot is interesting and features excellent performances, primarily by Renner, Affleck and Hamm.. The story is a pastiche of a romantic drama featuring Hall and Affleck, a heist thriller with several scenes of numerous bank robberies executed like clockwork, and a cop procedural featuring Hamm and "the feds" as they trace Affleck and his brotherly gang of thieves. This is not  meant as a critique, but a fair description to illustrate Affleck's creativity as a writer. However, it as a director that Affleck really makes his mark. The Town moves swiftly, in an engrossing fashion. Although it is sometimes preposterous, and often quite violent, it is never boring.

Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes.
MPAA Rating: R for strong violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and drug use.
Release Date: September 17, 2010.
Seen: Sunday, November 14, 2010.

Plot: B+-.
Acting: A-.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: B+.

Overall Grade: A- (3.50/4.0). 

NO JUSTICE! Oscar Grant Killer Cop Gets 2-Year Sentence

Wow! Johannes Mehserle, the Oakland public transit officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant III on January 1st, 2009 has been sentenced to two measly years for the unarmed fatal shooting of a Black man by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. Mehserle had previously been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter this summer but could have received a maximum of 14 years with a gun enhancement.

Judge Robert Perry threw out the sentence enhancement due to the commission of  a crime using a gun by calling the incident "an accidental shooting" AND gave Mehserle credit for time served so far, so that the killer cop could be released in 219 days.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

After the sentencing was announced, Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, emerged from the courtroom muttering, "Nothing, he got nothing!" The family declined to talk to reporters.

About 50 Grant supporters lined up in front of the courthouse chanting, "Mehserle is guilty, guilty. The whole damn system is guilty, guilty."

In downtown Oakland, where a memorial was being set up for his grandson, Oscar Grant Sr., 65, said, “It’s a bad decision. No time can bring [Oscar] back. But [Mehserle] should have served some time. Otherwise, they’re telling the public, though he went to trial, a policeman can shoot someone and go free. These guys have a license to kill.”

But the elder Grant discouraged violent protests.

We'll see! This is really a sickening situation, especially since the original incident where Mehserle shot and killed Grant in the back while he was lying face down on the ground was captured on video!

Celebrity Friday: Mitrice Richardson

The sad, mysterious story of Mitrice Richardson has come to an end with the revelation that skeletal remains found in a Malibu Canyon belong to the 25-year-old Black lesbian student and beauty queen who disappeared 11 months ago.

Richardson was arrested at Geoffrey's restaurant in Malibu after acting bizarrely and saying she was unable to pay her $89 dinner tab. She was released from custody shortly after midnight without her car — which had been impounded — or a cellphone or purse. Investigators believe she was spotted three times in the canyon area in daylight hours that morning. After that, she was never heard from again.

The remains — which include a skull — were found about two and a half miles from the last credible sighting of her on Sept. 17. The discovery casts an ominous shadow over the case of the missing woman.

[...]

The release of the Cal State Fullerton graduate into an area near a rugged canyon that she was not familiar with prompted widespread criticism of the Sheriff's Department. Her mother and father filed lawsuits accusing the Sheriff's Department of negligence in releasing her without transportation or conducting a mental health exam.

Geoffrey's staff told sheriff's personnel that Richardson was acting crazily at the restaurant. And police investigators said later that an examination of her diaries and text messages revealed she was probably suffering from a severe bipolar disorder and may not have slept for five days before her arrest.

Rod 2.0 posted this local ABC television coverage of the Mitrice Richardson story and decried "A young life lost over $89."

Congress Passes Act Reducing Cocaine Disparity

Finally! The disparity between criminal sentences for possession of two different forms of the same illegal substance has long been a bitter pill for progressives like myself to swallow. Happily, this week, Congress passed legislation t reduce the disparity in sentences for powder versus crack cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. As I put it before, they made the war on drugs 82% less racist.

From The New York Times:

Under the current law, adopted in 1986 after a surge in crack cocaine smoking and drug-related killings, someone convicted in federal court of possession of five grams of crack must be sentenced to at least five years in prison, and possession of 10 grams requires a 10-year minimum sentence. With powder cocaine, the threshold amounts for those mandatory sentences are 100 times as high.

In the bill passed Wednesday, the amount of crack that would invoke a five-year minimum sentence is raised to 28 grams, said to be roughly the amount a dealer might carry, and for a 10-year sentence, 280 grams.

While crack use has declined since the 1980s, arrests remain common, and some 80 percent of those convicted on crack charges in recent years have been black. A growing number of criminologists have concluded that the sentencing disparity is unjustified and has subjected tens of thousands of blacks to lengthy prison terms while offering more lenient punishment to users and sellers of powder cocaine, who are more often white.

Of course, many people are unhappy with the compromise legislation that has passed, since the new law is still racially discriminatory, as James Rucker of the online activist group Color of Change argues in The Root:

The Senate's compromise is still racially discriminatory and morally wrong, and we have yet to hear anyone explain why a disparity is necessary. It's time for those of us who care about this issue to force Sen. Sessions and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,--the architects of the compromise--to offer an explanation that actually holds water. If Jeff Sessions really wants to argue that 18:1 is better for our country, we should create a media stir that requires him to defend that position in public. And if the explanation doesn't pass muster, if it doesn't appear to be in line with our communities' interests, we have to say so.

We understand that compromise is sometimes necessary, and we agree with our allies that some level of sentencing relief is better than none. But we can't afford to fold before the final hand has been played, and we shouldn't be negotiating from a position of weakness. That's how we ended up with an 18:1 compromise in the first place versus 10:1 or a 5:1. Real change--on ending this sentencing disparity and on other policy issues important to our communities--depends on our willingness to shine a light on backroom deals and apply grassroots energy to hold our elected officials accountable. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, and our responsibility to raise our voices in protest is not something we should ever compromise.

My position is that one can both argue for a 1:1 bill and still celebrate the progress inherent in the reduction of the previous draconian sentencing disparity. Compromise does not have to be a dirty word, as long as everyone involved realizes this is just one stage, not the end, of a long struggle for change.

Hope St: Way Too Exciting

Boy, Hope Street keeps busy with car crashes, robberies, and power loss more than I can keep track of.
Actually, I do sorta keep track. My two friends who live off Hope St are constantly posting on facebook about how they've lost power due to weather or a car smashing into a power pole.
Via the Stamford Advocate, I read today about a guy robbing a Mexican restaurant then holding police at bay while threatening to kill himself, and I've read in the past year about a couple of bank robberies.
Hope St, bring it down a notch!

I've posted in the past about how Stillwater was in the headlines too much; Hope St appears now to be seeking some negative attention for herself. Tsk tsk.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Palm Springs Police Caught Trying To "Bag A F*g"

In many areas of the country, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and the gay community; in fact resistance to a police action in New York City in 1969 is widely regarded as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. This antagonism has typically not been present in Palm Springs, California, but apparently that is changing. Palm Springs is now considered to be the "gayest city" per capita in California, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of its population openly gay and lesbian. It has had multiple openly gay Mayors and current has a majority city councilmembers who are gay pr lesbian.

But recently there have been increased tensions between the police and the gay community thanks to a sting operation which resulted in the arrest of more than 2 dozen gay men for "indecent exposure" and "lewd conduct."

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday:

Last summer, Palm Springs police used undercover officers to arrest 24 men in a gay neighborhood for allegedly trying to engage the officers in sex. While few in the gay community defend anyone having public sex - whether gay or straight - the anger is over the unusual charges in the case: The men are charged under Section 290(c) of the California Penal Code, making those who are convicted register as sex offenders for life, their names added to a police database.

That charge is essentially a life sentence, defense lawyers say, and has never been used against straight couples arrested for similar activity in Palm Springs.

Adding fuel to the community anger is surveillance tape shot inside a patrol car during the sting. One officer can be heard using an anti-gay slur, while another officer laughs.

The San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times broke this story more than two months ago:

All 24 men were charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a).

According to the defense, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office will only accept a guilty plea from the defendants, and even then, only to a 314 violation with its sex offender designation.

Herein lies a huge issue that is being alleged in court documents. More on that in a moment.

What is the difference between the 314 and 647(a) misdemeanors?

Penal Code section 314 - California's "indecent exposure" law - has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment in 1872, despite the fact that community moral standards have changed drastically in the 138 years that have passed since that enactment.

This law prohibits publicly "exposing" a person’s naked body or genitals with lewd intent. Typically, a conviction of "simple" misdemeanor indecent exposure under this code brings a sentence of up to six months in a county jail, a maximum fine of $1,000 and a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender, pursuant to Penal Code 290.

Section 647(a) defines "lewd conduct" as the touching or displaying of the genitals, buttocks or female breasts with the intent of achieving sexual arousal or gratification. These acts are deemed illegal under this code when done in a lewd or lascivious manner in a public place - where a third party may be offended by its viewing. Unless there are overriding circumstances, a 647(a) conviction typically does not come with a sex offender designation.

The sex offender designation, however, can cause dire consequences for a lifetime. Those convicted have trouble keeping or finding jobs and homes, and those with green cards are usually deported.

Major allegations are being raised

The Riverside County Public Defender’s Office thinks something smells fishy about this undercover sting. As a result, court documents show that the defense is making some serious allegations:

 The Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) exclusively targeted gay men in undercover sex stings.

 Heterosexual couples get a free pass on public sex in Palm Springs and throughout Riverside County.

 A backroom deal was struck with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office to force those arrested in the sting operations to plead to a harsher charge, requiring lifetime registration as a sex offender.

These contentions are being raised in a Riverside County discrimination motion going before a Superior Court judge in Indio on June 14.

On May 4, Deputy Public Defender Roger Tansey, who is the attorney for the defendants, and Public Defender Gary Windom, filed numerous documents related to this case.

Tansey told SDGLN in an exclusive interview that he believes this case is about “homophobia” and that the Palm Springs police are out to “get the gay guys.”

I believe this is known as "bag a f*g" in the police world, and is absolutely unacceptable. SDGLN has even more evidence showing the discriminatory nature of the proceedings:

SDGLN has obtained a copy of the court document from Thomas Hughes, who was a Deputy District Attorney for Riverside County from 2007 to 2009 and who was assigned to the Indio branch. The document – which the DA is trying to get excluded from the trial -- provides an insider glimpse into how Palm Springs initiated its 2009 undercover sting operation.

Hughes describes a 2008 sting operation conducted by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which provides police services to the city of Rancho Mirage. As with the Palm Springs operation, the Rancho Mirage sting was directed at men who have public sex with men, not at heterosexual couples.

Hughes said the county prosecutors settled a majority of the 2008 cases for violations of Penal Code sections 647(a) or 415. Those are much less serious misdemeanor charges than Penal Code 314, which requires lifetime registration as a sex offender.

In his document, Hughes states that he was informed that the Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) wanted to ensure ahead of the sting operation that their cases would only settle for violations of the more serious Penal Code 314.

“I have been informed and thereon believe that during spring or summer of 2009, a meeting was therefore set up between the PSPD and the District Attorney’s Office,” Hughes states in the document.

“The DA’s Office was represented by Trisha Fransdahl, a Supervising Deputy District Attorney, who met with members of the PSPD. This meeting occurred before the sting operation took place and before anyone was arrested. At that meeting, it was agreed that all of those arrested would be charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a). It was also agreed that Defendants would only be allowed to plead to the 314 count. Based on my experience at the District Attorney’s Office, such a meeting, before anyone is even arrested, is unusual.”

Hughes also states that the DA’s Office decided that the Palm Springs sting cases would not be subject to negotiations or plea deals.

Bolstering the discrimination claim is this statement by Hughes: “I was also in my office when I personally heard Linda Dunn, head of the Eastern Division of the District Attorney’s Office and the supervisor of Ms. Frandahl, make homophobic remarks. This occurred when I overheard Lee Roberts, one of the District Attorneys on the Palm Springs cases, express a desire to Ms. Dunn to visit the scene of the sting.

“Several times I heard Ms. Dunn make disparaging remarks about ‘those people’ as she laughingly expressed concern for Mr. Roberts’s safety if he were to visit Palm Springs. Ms. Dunn did not want Mr. Roberts to go, stating that, ‘I don’t want you around ‘those’ people, we don’t know what they’re capable of doing. If you go, be safe.'”

Unbelievable! In 2009, the Riverside District Attorney and the Palm Springs Police Department thinks they can get away with this? In a city that is 40% gay?

Mehserle Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

2 to 4 years in jail for killing a Black man. 28-year-old Johannes Mehserle was found guilty (by a jury with no Black members) of involuntary manslaughter for shooting Oscar Grant.

Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.

"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.

The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.

Oscar Grant Trial At Jury Deliberation Stage

A Los Angeles area jury with no African American members will decide the fate of a white former BART police officer who shot and killed Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Perry rejected a defense argument that jurors should be allowed to consider only second-degree murder in the case against Johannes Mehserle. But Perry also ruled that prosecutors could not argue for a first-degree murder conviction.

Mehserle, 28, shot in the back and killed Oscar J. Grant III as the victim lay on a Bay Area Rapid Transit station platform on New Year’s Day 2009. Prosecutors have argued that the shooting was intentional. The officer told jurors that he mistakenly drew his firearm instead of his electric Taser weapon as he struggled to handcuff Grant, 22.

While second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 15 years to life in prison, voluntary manslaughter carries up to 11 years and involuntary manslaughter up to four years in prison. If convicted, Mehserle could receive considerably more years behind bars under an enhancement that alleges he used a firearm.

Oscar Grant Killer Mehserle Testifies In His Own Defense

The murder trial of Johannes Mehserle, the white BART police officer who shot Oscar Grant to death in the back while the black man was laying on his stomach, continued last week with Mehserle testifying in his own defense.

Sobbing as he testified, a former Bay Area transit officer for the first time offered his account of how he shot and killed a 22-year-old passenger, saying he mistakenly pulled out his handgun instead of an electronic stun gun and fired a single shot before realizing his mistake.

Johannes Mehserle, 28, testified that he was having trouble handcuffing Oscar Grant III and only intended to use the stun gun to make the man comply with his orders.

"I didn't think I had my gun," he testified. "I remember the pop. It wasn't very loud, it wasn't like a gunshot, and I remember wondering what went wrong with the Taser.

"I remember looking to my right side and seeing my gun in my right hand," he said of his .40-caliber pistol. "I didn't know what to think. I just thought it shouldn't have been there."

Mehserle said he looked down at Grant, who was lying on the floor of the Bay Area Rapid Transit station platform. "Mr. Grant said, 'You shot me,' " Mehserle testified.

One member of the audience was not impressed by Mehserle's tears. Timothy Killings, 24, shouted "You should save those [...] tears, dude" and Grant family members applauded.

The jury does not have a single African-American on it, despite Los Angeles County being 10% Black and the person killed was African-American. The trial was moved from Alameda County to Los Angeles County due to concerns about pre-trial publicity influencing the Northern California jury pool.

Oscar Grant Trial Starts In Los Angeles

MadProfessah has been following the case of Oscar Grant closely since it became public in January 1, 2009. On that day a 27-year-old Bay Area Rapid Transit cop named Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old father of two in the back while Grant was face down on the ground being arrested by Mehserle. The shooting was captured by multiple cell-phone videos and the horrific incident became an internet sensation. Because of pre-trial publicity, the murder trial of Mehserle was moved from Alameda County to Los Angeles County and began last week.

White Guy Disguises Himself As Black To Rob Banks

This has to be seen to believed:

Ohio police say they've apprehended a wily white bank robber who threw them off the trail by disguising himself as a black person. Authorities say 30-year-old Conrad Zdzierak would rob the banks in a high-quality mask, then take it off as he drove to his next robbery target, confounding police on the lookout for a black man. He allegedly managed to hit four banks and a CVS within just three hours, ABC reports. His mistake? He never disguised his car.

Here's a local news story on the case:

AB 2199 Passes Public Safety Committee Vote

Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal's AB 2199 (Repeal of Discriminatory Code) has been getting press recently because it has focused attention on the fact that the California Legal Code still contains vestiges of patently discriminatory language against homosexuality.

The text of the bill is:

An act to repeal Section 8050 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
relating to mental health.

 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 2199, as introduced, Bonnie Lowenthal. Sexual deviation:
research.
Existing law requires the State Department of Mental Health,
acting through the superintendent of the Langly Porter Clinic, to
plan, conduct, and cause to be conducted scientific research into the
causes and cures of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive
to sex crimes against children, and the causes and cures of
homosexuality, and into methods of identifying potential sex
offenders.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.  Section 8050 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
repealed. 
8050.  The State Department of Mental Health, acting through the
superintendent of the Langley Porter Clinic, shall plan, conduct, and
cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures
of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive to sex crimes
against children, and the causes and cures of homosexuality, and into
methods of identifying potential sex offenders.  

On Tuesday AB 2199 passed out of the Public Safety Committee of the Assembly with all Democrats except Anthony Portantino (AD-44) voting for the bill and the Republicans merely voting present (which has to be regarded as an improvement on Republicans generally voting no on any legislation Equality California sponsors).

Anyway, the bill moves on to the Assembly floor, where presumably openly gay Speaker of the Assembly John Pérez will ensure its passage, and the official call to cure homosexuals and treat them in the same way as "sexual deviants" and people who commit "sex crimes against children" will be relegated to the shameful past of The Great State of California.

War On Drugs: Now 82% Less Racist?

The Los Angeles Times editorializes about a compromise in the U.S. Senate to modify the patently racist policy of treating possession of crack cocaine 100 times more aggressively than powder cocaine. Unfortunately, the Senate voted to make the new ratio 18-to-1, so it is now just 82% less racist:

Panic over a crack epidemic in the nation's cities in the 1980s led to draconian laws that ultimately would be as devastating to entire communities as the drug itself. According to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, 1 in 14 black children has a parent in prison because of felony drug convictions. That's why a bipartisan bill to reduce the 100-1 sentencing disparity, approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is at once welcome and disheartening. The committee voted to reduce the disparity to 18 to 1, but the ratio should be 1 to 1, as proposed by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Under the bill, possession of 28 grams of crack, instead of 5 grams, would trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The bill also would stiffen penalties for bribing a peace officer and violence attendant to a crack-related offense.

It has taken more than a decade of determined advocacy to reach this point, and although it's not perfect, the Senate's reform measure, which is not retroactive, would mitigate the sentences of an estimated 3,000 people a year. So we reluctantly urge the House to forgo its rational, reasonable and more just approach -- because insisting on a 1-1 ratio, as approved by the House Judiciary Committee in the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, would by most accounts destroy any chance of passage. This is one issue on which there is cross-aisle cowardice: Few members of either party are willing to appear "soft on crime."

So 18 to 1 appears to be the best we can get. Republicans are insisting that bipartisanship is over and that there will be little, if any, cooperation for the rest of this year. But this agreement has already been struck. Before year's end, we hope to see the biased sentencing disparity on its way out.

The War on Drugs. Now 82% less racist. Sheeesh.

Oscar Grant's Killer's Trial Moved To Los Angeles

Big news in the case of the former BART police officer who was videotaped fatally shooting an unarmed 22-year-old Black man named Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009. The judge has moved the trial of 27-year-old Johannes Mehserle to Los Angeles County from Alameda County:

The trial of a white former San Francisco Bay Area transit officer charged in the killing of an unarmed black man will be moved to Los Angeles County because of extensive media coverage and other possible distractions to trial participants, a judge in Oakland ruled Thursday.

The decision by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson comes a month after he decided the murder trial of Johannes Mehserle would be moved out of that area.

State court officials recommended Los Angeles and San Diego counties to the judge as possible sites for a trial.

[...]

According to 2008 Census figures, 14% of Alameda County’s 1.5 million residents are African American, compared with 9% of the 9.9 million residents in Los Angeles County and 5% of 3 million residents in San Diego County.

MadProfessah helped organize a vigil and rally earlier this year in Leimert Park calling attention to the senseless murder of Oscar Grant.

LAPD Chief Bratton Announces Shock Exit

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton shocked the city when he announced on Wednesday that he intended to leave his position by the end of October 2009. Kevin Roderick at LA Observed has the best coverage (including the full text of his resignation announcement)

Earlier today, Wednesday, August 5th, I met with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to inform him of my intention to resign my position as Chief of our great Department effective October 31st, so that I may pursue new professionalization of policing opportunities in the private sector. There is never a good time to leave a job and a Department that you love and enjoy, but there is always a right time. That time has now come for me professionally and personally to seek new career challenges.

Since my appointment as Chief of this extraordinary Department in October 2002, by then Mayor James Hahn, we have travelled together on an exciting and successful journey - through good times and bad - meeting crises, challenge and opportunity with consistent optimism, confidence and resolve.

You and I committed to five overarching goals in 2002, and as of today, we can all take justifiable pride and satisfaction in knowing that we have in large measure met and continued to expand their impact in our ultimate purpose for being: to protect and to serve all the residents of this great City. We committed to reduce crime, fear, and disorder, and we have done that. We committed to keeping the City safer from terrorism and we have done that while establishing national best practices and initiatives. We committed to full implementation of the Federal Consent Decree, and while it took longer than originally anticipated, we have done that. We campaigned to grow the Department by 1,000 officers and with the focused leadership of Mayor Villaraigosa and the support of the City Council and voters we are doing that. We also committed to Bias-Free Policing, to ensure that all the residents and visitors to our City of Angels would be the benefactors of constitutional, compassionate, consistent policing in every neighborhood. The recent Harvard Study and Los Angeles Times poll have conclusively shown that a significant majority of all Angelinos feel that you are succeeding. It will not be easy to leave because, while much has been done, there is still much more that can be done. But having met the personal and professional challenges that I set for myself, I feel that this is an appropriate time for new leadership to move the Department forward and meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Thank you for the honor, the privilege and the enjoyment of working with you, and for the opportunity to tell your story during these past seven years. I hope that each of you in some way, no matter what your position, felt that you were part of what I believe will be a very special time in the history of the Department – our Department – a Department that is without question second to none. It has truly been an honor and a privilege to be your chief.

All the best,
WJB

Dude! He pulled a Palin! (Bratton's term did not end until 2012.)

15-Year-Old Killer of Lawrence King To Be Tried As Adult

Brandon McInerney, the person who (allegedly) shot 15-year old Lawrence King in their 8th grade class in February 2008 is going to be tried for the crime as an adult, a judge ruled on Wednesday at a preliminary hearing. The court proceedings were delayed from earlier this year when McInerney's father was found dead the day before the trial was supposed to start.

According to prosecutor Maeve Fox, McInerney faces up to 53 years in prison, if convicted.

The prosecutor has offered McInerney a plea of a reduced sentence of 25 years if he pleads guilty. McInerney's defense attorneys have said they will appeal the judge's ruling that the now-15-year-old should be tried as an adult for a crime he allegedly committed days after he turned 14.

The defense has also been criticized by LGBT organizations for attempting to use a form of the "gay panic" defense for McInerney's actions:

In the preliminary hearing, the defense suggested that McInerney had been sexually abused as a child. They said he felt threatened by King, who returned taunts from him and other boys with sexual overtures and declarations of love.

At Wednesday's hearing, McInerney attorney Robyn Bramson summed up the defense strategy. In exasperation, she asked an investigator: "What if you talked to Brandon and he said, 'I did it because this kid was sexually harassing me and I felt panicked, freaked out and uncomfortable'?"

The judge ruled the question improper, and the investigator did not have to answer.

If that's not an attempt to get "gay panic defense" admitted, then what is it?

The judge also ruled that the special circumstance of "lying in wait" be added to the charges because the crime occurred 15 to 20 minutes in to a computer class on the morning of February 12, 2008. He also agreed that the crime should be classified as a hate crime.

ANOTHER Bank Robbery? SERIOUSLY!

What the heck?!? I wrote a post last week that I didn't have time to perfect and post last week titled "Avoid Banks in Fairfield County." I wrote it because a Bank on High Ridge was robbed- one that had just been robbed 4 months ago! I stated that since I now tote a baby everywhere, there is no way in heinieho that I am ever going to a bank again.

Well, big shocker, on Monday there was another bank robbery on Summer St. I'm sorry, something is wrong with this town.

And do these banks not seem really easy to rob?

I have an $800 check I need to cash, but now I'm hesitant to go into a bank to cash it. BOTH of my Stamford banks (a credit union and a People's) were robbed a couple years ago, so I don't think I'm being that paranoid. And the guy who robbed my People's... TRIED to rob my credit union before he went to People's! Geez Louise.

Previous Stamford Talk bank posts:

--September 13, 2007-- My People's Bank Got Robbed!!!
--September 15, 2007-- Wrong Side of the Metro North Tracks? Bank Gossip
--October 5, 2007-- Bank Robbers- Not Just in Stamford!

GOOD NEWS: Jena 6 Case Finally Ends

The infamous Jena 6 case is over. MadProfessah has followed this case for years, which was another example of what many viewed as a racially influenced prosecution.

Carwin Jones, Jesse Ray Beard, Robert Bailey Jr., Bryant Purvis and Theo Shaw pleaded no contest to misdemeanor simple battery and were sentenced to seven days probation and fined $500 plus court costs. The 6th member, Mychal Bell, was previously sentenced to 18 months in jail on a separate second-degree battery charge.

The main organization that publicized the case was ColorofChange.org, who released this statement on Friday:

ColorOfChange.org said Friday that the plea deal marked in acknowledgement by officials that the Louisiana justice system initially treated the then-teenage boys too harshly, privileging white students’ accounts of a schoolyard fight over those of black students in the largely segregated town of Jena.

“Today’s plea deal shows that the original charges in the case were unfair and vastly overblown,” said James Rucker, ColorOfChange.org’s executive director. “The story of the Jena 6 was an extreme example of what can happen when a justice system biased against black boys operates unchecked. But it’s also an example of what can happen when hundreds of thousands of people across the country stand up to challenge unequal justice. Together, we drew the country’s attention to this case and raised the money necessary to fund a strong legal defense.”

ColorOfChange.org, the first national organization involved in supporting the Jena 6, was instrumental in drawing national attention to the case, working alongside local activists in Jena and black bloggers across the country to spread word of the excessive charges and the story behind them.

More than 300,000 ColorOfChange.org members signed petitions to elected officials, urging that the charges be dropped and that then-Governor Kathleen Blanco intervene. The group organized more than 10,000 of its members to march in Jena on September 20, 2007. The same day, thousands of members in over 150 cities across the country held rallies and vigils and distributed flyers about the case; they also made more than 6,000 phone calls to public officials in Louisiana.

ColorOfChange members also contributed more than $275,000 toward high-quality legal teams, which succeeded in getting a biased judge removed from the cases and ultimately achieved today’s victory.

Courtesy Jack and Jill Politics, some pictures of the freed guys:

Obama DOJ Supports Cocaine Sentencing Reform

Elections have (good) consequences! The Washington Post is reporting that the Department of Justice has decided to (finally) support legislation to reform the drastic inequities in sentencing for possession and trafficking of different forms of cocaine.

"Now is the time for us to reexamine federal cocaine sentencing policy, from the perspective of both fundamental fairness and safety," Breuer told the subcommittee on crime and drugs. He said the issues would be among those considered by a Justice Department panel that within six months is to develop recommendations on an array of topics related to charging, sentencing and prisoner treatment.

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced measures to equalize sentences, but the proposals have stalled in the past.

The sentencing inequality has come to be known as the "100 to 1" ratio, in which possession of five grams of crack, the weight of two small sugar cubes, triggers a mandatory five-year prison term, while a person carrying 500 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same sentence.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee, noted that more than half of federal inmates are locked up for drug-related crimes, including high ratios of African American offenders. In 2007, Durbin said, 82 percent of people convicted on crack possession charges were black, and 9 percent were white. (emphasis added)

This is another good sign that the "War on Drugs" is losing saliency as a political football. In New York, the Rockefeller drug laws have recently been repealed under Governor David Paterson.