http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Taser-suit-033112
The article doesn't list the name of the video on Youtube that it refers to, however this is the video in question that helped started the suit. In fact, the video was split through five parts.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
In the same article, another settlement happened 14 months ago by a different person, going against another Sheriff Deputy Eric Joseph Staub, as well as the sheriff's office, the city of Burlington, the Burlington Police Department, Des Moines County, Burlington Officer Chris Chiprez, and the Southeast Iowa Narcotics Task Force.
Both of the victims do, in fact, have a criminal background record and was linked to recent events, however it's not alright for the law enforcement to be as illegally controlling as possible.
So here are my questions that I'm thinking about when it comes to these incidents and settlements.
Why isn't law enforcement not being punished enough?
This question arises as this guy has been in trouble with the lawsuits when it comes to stretching his power onto civilian individuals. Assaulting and using a Taser without having a serious incident shows that Sheriff Staub and Sheriff Deputy Purdy shouldn't be around civilians when he's armed with their position.
After the settlement of the 2008 incident ended in January 2011 he returned in active duty. Staub only received a 30-day suspended jail term, a minimum of $55 fine, and a 15-day suspension when he returned. That doesn't sound like much of a reasonable punishment for assaulting someone during an altercation.
The others whom were involved in it listed no details of what was taken against their action. They may have had similar charges and fees pressed on them.
Then a settlement in March of this year came up and this time it was Sheriff Deputy Purdy whom had a settlement from a previous suit that started an incident in 2009. This time, the list of punishments wasn't placed in the article. Did he receive the same punishments as Staub's at last year's settlement or were the punishments more severe?
Even though these incidents were from a few years ago, the punishments one of them received last year isn't going to create a great effect to prevent him from doing it again. It wouldn't be too much of a surprise if there's another sheriff's deputy listed in the newspaper again with a similar suit.
The Burlington Police Department had some both reported lawsuits and unreported incidents that never goes through a court system due to lack of evidence, lack of money, and the majority of court-approved lawyer's stand with the officers, Department of Human Services workers, and other government and city workers. services.
As for the other officers and some of the members of the drug task force, its uncertain whether they learned their lesson better than what the Sheriff and Sheriff Deputy had done.
Why isn't The City of Burlington doing enough to combat the issues created by law enforcement?
The city has a long history of law enforcement officials pushing their boundaries of what is illegal and what isn't. The City of Burlington hardly addresses the issues unless a suit is filed and eventually a settlement is made. They don't punish the departments localized in the town in order to decrease the likelihood of having another suit because some people wants to push their boundaries further.
Most of the time, many of their court-approved lawyers that are given to individuals aren't trained enough or independent enough to go against the city, as well as governmental city programs, like Young House, Department of Human Services, law enforcement offices, etc. They'll rather take more a stand with larger government and the city than helping the individual whom is effected. As far as a suit goes, the punishments for individuals like the Sheriff is lowered and reasonable enough to the offender rather than punishing them to the fullest potential.
Placing more restrictions under the department that was effected in the lawsuit will help minimize outcomes of future events.
Why isn't the areas listed in the suits not doing enough to keep potential violators from holding their job?
After the two suit settlements, as well as other incidents not issued from a suit case, its a question that runs through people's minds.
Like a workforce, law enforcement have background checks to see if the person for hire is capable of holding their job and whether or not they had a history of criminal activities in some part of their lives.
The problem with this concept is that after probation period of a certain criminal activity is finished, the record is removed from the system and its not allowed to be talked about when it comes to employment and other talk. This means an officer from the department could get the job if the record doesn't show that he had a past of assaulting individuals when his probation period was up.
The departments don't have strict enough background checks, as well as psychological checks to find individuals whom would later be involved in suit cases, like in 2011 and this year.
Its probably most likely that the departments don't want to let anyone go due to the lack of law enforcement they have. Its not for certain why they keep offenders with minimum punishments active in the force.
What can be done to combat against law enforcement brutality?
Decades ago, it was common for a couple of officers in the town to assault civilians and forcing them to admit to a crime that wasn't committed. While those officers are long retired and eventually passed on, the similar effects today are caught more and more by camera and other recordable devices.
According to Iowa Code § 727.8 (2009), it states that
"...Thus 2 general exceptions are that a person can record if opening present and participating in or listening to the conversation (one party permission), and radio and television receivers. State v. Fox, 493 N.W.2d 829,831 (Iowa 1992). Iowa is a one party state allowing interception based on the consent of one party to the conversations. Other states may be one party, two party or all party consent, so these state laws need to be reviewed."
This means that if an individual whom is in the general area of a conversation, whether listening or participating, can record anything due to Iowa being a one party state in allowing the recording. This means that if I see and hear an officer pulling someone over, I can legally record video, audio, and even take photographs of the situation without violating any laws from the state's constitution.
If an officer tries to intimidate the person and telling them that isn't allowed, its going against the officer's part of telling the truth that its indeed legal to do so. The city nor the law enforcement has the authority to go against the person making the recording if they are participating or listening to the conversation. Going against it would violate the state's Code and a suit can be made against the city and the business of interest that is going after.
Having to record information is best to keep the context of the situation than writing it down. If a camera isn't present, write down the incident as quickly as possible. The more recent the writing, the better a person can recall the incident through doing so. Make sure to write as many details as possible, like the last name of the officer, badge number, etc. This can be done through recording and taking photographs as well to help better generalize the person doing the activity.
If the information wasn't recorded, but was recorded through a dashboard camera, the person whom was involved can request a copy of the tape from police station or the court house. Tapes can be taken from the court house if it was presented in a court case and anyone can retrieve a copy of the tape if the person has court-related information that was presented on-hand.
The information recorded can either be an incident involved from another individual as long as the person was present at the location at the time. It gives the person who was affected a better chance to deal with law enforcement.
If the incident happened recently and involved with one's self, take care of it as soon as possible. The sooner its taken care of the better. A suit can be made, as well as reporting the officer(s) in question to the situation that has been done.
No comments:
Post a Comment