.
"What? You mean that DOESN'T say '5671'? Whaddaya know!"
I know that I may lose some readers with this, but I generally support the police. I really do. I generally have good relations with them — easier for me as a middle-aged, white male attorney, I readily admit — and I both admire the job that they usually do and I rely on them to keep the peace.
And when they go wrong, I will oppose them — because I also rely on them to follow the Constitution and the rest of our laws. I rely on them to treat people with respect — even at, yes, some additional cost of threat to their health and safety, just as with fire fighters. I don’t relish their being in harm’s way, but that’s one reason that justifies their earning their high compensation.
I rely on them not to lie on the witness stand. I rely on them not to generate pretexts for arrest. I rely on them not to repress the population — not only because it’s wrong, but because it won’t work. It just hardens public attitudes against them, reduces cooperation in fighting crime, and generates an “us or them” attitude that we as a society cannot afford.
When I’ve talked to police chiefs, captains, commanders, corporals, they have generally agreed with me about what good policing entails — although they sometimes say that I’m not getting the full context of what’s going on. They’re right — and I’m open to hearing their version of that context — because what I see keeps on looking like this video and I don’t see how they explain it away.
I was exposed to this video (taken Wednesday July 25 on Anna Drive, where Manuel Diaz was shot) on Facebook from a fellow Occupier. I welcome the police explanation of how this is justified — not so much constitutionally as in terms of winning over hearts and minds of the people whose cooperation they — we — need, on Anna Drive and places like it.
I disagree with aspects of the video’s legal analysis. Coyotl (whom I don’t know, so maybe I shouldn’t refer to him by first name, but it’s easier than repeatedly typing in “Tezcatlipoca”) seems very well-informed about what to do in this situation, but the first question he asks is “Am I being detained?” People sometimes mix up detention and arrest. In that situation, my first question would be “Am I free to go?” When told “No,” my next question would be “Am I under arrest?” He would again be told “No.” THEN I would ask “am I being detained?”
Coyotl was being detained, without arrest, in something called a “Terry Stop” (after the Supreme Court’s case of Terry v. Ohio that gave police the right to do this sort of search and seizure if certain conditions are met.
“[T]he Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)”
Terry stops — also known as “stop & frisks” — are reasonable procedures for police to follow IF they are not abused. (They are often abused. I was marginally involved in a big successful case against the NYPD over them in the early ’00s; the controversy over them has recently re-emerged there. This from Wikipedia:
“The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).”
I’m happy to our society to let Terry stops take place under the conditions outlined by the Supreme Court — conditions that I don’t think appear to have been met here. Cops making themselves secure that someone they’re talking to doesn’t have a weapon should lead to fewer shootings of innocent people — something everyone should want to see. I do not favor Terry stops being used for harassment and intimidation. Anyone who wants to explain why they think that the cops had a reasonable
suspicion that Coyotl had been, was, or was about to be involved in committing a crime — go for it. Anyone who further wants to explain why the police had good reason to believe that he was “may be armed and presently dangerous” — well, I’ll hear you out, but don’t expect to convince me.
Here’s the video, which I’ll critique below:
The officer asked Coyotl for his ID and whether he is on parole or probation, neither of which he was. (Those who are probably shouldn’t be protesting. It’s not that they don’t have the right, but that they do have the extra vulnerability.) Coyotl hands over his phone to someone at 1:50 — smart move, but it could backfire. (Why was he giving it away? Does it become evidence?) And, in the series of photos following, we can see Coyotl getting cuffed at 2:15. I’d like to know why.
Coyotl is led away to the back of a parked police car and we switch from photos to video. (Note that there’s no riot in response.) The video notes that he didn’t consent to a search. If this was a Terry stop, he didn’t have to consent to a search of his person. (Not being a criminal law attorney, I’m not sure about his need to consent to a search of his bag. I suspect that, with today’s Supreme Court, the police could search it for weapons and use against him anything they found incidental to that search.)
At 2:54, the police say that they’ve found markers in his possession, which they suggest may have been used in graffiti. Stop right there — this smells like horse manure to me. Do the police really expect anyone to believe that they believed even for a moment that those markers were used in the nearby graffiti? This is why one wants a Citizen’s Commission, so it can bring in officers and say “tell us the truth about this now.” If officers really think that implausible bases for arrest are plausible, perhaps they should work somewhere else — or at something else.
At around 5:25 on the video, following the sound of a barking dog, the narrator of the video says that they’re going to let Coyotl go. Then, at around 7:40, comes an unexpected turn. Coyotl retrieves the phone from a friend and then asks the officer (I believe, from the green uniform, that it’s a county sheriff) “so are you telling me that you have the wrong badge number?” He confirms that the correct badge number as being 5671. Then at the 8:00 mark comes the key question:
“Why are you wearing the wrong badge number?”
GAH! I hate that. I hate that so much. I hate that much worse than I hate temporarily (and often inadvertently) blocking the sidewalk. I hate that much worse than I do graffiti. It may even be worse than breaking windows, because what is broken here — our ability to trust the police — is less easily replaced.
I tell my friends in Occupy that we have to follow the law to the letter when we protest. How then, is it possible that the police can assert that they don’t?
In the seconds following we get what will have to pass for comic relief in this video. The officer abruptly chirps out “OK, bye!” and waves Coyotl away. The dark blue uniformed officer steps between them and says airily “You wanted to go home — you’re free to leave! G’night!”
He fails to add “you’ve been a lovely audience — we’ll be here all week!”
As with the police trying to buy cell phone videos that documented their actions on Saturday July 21, this fries me in a way that in some ways exceeds the shootings themselves. Those are attacks on individuals. For the police or sheriffs to say “we will not be held accountable for our actions” — because accountability is what the numbers on those badges are supposed to provide — that’s an attack on all of us. That’s an attack on my ability to tell my children “if you see something, say something” — that is, if you see police misconduct, get the person’s badge number.
I know that this happens all of the time — but it’s rarely on video. The OCSD, APD, or whoever has the power needs to make an example of out someone here and recommit themselves to following the law themselves. Lawless law enforcement just invites lawlessness.
So: there should be a full investigation of the stop and especially of the switching of badges. And Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, who kept his cool, withstood humiliation and repression, and then stood up for his rights and asked the right question at the right time — he deserves some sort of honorable recognition from the city.
(Think I’m joking? What took more guts — doing what he did, or pointing a shotgun out of the window at protesters.)
I don’t know who may eventually negotiate peace between the police and people of Anna Drive, but based on what I’ve seen here I sure do want Coyotl to be at the negotiating table. Now about that investigation….
How did they find out cop was wearing wrong badge number? And I agree WHY is he wearing wrong badge number???? What is going on here? I think its time to bring in the Feds to clean up the APD.
Barring some mix-up that should merit a suspension anyway, the “why” is the easy part: to make disciplinary action against him more difficult.
My sense is that Coyotl noticed the discrepancy only when he was given the numbers “5671” verbally, as you can hear on the video, and they didn’t match what was on the badge.
Police have sometimes been known to wear tape over their badge numbers too. If I were a judge and found that out, I’d toss the whole lot of arrests.
I wonder if any of these cops would have spoken to Coyotil if he hadn’t initiated conversation. Was he picked on because he asked the cop a question first? Either way I see it clearly as harassment. I think these cops need to get out of their cars and walking the neighborhoods. They need to get to know the people and stop with the attitude.
greg,
i truly appreciate your efforts to be fair and, usually, you do a pretty good job. i would suggest that to really understand what the police go through, go on a ride along on an average night with an average patrol cop. sit in the car while he makes a stop in an edgy neighborhood at one am with three unknown males in the vehicle. it does change your perspective as to what these men and women encounter and how they are almost forced to think. does this sometimes result in an over reaction, absolutely, but if you understand that perspective the over reaction, while still wrong, makes more sense
I am sympathetic to those concerns. In the case of Manual Diaz, it was 4 p.m. and the three males were reportedly standing near a car, not stopped within it.
I can accept that the shooting of Acevedo, if he did indeed fire at a police car, may be justified. (I’ve paid much less attention to that shooting than to that of Diaz.) But the Diaz shooting doesn’t strike me as a “overreaction” to a dangerous crisis situation.
Here’s how it’s been described: the men were running away. At least one followed them and shot Diaz. He fell face forward onto the ground. Then the cop shot him in the head.
With all due respect, that doesn’t fit the model you describe. Of course, it was compounded by the later reaction to the residents there, which was terrible in its own way — but if you look at the video (if it’s still available somewhere), you’ll see that the cops were obviously not afraid at the time of the beanbag/pepper shot and the loosing of the dog. They were strolling along like they were shooting gophers.
They seemed to think that we need more fear of cops within gang areas and that their critics need to shut up. I understand that perspective too — but it is completely unacceptable and it will never “make sense.”
Yes, cops have a hard job. So what! They knew that going in. They cannot treat everyone and anyone like a criminal. Painting everyone with the same brush is BS. No I do not understand their perspective and need for over reaction. I have witnessesed countless times where 5 cop cars are there to detain one person! I say they don’t have anything better to do, they get bored and think because they have a badge they can behave like jerks. I have had a couple encounters with cops over the years and I am not sorry they have a ‘bad day’. We all do so they need to put on their big boy pants and serve the public, not terrorize it.
Greg,
Thanks for another thoughtful post. Searching his bag would require consent, unless it was apparent from the outside that there were weapons or other contraband inside. Obviously possessing markers is not enough to get to probable cause, although it potentially could be if they had seen him hurrying away from some freshly scrawled graffiti. It is unclear from the video what happens prior to Coyotl’s detention, but if the textual account is correct than this is clearly police harassment.
Willie,
I have tremendous respect for police officers and sympathy for what they are often exposed to. However, harassment and excessive force give all the good cops a bad name and make the streets more dangerous for the entire force. While the pressure that they are under may inform our opinion of the police, we can’t let it be an excuse for stepping over the line.
Thanks for the kinds words. As I’ve said, I don’t practice criminal law — though the way things are going I guess I might have to start — but I thought that there was some decision I read about that talked about a container on someone’s person being large enough to carry readily accessible weapons bringing search of that item for weapons within the realm of Terry stops as well. (I don’t pay close attention to this area of law.) Certainly the 4th Amendment has not been treated with deference in recent decades.
In any event, searching his bag would not be “illegal,” it would mean that evidence obtained therefrom (such as those dangerous markers) would be inadmissible at trial. If the purpose of the detention or arrest is simply harassment, the exclusionary rule doesn’t much matter.
Now it could come up in a lawsuit against the city if a pattern of behavior on the part of the police could be shown — but they’d probably say “oops, we thought that that was OK” and probably get off scot-free or with a wrist-slap.
diaz was apparently an abberation and should be dealt with that way. all i am trying to say is that be it four pm or two am, rolling up on a car in a bad neighborhood with three males standing around it,all of whom take off upon seeing the police car, does give the cops cause for concern
Concern, sure, but (unless they know that they’re wanted for something) not fear. Criminals evade cops all the time. So do innocent people.
The Diaz shooting was one aberration. The turkey shoot of neighbors was another one. That the latter was broadcast the same night was a third. But overall, the police earned some strong community reaction. I don’t think you’d have seen this reaction had it just been Acevedo shot.
“At 2:54, the police say that they’ve found markers in his possession, which they suggest may have been used in graffiti. Stop right there — this smells like horse manure to me. Do the police really expect anyone to believe that they believed even for a moment that those markers were used in the nearby graffiti? This is why one wants a Citizen’s Commission, so it can bring in officers and say “tell us the truth about this now.” If officers really think that implausible bases for arrest are plausible, perhaps they should work somewhere else — or at something else.”
That is EXACTLY the same tacic the murderous cops used against Kelly Thomas – with his “stolen” trash envelopes.
Yep. And it’s common otherwise as well, no doubt.
wow. and the video does not even seem edited!
It’s a compilation of photos, video, and commentary. Of course it’s edited. The question is whether it is edited so as to be misleading. Do you have anything to suggest that it is (other than groundless insinuation)?
No it is not edited to mislead .
I thought it was very well done, in fact.
Yeah good old Naui’s been doing this sort of thing for a while, and just getting better. We’ve been posting up his stuff here for years …
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/?s=naui
Hm… I guess, except, not for a couple years. Glad to have him back again!
I WAS BORN HERE IN ORANGE COUNTY-LIVED IN ANAHEIM PRACTICALLY ALL MY 39 YEARS—— MY FAMILY IS APART OF THE YORBA/PERALTA FAMILY,AND WE HAVE BEEN HERE EVER SINCE THERE WERE MEXICAN LAND GRANTS,EVER SINCE THE GERMANS NAMED THIS PLACE–MY FAMILY IS MENTIONED IN THE AUDIO PRESENTATION AT CITY HALL IN ANAHEIM.I HAVE GREAT PRIDE OF BEING A CHICANA AND I HAVE GREAT PRIDE IN WHERE I LIVE-ORANGE COUNTY,ANAHEIM,CALIFAS. I WATCHED ALL MY FAMILY MEMEBERS AND FRIENDS GROW UP IN THE BARRIO-TO US, IT WAS A NORMAL WAY OF LIFE. I WAS INVOLVED WITH GANGS,DID DRUGS,SOLD DRUGS,WENT TO JAIL—AND EVENTUALLY CLEANED UP MY LIFE AND WENT STRAIGHT.I’VE SEEN A SERIOUS DECLINE OF OUR BARRIOS–I READ RECENTLY THE AREAS WERE I GREW UP IN ARE CALLED THE ”FLATLANDS”????AND WE HERE ARE BASICALLY THE LOW ECONOMIC CLASS OF ANAHEIM—I’VE WATCHED THE RISE AND FALL OF SMALL GANGS,CREWS,CLIQUES,TAGGERS, SOME STAYED AND SOME FADED AWAY.BUT THE ONES THAT REMAINED,DID SO BECAUSE THEY WERE VIOLENT AND THEY KEPT GETTING YOUNGER AND YOUNGER,AND THEIR CRIMES WERE MORE VICIOUS AND REALLY DIDN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.—”TRYING TO MAKE A NAME FOR YOURSELF,PAYING YOUR DUES,”IS WHAT IT’S CALLED ON THE CALLE.I NEVER WANTED TO HAVE CHILDREN,BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE SUBMERGED INTO THE CHOAS AND UNCIVILIZED NATURE WE LIVE IN NOW—A LIFE THAT WE ARE USED TO UNFORTUNATLY—-AND THE CODE ON THE STREET IS,YOU DON’T SAY ANYTHING,YOU DON’T HEAR ANYTHING,AND YOU DON’T SEE ANYTHING—-SO NOTHING REALLY CHANGES–IT ONLY GETS WORSE—-AND I’VE WATCHED IT AND NOW THAT I DO HAVE CHILDREN, FOUR IN FACT,I WORRY FOR THEM,WONDERING IF THEY WILL BECOME THE NEXT STATISTICS,WONDERING HOW MUCH WORSE WILL IT GET.I SUPPORT LAW AND ORDER—I SUPPORT APD–THERE ARE GOOD COPS IN OUR POLICE FORCE–ONES WHO WANT TO HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE—SOME GREW UP IN OUR BARRIOS—I ALSO KNOW THERE ARE A FEW BAD COPS—I’VE SEEN MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS,NOT ONLY IN ANAHEIM,BUT EVERYWHERE IT SEEMS—-WHAT HAPPENED ON ANNA DRIVE IS A TRAGEDY—-NOT BECAUSE MANUEL DIAZ WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN FRONT OF ALL OF ANNA DRIVE’S RESIDENTS—-BUT BECAUSE THE CHOICES HE MADE IN HIS LIFE TOOK HIM DOWN THAT ROAD—–HE WAS KNOWN ON THE STREETS AS STOMPER,A KNOWN GANG MEMBER FROM EASTSIDE ANAHEIM GANG,A KNOWN DRUG DEALER—-AND OBVIOUSLY LIVING A LIFE LIKE THAT,YOUR INVOVLED WITH CRIME—BOTTOM LINE.EARLY PICTURES OF HIM THE NEWS REPORTERS WERE SHOWING CLEARLY DEPICTED HIM AND WHO HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS ABOUT—-AND WHERE HE WAS SHOT,HAD EASTSIDE ANAHEIM GANG GRAFITTI PLAQUES ALL SURROUNDING HIS PICTURE.IT WASN’T UNTIL HIS MOTHER ANNOUNCED SHE WAS SUING FOR 50 MILLION DOLLARS—PICTURES OF HIM STARTED SPROUTING UP DEPICTING HIM LOOKING LIKE A BOYSCOUT—AND CLEARLY PICTURES OF HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG–PROBABLY NOT INVOVLED OR HEAVILY INVOLVED WITH THE GANG YET—ALL THE GANG GRAFITTI PLAQUES WERE REMOVED FROM AROUND HIS PICTURE,AND HIS FAMILY KEPT SAYING HE WAS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN,NEVER GOT INTO OR CAUSED ANY TROUBLE—AND WHEN HIS MOTHER SAID ,”HE WAS THE BEST SON A MOTHER COULD EVER HAVE”,I BELIEVE SHE MEANT IT—BUT I DON’T BELIEVE SHE’S BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT HIS ROLE IN THIS WHOLE THING WAS.SHE’S IN TOTAL DENIAL OF WHO HER SON WAS AND HOW HE TRULY LIVED HIS LIFE.AS A GANGBANGER,HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE VICTIMS OF HIS CRIMES???WHAT WAS HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY,HIS BARRIO,HUMANKIND???ON THE STREETS,OUR LAW IS -YOU LIVE BY THE SWORD,YOU DIE BY THE SWORD——I CAME DOWN LA PALMA THE DAY AFTER THE SHOOTING–JUST TO GO HOME-I NOTICED A FLOOD OF PEOPLE IN THE STREET OFF ANNA DRIVE-THROWING THINGS AT OUR CARS WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO DRIVE BY-SOME WERE TRYING TO BREAK OUT THE WINDOWS OF THE CARS AHEAD OF ME—THEY WERE TRYING TO PUSH A TRASH DUMPSTER IN FRONT OF MY CAR——SCREAMING,”JUSTICE,JUSTICE”WITH THEIR FACES COVERED WITH T-SHIRTS AND BANDANAS.AND WHEN THE RIOTS HAPPENED,AND THE DESTRUCTION THAT IT LEFT BEHIND,WITH THE FIRES,THE DAMAGES,OTHER PEOPLE GETTING HURT,ARRESTED—-WHAT A SHAMEFUL TIME IN ANAHEIM…….IF THE FAMILY DOES GET THE 50 MILLION DOLLARS THEY ARE SUING FOR–THEY NEED TO TURN AROUND AND GIVE IT BACK-FOR ALL THE EXPENSE IT TOOK TO MAINTAIN PEACE FROM THE RIOTS,FOR THE FIRES THAT WERE SET AND TO REPAIR THE DAMAGES IT CAUSED,FOR ALL OF THE DAMAGES AND LOOTING THAT WAS DONE ALL UP AND DOWN LINCOLN,BROADWAY,HARBOR,ANAHEIM BLVD. AND ANNA DRIVE—AND MOST OF ALL BE ACCOUNTABLE AND FACE UP TO THE TRUTH ABOUT WHO MANUEL DIAZ WAS.WHAT’S RIGHT IS RIGHT AND WHAT’S WRONG IS WRONG—DON’T LIVE LIFE WITH BLINDERS ON-DON’T LET GREED TAKE OVER YOUR HEART-ONE PERSON CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE,AND WHEN MORE THAN ONE STAND TOGETHER,CHANGE WILL COME—–
I found this hard to read, so I cleaned it up a little. I don’t know whether the author is who and what she says she is — certainly, this is a convenient statement for defenders of the police, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not true — but this is a sentiment that I hear around and that has a place in the discussion, whether you agree or disagree. I have a story coming out at midnight and I think that this provides a good introduction to part of it. I don’t want it to be overlooked because its original all-caps, no paragraphs form was hard to follow. -GD
I was born here in Orange County-lived in Anaheim practically all my 39 years—— my family is a part of the Yorba/Peralta family, and we have been here ever since there were Mexican land grants, ever since the Germans named this place–my family is mentioned in the audio presentation at city hall in Anaheim. I have great pride of being a Chicana and i have great pride in where I live-Orange County, Anaheim, Califas.
I watched all my family members and friends grow up in the barrio-to us, it was a normal way of life. I was involved with gangs, did drugs, sold drugs, went to jail—and eventually cleaned up my life and went straight. I’ve seen a serious decline of our barrios–I read recently the areas were I grew up in are called the ”flatlands”????And we here are basically the low economic class of Anaheim—
I’ve watched the rise and fall of small gangs, crews, cliques, taggers. Some stayed and some faded away. but the ones that remained, did so because they were violent and they kept getting younger and younger, and their crimes were more vicious and really didn’t make any sense.—”trying to make a name for yourself, paying your dues,” is what it’s called on the calle. I never wanted to have children, because they would be submerged into the choas and uncivilized nature we live in now—a life that we are used to unfortunatly—-and the code on the street is, you don’t say anything, you don’t hear anything, and you don’t see anything—-so nothing really changes–it only gets worse—-
And i’ve watched it and now that I do have children, four in fact, I worry for them, wondering if they will become the next statistics, wondering how much worse will it get. i support law and order—I support APD–there are good cops in our police force–ones who want to help make a difference—some grew up in our barrios— I also know there are a few bad cops—i’ve seen many examples of this, not only in Anaheim, but everywhere it seems—-
What happened on Anna Drive is a tragedy—-not because Manuel Diaz was shot to death in front of all of Anna Drive’s residents—-but because the choices he made in his life took him down that road—– He was known on the streets as Stomper, a known gang member from eastside Anaheim gang, a known drug dealer—-and obviously living a life like that, your involved with crime—bottom line.
Early pictures of him the news reporters were showing clearly depicted him and who he was and what he was about—-and where he was shot, had eastside Anaheim gang grafitti plaques all surrounding his picture. It wasn’t until his mother announced she was suing for 50 million dollars—pictures of him started sprouting up depicting him looking like a boy scout—and clearly pictures of him when he was very young–probably not involved or heavily involved with the gang yet—all the gang graffiti plaques were removed from around his picture, and his family kept saying he was a law abiding citizen, never got into or caused any trouble—and when his mother said ,”he was the best son a mother could ever have”, I believe she meant it—but I don’t believe she’s being accountable for what his role in this whole thing was. she’s in total denial of who her son was and how he truly lived his life. As a gangbanger, how many people were victims of his crimes??? What was his contribution to society, his barrio, humankind???
On the streets, our law is -you live by the sword, you die by the sword—— I came down La Palma the day after the shooting–just to go home- I noticed a flood of people in the street off Anna Drive- throwing things at our cars when we were trying to drive by- Some were trying to break out the windows of the cars ahead of me—they were trying to push a trash dumpster in front of my car——screaming, ”justice, justice” with their faces covered with t-shirts and bandanas. And when the riots happened, and the destruction that it left behind, with the fires, the damages, other people getting hurt, arrested—-what a shameful time in Anaheim…….
If the family does get the 50 million dollars they are suing for–they need to turn around and give it back-for all the expense it took to maintain peace from the riots, for the fires that were set and to repair the damages it caused, for all of the damages and looting that was done all up and down Lincoln, Broadway, Harbor, Anaheim Blvd. and Anna Drive—and most of all be accountable and face up to the truth about who Manuel Diaz was.
What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong—don’t live life with blinders on-don’t let greed take over your heart-one person can make a difference ,and when more than one stand together, change will come—–
Mr. Diamond,
Thank You for ”cleaning up” my post—-my passion on this incident clearly showed I think, I appreciate being heard in this discussion–the reason for all the caps was to be noticed of course.
First,I would like to clear the air about the first part of your response if I could. My relation to the Yorba/Peralta family is a fact—I am a great-great granchild of Antonio Garcia. I am very proud of my family and our Mexican ancestory, as well as our Mexican-American roots and our recognition, our history and contributions here in Orange County. I included this information because I felt all of the history that my family went through in this county and every thing that had occured in their lives growing up here and the stories that they passed down to us from their children (our granparents) to their children (our parents) to their childrens children (me and my sibling and cousins) now to our own children-was relavent because this is what shaped our lives growing up, and our own views to law and their agencies.
With that being said-and hopefully clearing up my ligitimacy-discussing the shooting that happened on Anna Drive was just like I said before–a tragedy, a tragedy of generational lifestyles continuing and the limited choices of life on the streets. I grew up very low income, living in the barrios from the Placientia/La Jolla area onto the Anaheim area. We grew up with the drugs,gangs,and the violence and everything those lifestyles expose you to on a daily basis. And even though my grandfather was a very hard worker and he tried to enstill PRIDE and HONOR in us as we were growing up-his attempt to shield us from what was going on around us was just too overwhelming.
The choices we made because the influences and exposures that we were around, really defeated his whole message—which was to work hard and get out of this to have a better life, a chance, to better yourself and to honor who you are and where you came from. Mistrust of the police and anyone in that simular authority was very prevelant while growing up—watching family, friends being arrested, going in and out of jail, prison, police helicopters in the night sky, gangsweeps, everything, was a norm for me, for us, and YES hatred was built up for the police because it was easy to blame them.
So when you made your comment about,” this is a convenient statement for defenders of the police”, I really didn’t know what you meant by that. I’m not all the way GUNG HO for the police, I know they have issues-my support goes out to the ones who try to make a difference, the fair ones who don’t abuse their authority, the ones who follow the law, because they are just and they want law and order and JUSTICE to prevail for all of us.
When I say it was easy to blame the police for everything that was going on,it’s true in the mind of a criminal,because your not even considering the lifestyle your living is wrong.–that frame of mind still carries on to this day—-.I can only speak for myself-I lived on the wrong side of the law and now I live like an open book for my own children to learn from,I acknowleged all my mistakes and tried to let them know the truth in all it’s ugliness,and I hold myself accountable,because in the end, I was the one who chose that lifestyle which led me to jail,addiction,misery.I’m not ignorant to corruption in law enforcement agencies—I know corruption does exist in places of power and in some people who hold that power,but it doesn’t stop at law enforcements door either,(but that discussion is for another day).
I read in another discussion that cops choose this dangerous job and if they get hurt, shot at or killed they signed up for that-in the same breathe,then is it fair to say-gangbangers, drugdealers, criminals CHOOSE to live their DANGEROUS lives and if they get hurt, shot at or killed they signed up for that? I say YES-and if I offend anyone with my brutal honesty, I say-take your blinders off and really see what’s going on around you- in the rule of the street,there is only three outcomes for the life of a GANGSTER=HOSPITAL,PRISON,DEATH,and let me tell you-a GANGSTER takes this to the heart-he WILL get you before you get him,he WILL RUN just to stay out of jail or prison,and he WILL kill you if he has a chance to.
These are the times we still live in,and it’s more real to the ones who LIVE on ANNA DRIVE,BUSH STREET,PAULINE STREET,PEARL STREET,IN AVLS,TAFOLLA STREET,ROSE STREET,CLAUDINA STREET—-I COULD GO ON AND ON–and not to GLORIFY—to INFORM. The people who live in places like ANAHEIM HILLS upscale Yorba Linda and so fourth don’t have a clue of what I’m saying—but the ones in these neighborhoods do—I do. I remember.
With the existince of gang violence in Anaheim,(since we’re talking about our city)police officers are caught in wartime on American soil—-we may not have bombs going off literally,but make no mistake, it’s still war people. And all of these officers,dedicate their lives to protect and serve us as much as they can,to prevent us somehow from becoming victims of crime,to help us from feeling like prisoners in our homes,trying to make a difference,for all of us. We have to RESPECT and APPRECIATE that,we have to SUPPORT that. These officers have lives too,they all have families waiting for them to come home-they have the right not to become a stastistic.
Their fighting the good fight—–what happened in Anaheim,and the response that followed was shameful–in the wake of all the destruction,rioting etc.– 50 million dollars is being sought–in the name of JUSTICE—you really got to ask yourself—-what does it all mean—and quit pointing fingers when the truth is staring at you smack dab in your face-do I believe things got to change? Well,HELL YES—but change starts with YOU.
And,let’s face it, people don’t always like change or they just settle,or just plainly ignore what’s going on around them—and in this instance I think alot of denial on the part of Manuel Diaz’ family is going on,about who he really was and what he was REALLY up to that day in particular which caused him to RUN—-he was not caught in the cross fire of a crime in progress, he was not an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time-and unfortunately now they are using this shooting as an opportunity to exploit and profit from.And not to mention,causing more distrust and bad relations with the public and the P.D. It really sheds a bleek light on things to come–all in the name of JUSTICE.
Would you mind if I put in some paragraph breaks? I think that more people would read it.
DO IT
OK, I did what I could bear doing. Took ten minutes just to do as much as I did. Your turn — or let it stay as I left it.
Nope don’t mind—all the interest of better reading–
Mr. Diamond:
Thank you for correcting the misunderstanding that you are an attorney. I, too, was assuming that you were (an attorney) and I am a bit elated to know that you are not, especially since you do claim progressive credentials.
But why does that Phil Ochs song, “Love Me Love Me, I’m a Liberal” keep coming into my head as I read your rationalization of the fast-growing American Police State?
Please, if you can’t see the attack on Coyo (full disclosure, he is a friend of mine) as the very reason why “Terry stops” are an affront to the U.S. Constitution and to human rights, spare me from your self-serving liberal drivel.
It just gets in the way.
Kiss police-state ass all you want–doing so might help protect your own liberal ass for now (maybe until Terry Stops become so routine-at the discretion of the police state-that you or one of your relatives or friends gets roughed up or killed as a result), but it only goes to show that you are part of the problem–with the best of intentions, of course (insert dripping sarcasm here).
In the end, it all boils down to two questions that liberals (mainly Democrats) never want to deal with:
1) Who has the power and how much of it?
2)How are we going to change the balance of power?
For “the people,” the answer to the first question is obvious: “Not us.”
The answer to the second question is both simple and complicated, but one thing is for sure, liberals aren’t going to help you–they just want to keep you safely in line and will shoot you in the back of the head themselves if you shake up their safer world too much.
And, please, don’t bother editing my remarks.
Thank you
John Earl
Nobody here edits your remarks, John.
Vern:
It was a rhetorical comment directed at Mr. Diamond’s overall condescending (liberal) approach.
Well, on the little detail of adding paragraph breaks to some comments that go on and on and on without one, but are otherwise worthwhile, I admit I sometimes do that myself. Hurts my head to read eighty tightly spaced lines.
Okay, carry on with the liberal bashing.
Ok, let me explain a little more. I was referring to the fact that liberals are generally very condescending toward the people whom they so graciously (dripping sarcasm here) offer to “help.”
John, you have me at a disadvantage in that, as a candidate for public office, custom demands that I not tell you to not be such a prick — although I believe that if you engage in sarcasm I am allowed to engage in paralipsis. I’ll address the substance of your commentary in a response to your top-level comment.
John, GD is an attorney and a very good one at that! If you took the time to read the above posts, you would see that GD made some paragraphs and punctuation, becuse the long post was hard to read. You can see the difference between the two, if you took the time to look.
I do agree this is a complicated issue, however I am concerned that cops walk around with the wrong badge numbers but they expect me to have the corect ID on my person at all times. I am concerned that cops can harass people because they have guns. I realize we need law enforcement and there are caring cops BUT when they see a crime by law enforcement it is their job to step in and stop it. Like the murder in Fullerton. Not one cop stepped in and stopped it. Would they stop it if it were their loved one? Of course!!! Those who stood by and watched are guilty as well.
I do not condone violence between gang members either. ! know they are no saints, but they do not deserve to be shot in the head for running away.
Inge: I should have said “criminal law” attorney. He is not a criminal law attorney, but is an attorney. With that correction I stand by my post. Thanks
You leave me so much to cover here, John!
Before I went to law school, I was as inclined as most activists are to give learned opinions on what the law says at the drop of a hat. My being cured of that — well, partially cured — began when in my first month I offered an opinion on the legal status of something like a state’s ability to regulate some sort of pollution. My teaching assistant said that she thought that what I was saying — which was common knowledge in the environmental activist community at the time — wasn’t true. I said something like “oh yeah?” — and so she looked it up. It turns out that it was sometimes true, sometimes not true, sometimes partially true — and figuring out how to sort those out is why one goes to law school.
So, you’ll excuse me if I look at something like your statement about Terry stops and want to tie you a chair with your eyelids propped open like Alex in A Clockwork Orange and read you appellate court decisions until you’re screaming for mercy. (I wouldn’t do that, of course, because I’m a liberal.)
If you want a lawyer who will tell you, in explaining how to deal with Terry stops, that “Terry stops” are an affront to the U.S. Constitution and to human rights,” then the kind of lawyer I would suggest that you consult is a non- lawyer, as described above, who may think that that’s the most important thing for you to know. A lawyer will tell you that they are established law — really well established — and that you’re no more going to make them go away by saying “boo” than you’re going to make a bumblebee stop bothering you by explaining to it that aerodynamically speaking it should be unable to fly.
Recognizing that Terry stops are the law and that the legal response to them is to ensure that they are limited to the barest extent to which they are permissible under the Constitution is not “liberal drivel,” you wangdoodle, it’s exactly the sort of legal advice you should want from a lawyer and exactly the sort of thing that I hope that your friend Coyo — whose actions I celebrate in this story just in case you were mentally working so hard on your slam-bang reply to me that you missed it — will eventually be able to offer himself. This is not a matter of liberal or consevative or radical — it’s a matter of accurate or unreliable. My advice is: go with “accurate.”
You ask some good questions about power; your statement that Democrats and other liberals don’t want to deal with those questions is just sheer, simple ignorance on your part. Maybe there are some so-called liberals who would “shoot you in the back of the head themselves,” but I’m not among them. I have said that if I see someone throwing rocks at an otherwise peaceful rally, I will turn them in myself (and possibly tackle them first), but that’s because I want to protect the rights of others to protest peacefully — and I hate provocateurs. If you don’t like that, don’t go to protest rallies with me.
For the record, I worked (on loan from my law firm to the Center for Constitutional Rights) for part of the summer of 2001 and most of the summer of 2002 on the New York case Daniels v. City of New York, the precursor to the current Floyd that seeks to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, which you can read about here: http://www.ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk. I was there working hard with lots of other liberals and radicals — but blessedly few poseurs, which I suggest you pry yourself out of your cushy armchair and try to avoid being from now on.
My July 4 ritual for many years (before losing access to my record player) was to play a Phil Ochs concert album containing “Love Me, I’m a Liberal” full through at noon for the benefit of the neighbors, so that may be why the song comes into your head. (I believe that Ochs also had some good material on armchair radicals; maybe you should check it out if you feel up to criticism.)
When’s the last time you put your ass on the line the way that Coyotl did, John? For me, it was within the last year — and much more than once.
Ok, you liberal nitwit, I think you misread my little essay.
I didn’t challenge your claim that Terry stops are the law–if the Supreme Court says it is the law, then it is the law, even if the court is wrong–but your ridiculously qualified admiration of the police state tactic.
“I’m happy to our society to let Terry stops take place under the conditions outlined by the Supreme Court — conditions that I don’t think appear to have been met here.”
You qualify it further with “I do not favor Terry stops being used for harassment and intimidation” but that’s like saying that you can’t have a baby if you are only a little bit pregnant–typical “love me, I’m a liberal” logic.
How about saying, “I do not favor torture if it is used to harassment and intimidation”? You might as well. Oh, that’s right, you want to tie me to a chair, and do what to me?
Typical liberal!
As for putting my “ass on the line,” I’m not going to get into a whose-liberal dick-is-bigger contest with you; but, as a lawyer, don’t you know not to ask a question you don’t have the answer to?
The rest of what you say seems to prove my point about liberals.
Anyway, if you think that injustice is going to be stopped in the courts, maybe you should have studied history instead of law.
And that reminds me of another great song, predating the late great Phil Ochs. It’s called “Mr. Block.”
“Oh Mr. Block, You take the cake, You make me ache, Please go jump in the lake, For liberty’s sake!”
JE
Let me clarify — “I’m happy” to let Terry stops take place means “this is not something I’m going to fight.” It’s settled law. And no, Terry stops are not only used for harassment and intimidation. That’s the sort of reductionism that makes some self-consciously radical lefties look dumb. If you want to defend your implicit argument that there is no legitimate reason for a Terry stop, I’d enjoy hearing it.
You accuse me of being a “but don’t ask me to come on along” liberal, quoting Ochs, so you’ve already started the pissing contest. Smart move not to play.
There is no need for Terry stops in a “free” society other than to harass. But as any lawyer ought to know, there are lots of “legitimate” reasons that can be used to excuse illegitimate practices, even when the overall effect of the practice is much more harmful than beneficial.
Talk about stupid: it hasn’t been the “radical lefties” who have given into the police state and have, in general, gone along with the radical right-wingers on just about every issue, it’s been the stupid liberals who talk out of both sides of their mouths, the same liberals who seem to have have co-opted a lot the Occupy movement and the same (kind of) liberals trying to co-opt grass roots efforts in Anaheim.
So what you’re saying is that there’s no legitimate need for the police, having encountered someone who they may believe has committed or is committing or is about to commit a crime, to frisk them for weapons. I guess that makes sense if you think that there’s no legitimate need for police at all, but let’s presume for a moment than there is. You know why I want cops to be able to perform Terry stops when and only when they are apprpriate? So that, having frisked a subject, they’re less likely to shoot the subject given what might otherwise be an alarming move.
Whether you’re a radical leftie, a radical righty, a radical libbie, a radical anarchist, or whatever you are — the argument that there’s no possible legitimate basis for this sort of police work only makes a smart guy like you seem really stupid if not wholly unhinged.
Since you consider me a “liberal” and I’ve been involved with both Occupy and the Anaheim protests, why don’t you go ahead and tell me how you think I’ve co-opted them? Which Occupy groups do you think that they should be more like? If so, why didn’t you show up?
At various points, given that people seemed to want to be more militant, I’ve offered to stop working as a Civic Liaison for Occupy. I’ve always been implored to come back. So tell me, from your armchair at home — how was this “co-opting” the group?
You sound like Brandon Ferguson of the OC Weekly complaining that if we were serious protesters we’d have stormed the Federal Building. That’s another person whose ass, like yours, wasn’t on the line.
Here is the post I am actually responding to (for some reason, the reply button didn’t show). My response follows it.
Greg Diamond
Posted August 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM
So what you’re saying is that there’s no legitimate need for the police, having encountered someone who they may believe has committed or is committing or is about to commit a crime, to frisk them for weapons. I guess that makes sense if you think that there’s no legitimate need for police at all, but let’s presume for a moment than there is. You know why I want cops to be able to perform Terry stops when and only when they are apprpriate? So that, having frisked a subject, they’re less likely to shoot the subject given what might otherwise be an alarming move.
Whether you’re a radical leftie, a radical righty, a radical libbie, a radical anarchist, or whatever you are — the argument that there’s no possible legitimate basis for this sort of police work only makes a smart guy like you seem really stupid if not wholly unhinged.
Since you consider me a “liberal” and I’ve been involved with both Occupy and the Anaheim protests, why don’t you go ahead and tell me how you think I’ve co-opted them? Which Occupy groups do you think that they should be more like? If so, why didn’t you show up?
At various points, given that people seemed to want to be more militant, I’ve offered to stop working as a Civic Liaison for Occupy. I’ve always been implored to come back. So tell me, from your armchair at home — how was this “co-opting” the group?
You sound like Brandon Ferguson of the OC Weekly complaining that if we were serious protesters we’d have stormed the Federal Building. That’s another person whose ass, like yours, wasn’t on the line.
—-
Mr. Diamond, you might be an attorney, but first you are a sophist. Some would say there’s no difference, but, anyway–
The probable cause doctrine is quite sufficient to allow police to prevent or react to crime, especially considering the alternative of a police state, which our nation’s founders, whatever else their faults, seemed to have realized with the creation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.”
And court interpretations of probable cause had already allowed plenty of flexibility to the police:
“probable cause n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming “help”), actions typical of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt “written across their faces,” are more difficult to categorize. “Probable cause” is often subjective, but if the police officer’s belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon, or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure. (See: search, search and seizure, Bill of Rights)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.”
“PROBABLE CAUSE. When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. Cro. Eliz. 70; 2 T. R. 231; 1 Wend. 140, 345; 5 Humph. 357; 3 B. Munr. 4. See 1 P. S. R. 234; 6 W. & S. 236; 1 Meigs, 84; 3 Brev. 94. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.
2. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal. 5 Taunt. 580; 1 Camp. N. P. C. 199; 2 Wils. 307; 1 Chit. Pr. 48; Hamm. N. P. 273. Vide Malicious prosecution, and 7 Cranch, 339; 1 Mason’s R. 24; Stewart’s Adm. R. 115; 11 Ad. & El. 483; 39 E. C. L. R. 150; 24 Pick. 81; 8 Watts, 240; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 31: 6 Watts & Serg. 336; 2 Wend. 424 1 Hill, S. C. 82; 3 Gill & John. 377; 1 Pick. 524; 8 Mass. 122; 9 Conn. 309; 3 Blackf. 445; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.”
You don’t know anything about my background, yet you make huge assumptions about it and attack it, call me names and misstate my arguments instead of making a counter-argument to prove that my point against police state tactics (Terry stops) and warnings against liberals are fallacious.
Finally, here’s to you, Mr. Block (Vern, will you please sing this song with the proper music for Mr. Greenblock?):
Mr. Block
(Joe Hill)
1. Please give me your attention, I’ll introduce to you
A man who is a credit to the [“Our] old Red White and Blue[“]
His head is made of lumber and solid as a rock
He is a common worker and his name is Mr. Block
And Block [he] thinks he may be premier [President] some day
Chorus
Oh Mr. Block, you were born by mistake
You take the cake, you make me ache
[Go] tie a rock on your block and then jump in the lake
Kindly do that for Liberty’s sake!
2. Yes, Mr. Block is lucky – he got a job, by gee!
The shark got seven dollars for job and fare and fee
They shipped him to a desert and dumped him with his truck
But when he tried to find his job he sure was out of luck
He shouted, “That’s too raw! I’ll fix them with the law!”
3. Block hiked back to the city but wasn’t doing well
He said “I’ll join the union, the great AF of L”.
He got a job that morning, got fired by the night
He said, “I’ll see Sam Gompers and he’ll fix that foreman right!”
Sam Gompers said, “You see, you’ve got our sympathy.”
4. Election day he shouted, “A Socialist for Mayor!”
The comrade got elected [and] he happy was for fair
But after the election he got an awful shock
[When] a great big socialistic bull did rap him on the block
And Comrade Block did sob, “I helped him get his job!”
5. Poor Block he died one evening, I’m very glad to state
He climbed the golden ladder up to the pearly gate
He said, “Oh Mister Peter, one thing I’d like to tell
I’d like to meet the Astorbilts and John D Rockerfell!”
Old Pete said, “Is that so? You’ll meet them down below!”
John — my comment wasn’t included because we’ve “reached the right margin” where no more indented replies are possible. Your comment appears right under mine, though — as this comment will yours — so if you don’t mind my taking out the redundant inclusion of your comment I’d like to do so. If you do mind, of course, I won’t.
Terry v. Ohio was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, joined by Justices Black, Brennan, Stewart, Fortas, and Marshall — of whom all but Stewart were great progressive justices with great respect for the Fourth Amendment. Two of the more conservative Justices on these issues, White and Harlan, concurred; the great (but irascible) Justice Douglas dissented.
If these great figures saw a reason for allowing “stop & frisks,” I see very little reason to go against them. Even if I did, this is so completely not what current Fourth Amendment litigation is concerned with — it’s FAR to the left of what is at issue these days — that grousing about the legitimacy of Terry stops per se is pretty much shouting into the wind. It’s irrelevant to today’s fights.
There absolutely is a fight to be had over the abuse of Terry stops. Both in New York and here, I consider myself to have been part of that fight. You are part of it too — but I would hope that you would concentrate on the real battles at hand and not the theoretical battles (such as whether Terry stops should exist at all) that not only won’t be won, but won’t even be fought.
I’m sorry that you don’t like my tone. I tend to adjust my tone to match (though usually saying a couple or more steps more civil) that of the person with whom I’m arguing. I can point to what it is in your initial comment that led me to a confrontational tone, if you wish.
Your interest, I believe, is to discredit liberalism in favor of radicalism. There’s a lot of liberalism vulnerable to discrediting — and the same goes for radicalism. There are also good and useful and admirable elements of both. I try not to take a reductionist strategy about the tension between them, nor do I try to fight such macro ideological battles when there’s stuff to get done here on the ground. It would be nice if you did the same. In the spirit of “broad front” cooperation, I won’t rise to the bait you cast in your comment at this time.
33 arrests, 40 guns seized in Anaheim gang crackdownCulmination of yearlong operation focusing on one of the city’s oldest and most violent gangs also yields 11 pounds of crystal methamphetamine worth $2 million, officials say.
Where does this event fir into the discussion. Will you fellas post an article on the recent Anaheim gang bust in which one of those shot and killed was listed with a warrant?
http://www.ocregister.com/news/operation-368118-anaheim-police.html
Absent information to the contrary, it seems likely to reflect good police work. It fits into the story, in that case, as a contrasting example. I don’t have the resources to investigate myself whether it was actually something other than good police work, either instead or as well.
It doesn’t justify summary executions, though — does it, skally? In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if those executions undermined it somewhat, either by forcing them to speed up the operation or by polluting the opinions in the jury pool.
Oh for god sake Diamond – “summary executions” – you are entering looney-toon territory.
Without looking it up, skally, please give me your understanding of exactly how Manuel Diaz was reportedly killed.
Diaz was killed because he was not in prison.
Why did not the young man clear up his personal business and turn himself in for his prison term as promised to the courts?
Instead he went on a 6 month crime spree that ended with his death.
Yeah…and all the other things you or I might have done differently in our lives if we knew we were gonna get shot in the back of the head.
cook appears to be presuming facts that, so far as I know, are not in evidence. Perhaps he could elaborate on his allegation that Diaz had promised to turn himself in for a prison term but instead went on a six-month crime spree. Could be true, for all I know, but it could also be the sort of thing that someone makes up. (Not cook, of course, but perhaps his informant.)
he was reaching for ……… something …… maybe ….. probably ……..
That, questionable as it is, explains why he was shot the first time. Why was he shot the second time?
Because – again – he was reaching for something …………. – isn’t that the standard answer? Has an official report on the incident come out?
Face-forward on the ground, shot in the ass, this unarmed man was maybe “reaching for something.”
And then he was shot in the back of the head.
Tell me again why it’s “looney-toon territory” to talk about it being a “summary execution”?
Referring to the Diaz shooting-skallywag is correct-early reports stated, the situation started in the ALLEY near where the final shot took place.Two individuals were in a car-Diaz was leaning into the cars window-police pulled up on them,Diaz fled,which prompted both occupants in the car to flee as well.Police pursued Diaz on foot-it was also reported, as he ran he was throwing something-police repeatedly asked him to stop-he then at one point reached into the FRONT waistband area of his person-the first shot by police was taken-the pursuit continued to where the final shot took place-after Diaz once again reached to his front waistband area-the second shot was taken by police,subsequentially to the head.
There was activity by residents,from where the initial contact in the alley took place- all the way to the front of the apartment complex where Diaz fell.Police immediately hancuffed Diaz,who was lying on his stomach,face down,and at some point later as more units arrived(not much time later)-as the crowd started to gather,AND started confronting the police for the shooting,crowd control began.
I was sent a link from one of my friends friend,which showed actual cell phone video during the time after the shooting took place,from one of the Anna Drive residents.This video is not censored,audio is present,the crowd was ALREADY getting diffcult with the officers on scene,Diaz is clearly seen on the video.All of the officers were clearly in view on the video as well.
At the time,residents were arguing with the officers,as the officers were trying to move the crowd away from the gated enterance way where Diaz lay. I could distinguish at least two male voices and one very vocal young lady.One officer clearly stood over and by Diaz,others moved in the same area trying to obviously maintain the integrity of the scene,it seemed like to me,while other officers were dealing with backing up the crowd.
One officer is shown rolling Diaz over onto his back at one point.As to the question ,why the second shot?This whole incident took place in a KNOWN gang neighorhood-Diaz was a KNOWN active gang member-who went by the street name–STOMPER–you do the math.And YES,it was reported he was found not to have a gun on him-(THIS TIME)but really under the circumstances,the officers followed HIS lead on this-he started the chain of events that led to this conclusion.
Make NO MISTAKE-when you see the pictures of Diaz,especially the one where he is shown close up,wearing a black shirt or sweatshirt with a dark background behind him -look into his face, look into his eyes-no conscience, no remorse.I can tell you from knowing and dealing with people like that in my days-he had to have been a no nonsense person—the kind of person, where we would descibe as someone who—”TOOK CARE OF BUSINESS”.
I can say this whole situation would have been different if Diaz had the upper hand in all of this—we wouldn’t be talking about a gangbanger being shot and killed,we would of been talking about an officer being shot and killed—-minus all the rioting, destruction and choas that followed days after-oh yeah-and minus the 50 million dollar lawsuit.
So how far (and how fast) was he running after the initial shot to the buttocks?
CR, as I think skallywag was slyly indicating to me, the “he was reaching into his waistband” explanation has been used by police in enough situations where the person turned up unarmed and the weapon was not found that it has lost a lot of his credibility. You understand why, right?
The first problem I have with your story is: why was, on fleeing from the police, considered a legitimate target to be shot at all? My understanding of the law is that you can shoot at a felon fleeing from the scene of a crime. Was he under reasonable suspicion of a felony at the time that he was leaning in the car window? What felony was that? As you tell the story, it’s pretty much open season for police to shoot people who they think (rightly or wrongly) are gang members — because they can ALWAYS trot out the “reached into his waistband” story. What do you expect young Latino men to do in that situation? I would expect them to fire at cops preemptively. I don’t want cops to be killed, so I don’t want people in areas like Anna Drive to think that every time a cop comes by they’re in mortal danger, limited only by their trust that the cop has the right guy versus acting out of prejudice.
I’d like to know the link to that video you mention. Yes, I’m sure that the crowd was very upset.
With respect, statements like “he was a known active gang member … you do the math” suggest to me that you believe that it is open season on them: they should be able to be shot without second-guessing the police. (If police declared open season on people who look like you, what would you do?) That you’re willing to say, merely by looking into his eyes in a photo, that he had “no conscience” and was (you imply) a cold-blooded killer — well, I find that chilling. I’d like to line up 1000 Anaheim youth in front of you and let you tell us which ones you think it’s OK for the police to kill preemptively. And yes, you can say that Diaz would have killed the cops if he had been armed, but you don’t actually know. More shootings like this one and, tragically, you may be more likely to be right.
Congratulations on the improvement evident in your writing.
To anyone interested, the video that I’m speaking about can be viewed at;blogs.ocweekly.com ,under title,”He’s still alive”.And just sent to me via facebook-33 arrested,40 guns siezed,11 pds meth worth 2 million—raid which focused arrests of members of the EASTSIDE ANAHEIM GANG,in the city of Anaheim off ANNA DRIVE—the gang that MANUEL DIAZ was apart of-PEOPLE OPEN YOUR EYES—-OPIE TAYLOR wasn’t shot last july—a very dangerous and violent gang member was!!!
OPERATION HALO WAS A SUCCESS.Motivated and put together by the collaboration of APD and ATF, with the extensive cooperation of several other law enforcement agencies,following the fatal stabbing of 12 year old Juan Martinez,known as R2D2 in his tagging crew.And because of the shooting of Diaz, and its aftermath,this raid was put on hold until now.
If this major gang raid doesn’t justify our police department and what went down in July with Diaz-you people need to come out of your bubble subburbs and spend the night in our neighborhoods to see what we live with everyday—AGAIN much support to ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr Diamond,
Waistband excuse,really—this whole incident will go around in circles when, THE BLAME GAME is involved.Just like I mentioned before, when I first joined in on this convo—I am not a stranger to gangs,drugs and illegal activities-that way of life still IS present in my life,through some of my family and friend associations.
I don’t know how to really get it through to a ”civilian”or ”lame”—(not a personal attack-it’s just a description used to describe someone NOT from the barrio,or Not from a neighborhood=gang),street business is usually done in that manner, get in-get out,just like leaning in a car window to say HELLO,starting a conv,whatever,so it’s not suspicious.
ESPECIALLY when the area your in is HOT and patrolled by the police often–dealers want you in and out of there quickly.Running and tossing is standard-if your going to get busted,and you know it, the criminal mind registers the less charges they can pin on you the better=LESS TIME.
And if your known by the police,you automatically do this by instinct-the dynamic is so unreal-but so true, you develop these behaviors when your involved in this lifestyle.Diaz was in this comprimising situation,appearing I’ll say-if that makes you feel better-to be involved in the middle of a drug exchange.
For you to say-I’m suggesting OPEN SEASON on anyone,is just not accurate to anything I had said.I feel every situation has it’s own ending-the variables depend on the players involved.A nd since we’re specifically talking about the Diaz shooting-I stand by what I said before-the PD followed HIS lead on this,he started the chain of events,that led to this conclusion.
And when you say you would expect to see Latino men to shoot first–I’m sure it’s fair to say, police have to assume the same thing when a suspect is reaching toward an area where a WEAPON most likely will be.So to me,that whole idea could go ’round in circles too.And let me tell you something, if I may,predominately the residents in neighborhoods like Anna Drive,are not afraid of the PD.There more afraid of the gangbangers that they have in their face everyday, afraid for themselves and their kids.The worst part,they can’t do anything to change it,usually because of economics,or fear of retaliation if they do try to speak up- or sometimes,they just feel, it’s just better to ignore what’s going on,so you see Mr. Diamond,prisons are not only made of steel bars and brick-would you even know what I’m really saying to you.
Usually the law abiding,hard working members of communities like that,are inside of their homes,trying to avoid the goings on in the street—believe me when I say,the major gangs members we have in Anaheim are not concerned about the police.Not in the least,and THAT sir, is where you need not make any mistakes in judgement-cause unfortunately, that WILL costs someone there life.
And if you can recall–(because this time I’m having trouble following your post in some areas,so I’m diligently trying to respond accordingly), I too was involved in gangs,drugs,did jail time etc. etc,and I lived in areas with all that going on—so for you to say,I say it’s OPEN SEASON on gangbangers, is just plain stupid—I’m not playing GOODY TWO SHOES now because I changed my life and got out- HELL, I still have family and friends in that lifestyle—what I’m stressing is awareness,reality and exposing generational plagues, that live on and breed in our youth in these neighborhoods.
And YES, Mr. Diamond—like recognizes like-so looking into his eyes in the picture that I saw,and the others,(not the photo his mother is displaying on her memorial t-shirt,that’s for sure)—I have no doubt, on who he was.And as for your comment after that-I found it disgusting,not warranted of a response.I was really suprised on how closed minded you were actually to say something like that—it was disappointing to.Lining up 1000–really???
And like I said before,if Diaz had the upper hand,he would of killed that officer,and you know it, even if you can’t or won’t admit it yourself,and if you still don’t agree with that for what ever reason—the grass is truly greener in your neck of the woods-can my homies and I come visit sometime—wink wink
And thanks for commenting on my improvement in writing skill—-wow,I know I listed myself as,” CHICANA RESIDENT OF ANAHEIM”—–but dat dude not meant I wasunt edgeumacated in skewl ur nuthin-i did ok………………….Have a great day Mr.Diamond-and I do mean that PEACE IN ANAHEIM NOW
I can easily believe that Diaz was dealing drugs to the people inside that car (presuming that your story holds true. Did they flee on foot, by the way, or drive off? If on foot, what happened to the car? Hasn’t the owner been identified? Don’t they have the license number?)
However, even if true, the police did not yet have the evidence of that. Without the evidence, they didn’t have reasonable suspicion of a felony. They had reasonable suspicion of someone being afraid of cops. (If he were a fleeing felon, the they wouldn’t need the first “waistband” story.) So let’s just say that I have my doubts that Diaz, high-tailing his way into a residential complex where he might find sanctuary from the pursuing cops, was bothering to reach into his waistband for a weapon. But we can disagree on that.
They shot him in the butt. My understanding (which could be wrong) from witness accounts is that he fell down to the ground at that point. Now there comes the second “waistband” assertion — this one even less plausible given that he was in fact unarmed. And then they shot him, fatally, in the head.
I’m not sure whether you don’t understand that shooting an unarmed man who is on the ground and poses no threat is murder — or if you don’t care. I can do something about the former: unless the implausible “second reach to the waistband” story is true, it’s murder. I can’t do much about the latter.
I understand and respect your principled position against gang activity. I hope that you understand my principled position against murder.
We have a judicial system to deal with suspects in such situations. The belief that someone who is apprehended won’t be killed outright, but will have a chance to fight in court, is useful in getting people to surrender rather than to try to fight cops to the death — which I don’t want to see happen because, among other things, it leads to dead cops.
But here’s the other thing that bothers me: if you’ll look the other way when it comes to police murdering someone (in the interest of getting rid of gangs), why wouldn’t you do the same when it comes to planting evidence on them, falsifying testimony, etc.? You give a good argument for why the ends are so powerful that they justify the means — and yet they don’t. They can’t, if we’re to have a just and safe society.
P.S. Mr.Diamond,
What do you think about the 50 million dollar lawsuit?
I think that, as is usually the case with lawsuits, they’re aiming higher than they’re going to get. Generally, one can ignore those numbers.
My interest is in liability, not in the extent of damages — and it looks to me like there may well be liability.
Mr. D-
Not sure what the details are about that,everything was basically thrown in the air after the conclusion-the shooting.All seemed to go hush hush,on both sides-minus the protests and it’s outcome.I guess those blanks will be filled in during the investigation for all of the interested parties and public.
As to shooting anyone when their down—we have agreement on that—not justified and brutal,=YES, MURDER.And I do care-I hope I never gave YOU OR ANYONE ELSE, the impression, that I will trade, reasonable self defense,for ”shoot first,ask questions later”.And I do believe in due process-but there are holes in our system,and at times,criminals have more rights than the victims- even if there is a mountain of evidence that prooves their guilt.
Do you remember Al Valdez-former DA for O.C.-gang unit?You should look him up if he’s still around,and get his feedback on OUR GANG problem here.I’m sure you will get a better picture on the subject-I met him when I was in my early teens-he made a big impression on me,even though at the time I didn’t agree with his want to clean up our streets,(because I was on the wrong side,and I thought we were not a problem.)
And, NO-I will never look the other way-what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong-there’s no in between in my book.As for planting evidence,lying on the witness stand-even to witness accounts at the scene-I think it all comes down to who your dealing with and their integrity.Like they say, there are three sides to the story-their side side,your side,and the actual truth.And everyone will have their own perspective-and in this case,the want to point fingers to lessen their own accountability,and smoke screen the truth.TO KEEP THE BLINDERS ON THE ONE’S WHO ARE LOOKING IN THE FISH BOWL.
Our society,our communities,have always had unrest-for many reasons-too much to get into-and YES-I would want to live somewhere over the rainbow-with all who had that like mentality.But, we have to make due with what we have,and in the interest of a better tomarrow for all,put our best foot forward and DO MORE WALKING INSTEAD OF TALKING, and get our hands all up in the MENUDO,and try to change what’s going on,one day at a time.
Having GOOD INTENTIONS WITHOUT ACTION,does not help change anything-would you agree?As for liability-I don’t feel there is grounds-but unfortunatly,she may just get something for this-heck the money is still rolling in and being solicited for ”funeral costs”.And to be fair,if you don’t have funds to bury anyone,you do need help-As to the pay out—–let me enlighten you on something—
Many,many years ago,also in Anaheim,another gangbanger fleeing from the police was ran over by a police unit and everyone started screaming brutality,injustice—mind you, not even acknowledging anything else—just this guy was ran over.He settled for just over 2 million.
He ended up moving out of the”ghetto”,bought a house in Riverside I believe it was,turned that into a drug,gangbanger hide out spot,continued breaking the law and living the same life he did before,just alot richer,while here back in Orange County,the mother of his children sat in the social services office trying to get any help for her and her kids that she could,just to be denied,because he had 2 million.
I knew this girl,from my neighborhood,I held her in my arms as she cried for herself and her children,I couldn’t believe she had no options-it was heartbreaking.And now once again,we are at those same door steps—and I can’t blame Diaz’ mother for trying to collect a money settlement–she’s poor,we are all poor in the barrio—any chance to get out,is a fighting chance,and you’ll do anything to achieve that.
We do have hard workers in our neighborhoods,but we have takers too—and that’s the truth.Easy money is always sought-it suppose to solve everything didn’t you hear?Let’s all hope for resolution and peace in our city and county,and throughout really.Let’s hope for change and sooner than later.