Police acting stupidly? NEVER!*

*Except when they do.

Jon Stewart recently (rightly) pointed out how ridiculous it is that the mainstream media has been focusing so heavily on President Obama's response to one of the final questions he received after his recent press conference pushing health care reform. After all, the purpose of the meeting was supposed to be to put heavier focus on the state of heath care in our country, an incredibly important--and often dire--issue for most, if not all, Americans.

The latest U.S. census placed the number of uninsured Americans at 45 million. 9 million of those uninsured are children. Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Three-quarters of those filings are people with health insurance (you can include my own family in that statistic). It goes on and on.

Yet despite all of that, we're bickering about Obama's comments regarding the recent arrest of Harvard history professor Henry Louis Gates at his own home, even after he had presented proper ID to police.

Asked what he thought about the situation, Obama made the perhaps impolitic but no less honest remark that the Cambridge police responsible for the arrest "acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

Unsurprisingly, a chorus of righteous indignation (mostly by white, conservative voices) has risen to condemn the statement and accuse both Obama and Gates of racism and anti-police sentiment.

The Village Voice has put together an excellent rundown of the frothy-mouthed antics of the rightwing blogosphere here, and I highly suggest taking a look. It does a nice job of highlighting just how outrageous and ridiculous many of the pro-police/anti-Obama arguments are (it even highlights one of the lowlights of the Wisconsin blogosphere, Freedom Eden). One choice example:

Actually, rejoined Debra Moore of Exposing Liberal Lies, that may have been Obama's plan: "Could it be a lingering resentment for white people that Obama has carried since his youth?" She asserts that his book Dreams of My Father proved that "Obama was obsessed with the issue of race. Add that to his twenty years as a student of Jeremiah Wright, and the result is one angry black man. Isn't it interesting that Obama is friends with a Harvard professor who is clearly a racist himself?" (This last bit proven, presumably, by Gates' arrest.)

But something deep down inside tells me that if police came to any of these bloggers' own homes, accused them of breaking into it, asked for their ID, and then insisted on arresting them even after they produced it for "disorderly behaviour", they wouldn't exactly shut up and take it.

And if they did--if they're so unquestioningly loyal to every police officer in the country no matter what--then where on earth do they get off calling themselves patriots? Apparently a police state is no problem so long as it's only used against their political and ideological opponents.

As imprudent as Obama's remarks may have been, I'm still inclined to agree with them. I am not a police hater, and I don't know Sgt. Crowley and therefor cannot pass judgment on his actual character. Still, based off all accounts of the incident, I can say that I think his actions were stupid. A trained police officer should better know how to deal with an instance like this. So Gates was supposedly talking back - he was being (falsely) accused of breaking into his own home and threatened with arrest even after proving he was who he claimed to be! It should be obvious, then, why he might be a little bit annoyed. Arresting him for said annoyance is ridiculous, not to mention illegal.

I have a lot of respect for cops in general for doing a job that is, by all accounts, incredibly difficult and often dangerous. There are, I believe, more fine, upstanding police in this country than not. But I'm also not so naive as to believe that no bad apples, or just apples that sometimes make poor decisions, occasionally make it onto the force.

In fact, I've dealt with them personally over my lifetime. One instance was so abhorrent that it soured me on an entire city's police force for many years, and intensely strengthened my resolve to speak up and act out on improving how sexual assault is dealt with by authorities.

Point is, like any stereotype or generalization, labeling all police officers either perfect and infallible or piggish and fascist is a fool's errand, and one that's liable to lead us toward ruin as a society.

Further, I have no idea if race played a role in this particular incident - but to write off the very possibility is to do a great, ignorant disservice to the hard lessons of our country's history. The sad truth is that we still have a long way to go before anyone can claim that the mistakes of the past have no bearing on our present. It's not "white liberal guilt" to admit to that, either. It's just honesty.

(h/t illusory tenant)

Searching and seizing for fun and profit

Recently, Madison's mayor, Dave Cieslewicz, issued a three-page proposal of ways in which to combat rising gun violence in certain of the city's neighborhoods. It's good that these problems are being more directly addressed, but I can't help but have some serious concerns about one of the major points in his plan:

Madison police would enlist parental permission to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms...

Utilizing parental consent to a search instead of a search warrant approved by a judge is a way to move quickly — before the guns can do damage — when police are tipped off to the location of a weapon in the hands of a juvenile.

I understand the desire to move as quickly as possible when there's strong evidence indicating that someone is in possession of an illegal firearm. I understand that police and city officials are frustrated by the continued spike in crime in Madison. But is this really the best way to go about combating the problem? By circumventing, as far as I can tell anyway, one of the central tenants of the Constitution?

Not only would this plan potentially be a major violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it strikes me that it would only serve to foster greater mistrust between parents and their children, and/or children and their community.

I'm not saying we should never call out our young people on their more ridiculous or dangerous behavior. In fact, I suspect that a lack of good parental and community involvement is one of the key factors that leads some children to act out so rashly.

But is it going to help the situation to give police the power to rifle through a kids belongings without first obtaining a warrant? What happens when what they find is enough for them to level charges? Does the search just get thrown out for the lack of warrant?

What's more, when you really think about how such a policy would play out, you immediately run into hazards. How will police know/decide which kids to target? Do parents, friends, and other peers need to first come to the cops with information? Another option is one that The Sconz recently suggested:

Theoretically, the introduction of this plan suggests there is a group of cops who are keeping up with “gang politics,” per se. They are tuned into teen rivalries, they analyze youth arrests and try to figure out who is at risk to commit a crime with a firearm.

But like Sconz there, I'm a bit dubious that such a program exists, or that if it does, it's that sophisticated. Which leads one to wonder if this new policy wouldn't be ripe for abuse. Would there be a system of checks in place to look into the reliability of sources and make sure the searches weren't disproportionately (and unjustly) targeting kids from certain neighborhoods? That they wouldn't just be the result of petty vendettas?

I recognize that this is a terrible situation to be in, when things have gotten so bad that such ideas are being floated. And there are no easy solutions. But I can't help but cringe when yet another policy is invented that aims to take away the essential rights of minors. There's no better way to further piss off and disenfranchise them, which is precisely what we ought to be working to prevent.

So I have some questions, and until such time as those questions are satisfactorily answered, I have to object to this particular facet of Mayor Dave's new plan. I'm pleased that he and other city officials appear to be taking seriously the problem, but I worry that they're falling into knee-jerk reactions and scare mongering to address it.

Where do we draw the line?

We live in an increasingly public world. Many of us choose to put large chunks of our personal lives online (I am quite guilty of this), and are faced with daily decisions about just how far to go, how much to share. But anyone who puts anything onto the internet should know that whatever goes there has the potential to be seen. By anyone looking.

Still, it's our decision what and whether or not to put anything out there. And traditionally, it has been our right to remain private citizens off-line, in our own homes, cars, etc. More and more, however, our day-to-day preambulations are recorded by a variety of surveillance devices--whether we like it or not. And more than ever, we're faced with a serious dilema: How far do we let it go? How much surveillance do we allow in the name of security?

I'm torn. I just read about the Wisconsin appeals court upholding the right of police to attach GPS devices to cars without warrant, and I admit to being more than a little concerned. Heck, the court itself apparently felt the same way, as they were apparently "'more than a little troubled' by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals."

If the court itself that issued the ruling in favor of the practice has doubts about that very practice, you know it's a tricky subject.

The circumstances that brought the case before the court make things even more gray: A man suspected of stalking is investigated by police, who affix a GPS tracking device to his car and discover that he is, indeed, following the woman who lodged the complaint against him. Man is tried, sentenced, and thrown in jail.

Believe you me, I'm all for stalkers and other criminals getting their just desserts. But that doesn't stop me from feeling incredibly ill-at-east about this ruling. The defendant claimed that the GPS tracking violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, but the court came to the conclusion that since this was just tracking, it didn't constitute actual, physical search and/or seizure. And I can see the reasoning behind that. It makes sense.

But maybe there ought to be a reasonable expectation of privacy, of not being secretly tracked without warrant. And honestly, if the law allowed for GPS tracking of suspects but required a warrant to do so, I don't know that I'd be complaining. The fact of the matter, however, is that we've now given carte blanche to law enforcement agencies to essentially spy on anyone they so choose. Do I think all police are going to abuse this power? Certainly not, but I'm also not naive enough to think that no cop anywhere will ever take advantage of this ability.

So where do we draw the line?

In 2008, UW police began a "bait bike" program wherein the put GPS tracking devices on bicycles around campus, then used the information to hunt down the people who made off with the bikes. Is this an appropriate use of the technology and law? I would say yes, simply because the people being tracked have actually committed a crime at that point. That's very different than mere suspicion that they might break the law (I can't help but think of the Philip K. Dick short story "The Minority Report" when this sort of thing comes up).

I don't know about you, but I don't particularly relish the idea of being treated like I'm guilty until proven innocent. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the framers of the Constitution would feel the same way.

So we must ask ourselves, do we allow for broader surveillance powers and to be treated liked we're all potential criminal suspects, or do we place boundaries on what is and is not acceptable in the pursuit of improved safety and justice? Frankly, I'm leaning strongly toward the latter decision.


(photo by Steffen M. Boelaars on Flickr)

Hip hop is not the problem

I physically cringed when I read yesterday's headline that a fight had broken out and arrests made (including that of Rob Dz, one of the area's most well-respected emcees) at a local hip-hop show at the Brink Lounge. Great, I thought, just what we need more of in Madison, another excuse for people to stigmatize the music based on the actions of a few bad actors.

Lo and behold, I (and many others) was sadly right: The Brink has now officially decided to stop booking hip-hop acts all together.

The Daily Page reports on several elements of the incident that I had only suspected, but do now look to be the case. That police likely responded with excessive force, quickly and needlessly escalating a situation that was, by the time they'd arrived, well under control. Sixteen MPD officers (plus an undisclosed number of Capitol Police) showed up when called about a fight between two women at the show. How is that at all reasonable? They then peppersprayed and arrested several of the event's performers for, as far as I can tell, trying to 1) get their equipment out of the building, and 2) protest when they saw what they felt to be excessive force being used on the female suspects.

I wasn't there, so I can't make any definite judgments on how things were handled and why, but after hearing from several witnesses and people directly effected, I can't help but suspect that this was a case of inappropriate action on the part of the MPD, based mostly on the overall stigma now associated with hip-hop in this city.

It's an absolute shame, too. As mentioned in the Daily Page article, "...media and political attention to hip-hop in Madison is focused on negative matters and doesn’t focus on positive events like recent shows geared towards registering voters, collecting winter coats for the indigent, or raising money for a child with cancer."

Every experience I've had with Wisconsin hip-hop artists has been an overall positive one. A lot of the emcees and DJs do a lot of work in the community to not only bolster the profile of their music, but to help kids find a productive purpose in life, to do community organizing, and to work on behalf of social justice issues. Hell, sometimes what they do is just artistic expression without any immediate or grander purpose, but that's just as valid.

The problem isn't with the genre as a whole (you could make an argument against certain specific artists glorifying violence, etc., but I can't think of one single local musician who'd fit that profile). The problem is with individuals who happen to be in the audience and decide to do something stupid. But that happens at shows of all different genres. I'd be really curious to see statistics on fights and other disturbances breaking out at live shows in general, and if there's any correlation between their frequency and corresponding genre. I doubt it.

So now, based on ill-founded but widespread fears, hip-hop artists have one less venue to play in town. We could start focusing on regular ol' security issues, good capacity and organization regulations, and personal responsibility - or we can keep choking out an otherwise vibrant and relevant form of artistic expression. Which is it, Madison?

The tenacity of the reporter

Nathan Comp, writing in yesterday's edition of Isthmus, broke a story wherein new details about the disappearance of Amos Mortier were brought to light. A freelance writer who recently moved from Madison to Philadelphia, Comp got his hands on grand jury testimony related to the case and decided that some of the facts revealed therein didn't quite mesh with the official story given by law enforcement. It basically states that a suspect allegedly admitted to killing Mortier, but that Fitchburg police never really followed up on that lead.

It's compelling stuff. And though it's hard for any of us to yet say exactly what the truth of the story is, these new details do beg to be more thoroughly investigated.

What's really interesting about all of this to me, though, is the skepticism with which a Wisconsin State Journal reporter, Ed Treleven, wrote about Comp's article - and, too, the fact that all of this is based around a marijuana ring. I still have a hard time believing that, in this day and age, we still so demonize that particular plant*.

Comp has since posted an open letter in response to the WSJ article, and I suspect won't be letting the overall issue drop until the truth really does come out. Which is exactly the kind of attitude we, as a society, should expect out of our journalists.

Jason Shepard displayed this same fighting spirit when he doggedly covered the 911 center's bungling of the Zimmermann call and the problems with the Joel Marino murder case. And there are countless other relatively unsung heroes of journalism, too, out there every day trying to get at the real stories so that more people can be made aware of what's really going on in their world.

Unfortunately, they're not in the majority, nor are they generally given as much space in the more mainstream press. Add to that the current crumbling of various media outlets and the environment isn't exactly great for hardhitting journalism.

I try to do my part to help, but I'm hardly the best or the brightest out there. So it's always comforting to come across reporters who are still working hard, even in the face of increasingly tough odds, to get important information out to the masses. Whether or not the details relayed by Comp come to fruition, the service he and others like him provide are essential to maintaining an informed citizenry, and to keeping our public officials honest.

Perhaps most important of all, too, they can sometimes help to bring a little bit of peace to people like Mortier's mother, Margie Milutinovich, who is still just trying to find out what happened to her son.


*I could, and may still, write a whole other post about how ridiculous our country's policy toward marijuana is, and how de-criminalizing it could seriously help in reducing prison populations, assisting people with legitimate medical issues, bringing in more tax revenue, and providing a more eco-friendly resource for the construction of a whole slew of products.

COPS: Madison

As 25 new cadets officially join the Madison police force this Sunday, they walk into an increasingly troubled environment.

Ben Masel, who was peppersprayed and arrested while collecting campaign signatures at the Memorial Union Terrace during the summer of '06, took UW-Madison police officer Michael Mansavage to court on a federal civil rights suit. Though the trial yesterday apparently ended in a hung jury, it also served to bring out several new, incriminating details about how the officers conducted themselves. Barry Orton, writing over at Waxing America, has a good commentary about this:

...officer Michael Mansavage first missed Masel and instead peppersprayed his partner John McCaughtry, who was holding Masel by the arm at the time. Apparently, once McCaughtry and Mansavage had wrestled Masel into a face-down position on the ground, with McCaughtry's knee on Masel's back, Mansavage then peppersprayed Masel in the face. Mansavage also threatened to use a Taser on Masel for not putting his arm behind his back to be handcuffed fast enough, when the arm was, in fact, trapped under Masel's body.

The officers' descriptions of their actions made them look totally unprofessional, and strengthened Masel's claims. The multiple times both officers had to be taken through deposition statements that disagreed with their trial testimony didn't help either.

This seems like a pretty clear case, and one that will likely result in Masel eventually being awarded some serious damages. Several folks, including Orton, have pointed out that the city and police could have avoided the bad press and wallet-emptying had they conducted themselves properly in the first place. Taken along with all the recent Taser incidents and questions about how quick officers are to use them/how well they're trained with them, it's hard for folks not to feel some serious doubt about the very organization that's supposed to be protecting us and our civil liberties.

Former Madison police chief David Couper recently penned a thoughtful piece for The Daily Page that makes the call for better training, increased hiring standards, and creative thinking. It's well worth a read.

What do you think?

In the meantime, I'm going to be attempting to track Masel down for an interview about the case. If that goes well, it should be posted to dane101.com in the coming days, so be sure to check it out if you're interested.

The technology of truth

Over in Oakland, California, the community is still reeling from the New Years Day shooting of an unarmed man by a police officer. Yesterday, peaceful protests gave way to a handful of violent rioters, as anger over the strange and tragic circumstances of the incident bubbled over.

The man, Oscar Grant, was face-down on a BART station platform, having been apprehended as part of a scuffle between two groups of people on the train. The police officer, Johannes Mehserle, pulled out his gun and shot the unarmed Grant in the back, then proceeded to handcuff him.

Grant died several hours later in the hospital, and it's several days later and still no one knows why in the hell Mehserle did what he did. It doesn't help that he has since quit his job, meaning that the BART authority can no longer force him by threatening to fire him. Mehserle also retained the services of an attorney almost immediately after the shooting, and has not made any statements.

Some excuses flying around are that he really meant to grab and fire his Taser, or that maybe he thought Grant was reaching for a weapon. Neither of these theories really hold water, though, once you watch the four videos that were taken of the incident itself. At worst, it looks like an execution. At best, a stupid, horribly negligent mistake.

At this point in time, it's almost impossible to predict what the outcome of any investigation or trial will be. There's almost no precedent in Oakland for an officer being charged for shooting an unarmed civilian, so the citizens are, quite rightfully, skeptical that justice will be properly served in this case.

Thing is, the only reason there's any chance of real justice in this instance is that people on the scene took video of it and then posted it online. The ability of citizens to record events as they unfold has the potential to be a powerful, grassroots tool for seeing that the truth is told and that justice prevails. Otherwise, it's official word against that of the rabble, and we all know how that usually plays out.

Assisting in this new ability are things like the new Eye-Fi Explore SD card. It uses wi-fi triangulation to geo-tag and upload photos and videos as you take them, wherever you are. Imagine the possibilities. Friends of mine had been postulating the creation of this sort of technology for years now, touting its ability to help protestors and the like get their images safely away from any potential confiscation by authorities.

So had one of those police officers present at the BART shooting been so inclined to take away the cell phones of those people taping the incident, this sort of technology would have rendered those actions moot.

There is certainly room for this sort of technology to be abused--but the same can be said for almost any invention. The important thing is that important information gets out, and maybe, just maybe, guilty parties will actually be held responsible for their transgressions.

For Oscar Grant's sake, at least, I certainly hope they do.

We're still waiting

This just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? I don't even know what to say:

The notorious 911 call from Brittany Zimmermann's cell phone the day she died carried the sounds of a woman's screams and a struggle, according to long-sealed search warrants obtained by the Wisconsin State Journal.

The warrants were only unsealed because of time - officials had asked judges to continue resealing them, but the most recent expiration date was allowed to pass unchallenged. Maybe that was the easiest way for them to release this information. Passively.

Whatever the case, we can all now see one of the likely main reasons why officials didn't want this stuff out in public: it makes them look really, really bad.

Still, many questions remain unanswered. Why, if there was audible screaming and struggling on the call, did the trained dispatcher claim not to hear anything (as according to her and to former 911 director Joe Norwick)? And why didn't she follow up on the call, as procedure dictated? 48 minutes then passed between the call being made and police being dispatched to the apartment, presumably only because Zimmermann's fiance had by that point also made a 911 call.

I recognize that it's unlikely much could have been done to actually save Brittany's life. But it is very much worth our while to question what might have been done differently so that her killer could have been caught and brought to justice long ago. There's always a better chance of that if police are dispatched immediately. But they weren't, and the perpetrator remains at large.

And the 911 center? Still having issues, even after all of this. Although they were much quicker to release information on what went wrong afterward, their handling of the calls leading up to the beating death of a man in Lake View Park in November was also very poor. Negligent, even.

Yet Kathleen Falk still insists that "problems at the 911 Center have been overblown. The facility, she maintains, has been well managed and adequately staffed."

I don't place all of the blame for these problems on Falk's management, or on any one person for that matter. But her continued dismissals of, in my mind, perfectly valid concerns over 911 center performance do nothing to bolster her position. They make her seem out of touch and unconcerned with the very real problems faced by the center and the community it serves. It certainly won't solve everything, but having an executive willing to really confront these issues head-on would definitely be helpful.

Upgrading 911 center software and equipment is important, but so is making sure there are adequate staffing levels (and training) so that no one is forced into heavy overtime. Hiring an experienced, accountable center director would be a good start, too.

All of this is not to say that I'm endorsing Nancy Mistele's run for Falk's office. Frankly, she strikes me as an even worse choice for the job. But that won't keep me from calling for accountability from Falk and everyone else involved.

Pham-Remmele not feeling very welcoming

"We must not continue to welcome into Madison more at-risk populations from elsewhere because we will never have sufficient resources to provide for them." - Madison Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele, 20th District.

I'm aware that sentiments such as this one exist, but it's somewhat rare to see them laid so bare, and by an elected official, no less. And I couldn't disagree with it more.

A skirmish of sorts has broken out between Pham-Remmele and those who advocate for more affordable housing and public services, the result of an email sent by Madison Police Captain Jay Lengfeld (West District) to Pham-Remmele. In it, Lengfeld argues that:

1. The City needs to reduce or freeze the number of subsidized housing units in the city. The at risk population in Madison has exceeded the ability of service provides to service them.

2. The City needs to license landlords, so we have citywide standards and can weed out the bad ones.

3. Landlords need more protection to deny applicants with a history of bad behavior. The Russett Rd shooting is a prefect example: a family was evicted from an address on the Southside for behavior reasons and within weeks they had the same bad behavior in the Russett Rd area. We are now evicting them from Russett, but I am sure they will find housing somewhere else in the city and bring the same problems to that neighborhood.

At first blush, I think most folks would agree that landlords should be able to better screen out bad tenants. But, according to Ald. Brenda Konkel, they already do have that ability under the law, so Lengfeld's point seems redundant. Konkel further breaks down his arguments, going on to note that:

1. The City hasn't increased its subsidized housing stock in, um, years. CDA hasn't built any new public housing units since the 1970's and the section 8 program hasn't added any Section 8 vouchers since the 1990s.

2. Landlords have all the ability in the world to deny tenants for bad behavior and eviction records. They simply have to do landlord reference checks and check CCAP.

3. There is no money in the City budget for increased community services to help service providers because we gave it all to the police department last year for their 30 new officers to deal with these problems. You can't have it both ways, do we need police to solve these problems or services?

I'd be curious to look over just what money is and is not allocated in the City budget for community services, and what, if any, those services are. But otherwise, Konkel makes some good points. We poured a ton of money into adding 30 new officers to the rolls--which still seems pretty excessive to me--and now Lengfeld's complaining that that's not enough. Since we clearly don't have the money to both add lots of officers and increase city services, we should maybe be spending more time figuring out which is the better investment. Me? I suspect we could have met in the middle, adding a smaller number of new officers and somewhat better funding for community services.

Law enforcement is important, but it doesn't solve everything. We need to work harder at preventing crimes in the first place, and a lot of that relies on making sure all of our citizens, at-risk or otherwise, are well served: good schools, affordable housing, accessible daycare, respite centers, job training, and after school programs are all good examples.

Simply saying "stop letting at-risk people move here!" does not solve the problem, and likely just makes things worse by demonizing an entire population and forcing them to pool in areas that don't have services. Then the cycle just tends to continue, with little progress for anyone.

Happily, I'm not the only one who's more than a little put off by Pham-Remmele's comments. But we need more voices chiming in, from all sides, so we can better devise good solutions and tactics for tackling what is a very complex--and very crucial--issue.

Good bad news

Although legally still attached to the "alleged" preface, it looks like Madison police have Joel Marino's murderer in custody. And thank goodness for that. I extend my heartfelt compliments to the MPD for sticking with the case and tracking down the responsible party. Hopefully now the Marino family can begin the healing process more in earnest. Of course, who knows if there will ever be a clear motive. As it's shaping up, this sounds like it might just be a tragic case of someone going wrong in the head and taking it out on a random stranger. Still, all the "whys" in the world won't make Joel Marino's death any easier for anyone to take. It's terrible, plain and simple.

While I want to congratulate the MPD on a case (apparently) well solved, I also want to make a point of stating that it's important to keep up pressure on the department over how they've handled the recent spate of murders. I don't advocate witch hunts, but there's a difference between that and simply demanding accountability. We still have almost zero information regarding Kelly Nolan's death, and the bumbled handling of Brittany Zimmermann's case was and is inexcusable. A full accounting must be made so that everyone involved can improve and deal with this sort of thing more effectively and sensitively in the future.

Still, it's a relief to finally have some...I won't say "good" news, but progress for sure.

Good intentions don't always equal effectiveness

Every new day seems to bring further news of deeper problems and outrages regarding the Brittany Zimmermann case and the overall ability of emergency and police services to do their jobs well. With all of the conflicting stories, it's hard not to be confused about what you can believe. These are the people that are supposed to be watching our backs, and while I don't doubt their sincerity, all the good intentions in the world aren't always going to be enough to get the job done right. There needs to be appropriate experience, accountability and a certain degree of openness, too.

And yet, and yet....

Yesterday, Joel Marino's grandmother broke her police-requested silence in telling Isthmus that she had been on the phone with him at the time the break-in occurred.

[Marino's grandmother] says she told Detective Matt Misener about this.

“I said, I heard the killer you know. And he said, yes, I know. But he said you can’t tell anyone about this. So for all this time, I’ve not said anything.”

She says she’s talking now because, “I think we’ve given the police every opportunity to do some things that we felt were necessary.”

A witness who claims to have twice seen Marino's killer says that both times he reported it the police failed to act.

Another witness saw someone the night before Zimmermann's murder who closely resembled police sketches of the suspect in the Marino case. He snapped a few pictures of the man and hand delivered them to the police, only to have them pretty much ignored and brushed off. The witness also gave copies of the photos to Marino's parents, who were so struck by the resemblance that they called Misener and asked him about them. He "admitted that he hadn't seen the photos."

It took the recent publication of an Isthmus article breaking the news about the Zimmermann 911 call to prompt any action and/or follow-up by the center and officials, but not before several misleading (whether deliberate or not) and contradictory explanations were given.

And now, more stonewalling. Plus, word that Joe Norwick, director of the Dane County 911 Center, had no direct experience managing such a call center prior to being hired:

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk hired Joe Norwick as 911 center director last year at a $100,000 annual salary even though he did not have the experience in "public safety communications management" the job description specified.

"He did not have five years of management experience in a 911 center," acknowledged Topf Wells, Falk's chief of staff. But county officials said Wednesday they gave Norwick, a longtime sheriff's deputy and former chief deputy, credit for his five years as chairman of the 911 oversight board, which generally meets once a month.

The article goes on to note that one of Norwick's top references for the job, Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, was "also a member of the hiring subcommittee that picked and ranked the four finalists — ranking Norwick No. 1." Mahoney, however, "didn't see a conflict of interest."

While Norwick's supporters tout his law enforcement experience as good enough reason for him to hold the position, Norwick continually seems to shoot himself in the foot with incidents like this:

Last week, in a news conference about the mishandling of the 911 call, Norwick wouldn't answer a technological question about whether the center had features that would remind dispatchers to call back when they are disconnected from a caller.

"Please excuse me," Norwick told reporters. "My background is not sitting in a communications chair. My background is with the Sheriff's Office and law enforcement. If there's some question that are technical questions about the operations, I'll have to get back to you on that."

Shouldn't the director of the 911 center have at least a passing familiarity with the technical aspects of their systems? While I can understand why questions about the exact content of the Zimmermann call may not be answerable, I see no reason why this question couldn't be answered other than lack of knowledge. That's just unacceptable.

There are technically 5 unsolved homicides from the last year in Madison. The Zimmermann and Marino cases are eerily similar, with both likely having been stabbings and both occurring in a similar location. Killed in late June of 2007, Kelly Nolan's case also remains unsolved, with few details about the case having ever been released. The August '07 murder of George Thomas at the Kings Inn (a motel on the Beltline) also remains unsolved, as does a homicide that took place on Cypress Way in November.

While part of me wants to rant and rage against the machine, I do also understand that certain sensitive information must remain undisclosed for the sake of the investigation. I know that such crimes are not always terribly easy to solve. I know that police have a lot on their plates.

I know all of this, and still what has happened recently looks more and more like stonewalling, incompetence and mismanagement with each passing day and each new breaking story.

It's one thing for a person or organization to want to prove that they have the wherewithal to successfully tackle these problems. It's an entirely different matter when those people or organizations get in over their heads and still refuse to ask for help or admit mistakes.

Politics and personal pride need to go right out the window when it comes to the safety and well-being of your fellow citizens. No more hiring unqualified people to important positions simply because you're good buddies (gee, this sounds familiar). No more stonewalling the community when it comes to crucial details that might help improve their personal safety (another recent case of this came up recently in Fennimore, and is pretty blatantly shitty).

Hire more dispatchers for the 911 center, implement more thorough and up-to-date training with clarified procedures, seriously consider bringing on a new director (sorry Norwick, but you've had your chance and pretty spectacularly failed), and maybe bring in outside units to help assist the MPD in solving these cases.

And for crying out loud, LISTEN to people when they tell you they've seen someone matching the description of the killer. I can't even begin to wrap my head around how that all worked out.

Serious changes need to be made, and they need to be made yesterday. The MPD and emergency services want us to place our trust in them? Then they need to continue to earn it.

A Strange Case: the Zimmermann 911 call and the stories told afterwards

I'm cross-posting this from dane101.com.

No one seems to be able to get their stories straight. Just over a month after UW-Madison student Brittany Zimmermann was murdered in her Doty St. apartment and a week after the initial revelation about her 911 call was published in an Isthmus article by Jason Shepard, no one seems willing or able to set the record straight.

Read the entire article here.

Feel free to tell me if I got it all wrong, all right, or missed anything. I'm only interested in helping us all to better understand the situation.

UPDATE: Cripes, this just keeps getting worse: "Did Madison cops miss chance to catch Joel Marino killer?" In other news, my respect for Jason Shepard grows daily.

You're gonna be in pictures

I popped over to The Daily Cardinal's website on a whim and read this article about police videotaping large events around town.

UW-Madison history professor James Donnelly raised some concerns regarding the constitutionality of this issue at the faculty senate meeting Oct. 1.

“If the police are videotaping any old student demonstration where the students are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of assembly and free speech, this could be in some way intimidating,” Donnelly said.

Donnelly said he was alarmed by the lack of published policy clarifying the procedure for videotaping public events, and became concerned that the executive arm of the faculty senate was unable to review or determine whether the policy is “properly balanced.”

I've been to enough protest rallies, marches, political and sporting events to know full-well that police departments all over the country make a habit of filming such things. The first few times I noticed it, I admit to being somewhat shaken up. More than one of the plainclothes or uniformed cameramen made a point of looking all-too smug about what they were doing, assuming that it would make the protesters run and hide. It never did. And the protesters never turned violent (but sometimes the police did).

I've thought about it since and, heck, let them film. I've taped a lot of the events I've been to, have maybe even caught a few less-than-legal activities without knowing it. The thing is, when you start codifying who can and cannot film or photograph public events, you're scooting down a fairly slippery slope toward censorship.

Private events? Different story. But a bunch of people walking up and down a public street or gathered in a public forum? Fair game for pretty much anyone, and that's how it should be. Perhaps a more clear and concise policy is in order to make sure everyone knows that's the case, but that's the only reason I could get behind for such a move.

Now if there wasn't the issue of the recent proliferation of CCTV cameras, this would be a relatively cut-and-dry topic for me. But when does filming people in public places turn a bit sinister? When you're using the technology to stalk those people--and frankly, private citizens and law-enforcement officers on power trips are equally culpable. So maybe the difference is between permanently mounted surveillance cameras (creepy) and hand held, temporary recorders of a single event (generally less creepy).

I'm no scholar of privacy rights and such, so these are just off-the-cuff thoughts about the subject. But it's something worth thinking about, especially as the technology for watching people becomes more and more affordable, and more and more concealable.