ReportWire

Tag: officers

  • This Jan. 6 plaque was made to honor law enforcement. It’s nowhere to be found at the Capitol – WTOP News

    Approaching the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the official plaque honoring the police who defended democracy that day is nowhere to be found.

    A replica plaque commemorating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot stands outside the office of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    Capitol Riot Anniversary
    A replica plaque commemorating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot hangs outside the office of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2025, at the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    Capitol Riot Anniversary
    A replica plaque commemorating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot stands outside the office of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    Capitol Riot Anniversary
    A replica plaque commemorating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot hangs outside the office of Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2025, at the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    Capitol Riot Anniversary
    A replica plaque commemorating the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot hangs outside the office of Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2025, at the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Approaching the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the official plaque honoring the police who defended democracy that day is nowhere to be found.

    It’s not on display at the Capitol, as is required by law. Its whereabouts aren’t publicly known, though it’s believed to be in storage.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has yet to formally unveil the plaque. And the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking to dismiss a police officers’ lawsuit asking that it be displayed as intended. The Architect of the Capitol, which was responsible for obtaining and displaying the plaque, said in light of the federal litigation, it cannot comment.

    Determined to preserve the nation’s history, some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have taken it upon themselves to memorialize the moment. For months, they’ve mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors, resulting in a Capitol complex awash with makeshift remembrances.

    “On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on Jan. 6, 2021,” reads the faux bronze stand-in for the real thing. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

    Jan. 6 void in the Capitol

    In Washington, a capital city lined with monuments to the nation’s history, the plaque was intended to become a simple but permanent marker, situated near the Capitol’s west front, where some of the most violent fighting took place as rioters breached the building.

    But in its absence, the missing plaque makes way for something else entirely — a culture of forgetting.

    Visitors can pass through the Capitol without any formal reminder of what happened that day, when a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the building trying to overturn the Republican’s 2020 reelection defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. With memory left unchecked, it allows new narratives to swirl and revised histories to take hold.

    Five years ago, the jarring scene watched the world over was declared an “insurrection” by the then-GOP leader of the Senate, while the House GOP leader at the time called it his “saddest day” in Congress. But those condemnations have faded.

    Trump calls it a “day of love.” And Johnson, who was among those lawmakers challenging the 2020 election results, is now the House speaker.

    “The question of January 6 remains – democracy was on the guillotine — how important is that event in the overall sweep of 21st century U.S. history,” said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University and noted scholar.

    “Will January 6 be seen as the seminal moment when democracy was in peril?” he asked. Or will it be remembered as “kind of a weird one-off?”

    “There’s not as much consensus on that as one would have thought on the fifth anniversary,” he said.

    Memories shift, but violent legacy lingers

    At least five people died in the riot and its aftermath, including Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by police while trying to climb through a window toward the House chamber. More than 140 law enforcement officers were wounded, some gravely, and several died later, some by suicide.

    All told, some 1,500 people were charged in the Capitol attack, among the largest federal prosecutions in the nation’s history. When Trump returned to power in January 2025, he pardoned all of them within hours of taking office.

    Unlike the twin light beams that commemorated the Sept. 11, 2001, attack or the stand-alone chairs at the Oklahoma City bombing site memorial, the failure to recognize Jan. 6 has left a gap not only in memory but in helping to stitch the country back together.

    “That’s why you put up a plaque,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa. “You respect the memory and the service of the people involved.”

    Police sue over Jan. 6 plaque, DOJ seeks to dismiss

    The speaker’s office over the years has suggested it was working on installing the plaque, but it declined to respond to a request for further comment.

    Lawmakers approved the plaque in March 2022 as part of a broader government funding package. The resolution said the U.S. “owes its deepest gratitude to those officers,” and it set out instructions for an honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation at the Capitol.

    This summer, two officers who fought the mob that day sued over the delay.

    “By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” said the claim by officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”

    The Justice Department is seeking to have the case dismissed. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and others argued Congress “already has publicly recognized the service of law enforcement personnel” by approving the plaque and displaying it wouldn’t alleviate the problems they claim to face from their work.

    “It is implausible,” the Justice Department attorneys wrote, to suggest installation of the plaque “would stop the alleged death threats they claim to have been receiving.”

    The department also said the plaque is required to include the names of “all law enforcement officers” involved in the response that day — some 3,600 people.

    Makeshift memorials emerge

    Lawmakers who’ve installed replicas of the plaque outside their offices said it’s important for the public to know what happened.

    “There are new generations of people who are just growing up now who don’t understand how close we came to losing our democracy on Jan 6, 2021,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, which was opposed by GOP leadership but nevertheless issued a nearly 1,000-page report investigating the run-up to the attack and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

    Raskin envisions the Capitol one day holding tours around what happened. “People need to study that as an essential part of American history,” he said.

    “Think about the dates in American history that we know only by the dates: There’s the 4th of July. There’s December 7th. There’s 9/11. And there’s January 6th,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., who also served on the committee and has a plaque outside her office.

    “They really saved my life, and they saved the democracy and they deserve to be thanked for it,” she said.

    But as time passes, there are no longer bipartisan memorial services for Jan. 6. On Tuesday, the Democrats will reconvene members from the Jan. 6 committee for a hearing to “examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York announced. It’s unlikely Republicans will participate.

    The Republicans under Johnson have tapped Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia to stand up their own special committee to uncover what the speaker calls the “full truth” of what happened. They’re planning a hearing this month.

    “We should stop this silliness of trying to whitewash history — it’s not going to happen,” said Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., who helped lead the effort to display the replica plaques.

    “I was here that day so I’ll never forget,” he said. “I think that Americans will not forget what happened.”

    The number of makeshift plaques that fill the halls is a testimony to that remembrance, he said.

    Instead of one plaque, he said, they’ve “now got 100.”

    Copyright
    © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • Top military lawyer told chairman that officers should retire if faced with an unlawful order

    How should a military commander respond if they determine they have received an unlawful order?Request to retire — and refrain from resigning in protest, which could be seen as a political act, or picking a fight to get fired.That was the previously unreported guidance that Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave to the country’s top general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, in November, according to sources familiar with the discussion.Related video above: US military strikes on drug boats in Latin America spark legal concernsCaine had just seen a video that included six Democratic lawmakers publicly urging U.S. troops to disobey illegal orders. He asked Widmar, according to the sources, what the latest guidance was on how to determine whether an order was lawful and how a commander should reply if it is not.Widmar responded that they should consult with their legal adviser if they’re unsure, the sources said. But ultimately, if they determine that an order is illegal, they should consider requesting retirement.The guidance sheds new light on how top military officials are thinking about an issue that has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, as lawmakers and legal experts have repeatedly questioned the legality of the U.S. military’s counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean — including intense scrutiny of a “double-tap” strike that deliberately killed survivors on Sept. 2.Caine is not in the chain of command. But he is closely involved in operations, including those in SOUTHCOM, and is often tasked with presenting military options to the president—more so than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CNN has reported.The Joint Staff declined to comment for this story.Several senior officers who reportedly expressed concerns about the boat strikes, including former U.S. Southern Command commander Adm. Alvin Holsey and Lt. Gen. Joe McGee, the former director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy on the Joint Staff, have retired early in recent months.Widmar’s advice to Caine was meant to help inform the chairman’s discussions with senior military officials should the issue come up, the sources said. The Democrats’ video had become headline news, enraging Hegseth and sparking debates across the country.A separate official familiar with military legal advice said that it is not uncommon for lawyers to urge servicemembers to consider leaving the force if they believe they’re being asked to do something they are personally uncomfortable with, but it’s typically handled on a case-by-case basis and tailored to the facts of the situation.Other current and former U.S. officials, however, including those who have served as military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, stressed that broadly encouraging servicemembers to quietly retire — if they’re eligible — rather than voice dissent in the face of a potentially illegal order risks perpetuating a culture of silence and lack of accountability.”A commissioned officer has every right to say, ‘this is wrong,’ and shouldn’t be expected to quietly and silently walk away just because they’re given a free pass to do so,” said a former senior defense official who left the Pentagon earlier this year.More than a dozen senior officers have either been fired or retired early since Trump took office in January, an unusually high rate of turnover. In a speech before hundreds of general and flag officers in September, Hegseth directed officers to “do the honorable thing and resign” if they didn’t agree with his vision for the department.But disagreeing with the direction of the military is different than viewing an order as illegal, legal experts said.Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former JAG lawyer, said that the guidance, as described by CNN, appears to “misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful and attempt to persuade the order-giver to stop or modify it have failed, and report it through the chain of command.”Maurer added that “if the guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers that they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the guidance is not a legitimate statement of professional military ethics and the law.”Widmar advised that an order may be unlawful if it is “patently illegal,” or something an ordinary person would recognize instinctively as a violation of domestic or international law, the sources said — the My Lai massacre in Vietnam is an oft-used example. But the guidance he provided was that an unlawful order should be met with retirement, if possible, and did not note that servicemembers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the sources said.”It’s a very safe recommendation in this current political environment,” said the former senior defense official. “But that doesn’t make it the right or ethical one.”Experts on civil-military relations have previously pointed to retirement as a reasonable option for officers who object to a particular policy, while noting that it comes with its own costs.In a September article that has been discussed amongst the Joint Staff and other senior military officials, Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University, and Heidi Urben, a former Army intelligence officer and current associate director of Georgetown University’s security studies program, wrote that “quiet quitting,” or opting for retirement “allows officers with professionally grounded objections to leave without posing a direct challenge to civilian control.”But while officers shouldn’t resign in protest or pick fights, they argued, they should “speak up” and “show moral courage” when the military’s professional values and ideals are at risk.And they should be willing to be fired for it. “Complete silence can be corrosive to good order and discipline and signal to the force that the military’s professional values and norms are expendable,” they wrote.Maurer, the former Army officer, said the advice to retire in the face of an unlawful order also functions to “keep that person silent in perpetuity, because as a retiree he or she remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes a broad range of conduct and speech that would be constitutionally protected for regular civilians.”Those constraints have been apparent as the Pentagon has launched an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and one of the Democratic lawmakers seen in the video encouraging troops to disobey unlawful orders, which prompted Caine to seek legal advice.As questions continue to swirl around the legality of the boat strike campaign, Widmar also advised Caine that Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to authorize lethal force to protect the nation, unless hostilities rise to the level of a full-blown war, in which case Congressional approval is required, the sources said.Whether the president’s orders are legal to begin with, Widmar advised according to the sources, is a question only the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel can answer, due to the executive order Trump issued in February that says the president and the attorney general’s “opinions on questions of law are controlling” on all executive branch employees — to include U.S. troops.The Office of Legal Counsel determined in September that it is legal for Trump to order strikes on suspected drug boats because they pose an imminent threat to the United States, CNN has reported.Since Sept. 2, the U.S. military has killed at least 99 people across dozens of strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, arguing that those targeted were “narcoterrorists” who pose a direct threat to the United States. The Trump administration has also not provided public evidence of the presence of narcotics on the boats struck, nor their affiliation with drug cartels.Lawmakers have said that Pentagon officials have acknowledged in private briefings not knowing the identities of everyone on board a vessel before striking it; instead, military officials only need to confirm that the individuals are affiliated with a cartel or criminal organization to target them.Some members of Congress, legal experts and human rights groups have argued that potential drug traffickers are civilians who should not be summarily killed but arrested —something the Coast Guard did routinely, and continues to do in the eastern Pacific, when encountering a suspected drug trafficking vessel.CNN’s Haley Britzky contributed to this report.

    How should a military commander respond if they determine they have received an unlawful order?

    Request to retire — and refrain from resigning in protest, which could be seen as a political act, or picking a fight to get fired.

    That was the previously unreported guidance that Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave to the country’s top general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, in November, according to sources familiar with the discussion.

    Related video above: US military strikes on drug boats in Latin America spark legal concerns

    Caine had just seen a video that included six Democratic lawmakers publicly urging U.S. troops to disobey illegal orders. He asked Widmar, according to the sources, what the latest guidance was on how to determine whether an order was lawful and how a commander should reply if it is not.

    Widmar responded that they should consult with their legal adviser if they’re unsure, the sources said. But ultimately, if they determine that an order is illegal, they should consider requesting retirement.

    The guidance sheds new light on how top military officials are thinking about an issue that has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, as lawmakers and legal experts have repeatedly questioned the legality of the U.S. military’s counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean — including intense scrutiny of a “double-tap” strike that deliberately killed survivors on Sept. 2.

    Caine is not in the chain of command. But he is closely involved in operations, including those in SOUTHCOM, and is often tasked with presenting military options to the president—more so than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CNN has reported.

    The Joint Staff declined to comment for this story.

    Several senior officers who reportedly expressed concerns about the boat strikes, including former U.S. Southern Command commander Adm. Alvin Holsey and Lt. Gen. Joe McGee, the former director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy on the Joint Staff, have retired early in recent months.

    Widmar’s advice to Caine was meant to help inform the chairman’s discussions with senior military officials should the issue come up, the sources said. The Democrats’ video had become headline news, enraging Hegseth and sparking debates across the country.

    A separate official familiar with military legal advice said that it is not uncommon for lawyers to urge servicemembers to consider leaving the force if they believe they’re being asked to do something they are personally uncomfortable with, but it’s typically handled on a case-by-case basis and tailored to the facts of the situation.

    Other current and former U.S. officials, however, including those who have served as military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, stressed that broadly encouraging servicemembers to quietly retire — if they’re eligible — rather than voice dissent in the face of a potentially illegal order risks perpetuating a culture of silence and lack of accountability.

    “A commissioned officer has every right to say, ‘this is wrong,’ and shouldn’t be expected to quietly and silently walk away just because they’re given a free pass to do so,” said a former senior defense official who left the Pentagon earlier this year.

    More than a dozen senior officers have either been fired or retired early since Trump took office in January, an unusually high rate of turnover. In a speech before hundreds of general and flag officers in September, Hegseth directed officers to “do the honorable thing and resign” if they didn’t agree with his vision for the department.

    But disagreeing with the direction of the military is different than viewing an order as illegal, legal experts said.

    Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former JAG lawyer, said that the guidance, as described by CNN, appears to “misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful and attempt to persuade the order-giver to stop or modify it have failed, and report it through the chain of command.”

    Maurer added that “if the guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers that they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the guidance is not a legitimate statement of professional military ethics and the law.”

    Widmar advised that an order may be unlawful if it is “patently illegal,” or something an ordinary person would recognize instinctively as a violation of domestic or international law, the sources said — the My Lai massacre in Vietnam is an oft-used example. But the guidance he provided was that an unlawful order should be met with retirement, if possible, and did not note that servicemembers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the sources said.

    “It’s a very safe recommendation in this current political environment,” said the former senior defense official. “But that doesn’t make it the right or ethical one.”

    Experts on civil-military relations have previously pointed to retirement as a reasonable option for officers who object to a particular policy, while noting that it comes with its own costs.

    In a September article that has been discussed amongst the Joint Staff and other senior military officials, Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University, and Heidi Urben, a former Army intelligence officer and current associate director of Georgetown University’s security studies program, wrote that “quiet quitting,” or opting for retirement “allows officers with professionally grounded objections to leave without posing a direct challenge to civilian control.”

    But while officers shouldn’t resign in protest or pick fights, they argued, they should “speak up” and “show moral courage” when the military’s professional values and ideals are at risk.

    And they should be willing to be fired for it. “Complete silence can be corrosive to good order and discipline and signal to the force that the military’s professional values and norms are expendable,” they wrote.

    Maurer, the former Army officer, said the advice to retire in the face of an unlawful order also functions to “keep that person silent in perpetuity, because as a retiree he or she remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes a broad range of conduct and speech that would be constitutionally protected for regular civilians.”

    Those constraints have been apparent as the Pentagon has launched an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and one of the Democratic lawmakers seen in the video encouraging troops to disobey unlawful orders, which prompted Caine to seek legal advice.

    As questions continue to swirl around the legality of the boat strike campaign, Widmar also advised Caine that Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to authorize lethal force to protect the nation, unless hostilities rise to the level of a full-blown war, in which case Congressional approval is required, the sources said.

    Whether the president’s orders are legal to begin with, Widmar advised according to the sources, is a question only the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel can answer, due to the executive order Trump issued in February that says the president and the attorney general’s “opinions on questions of law are controlling” on all executive branch employees — to include U.S. troops.

    The Office of Legal Counsel determined in September that it is legal for Trump to order strikes on suspected drug boats because they pose an imminent threat to the United States, CNN has reported.

    Since Sept. 2, the U.S. military has killed at least 99 people across dozens of strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, arguing that those targeted were “narcoterrorists” who pose a direct threat to the United States. The Trump administration has also not provided public evidence of the presence of narcotics on the boats struck, nor their affiliation with drug cartels.

    Lawmakers have said that Pentagon officials have acknowledged in private briefings not knowing the identities of everyone on board a vessel before striking it; instead, military officials only need to confirm that the individuals are affiliated with a cartel or criminal organization to target them.

    Some members of Congress, legal experts and human rights groups have argued that potential drug traffickers are civilians who should not be summarily killed but arrested —something the Coast Guard did routinely, and continues to do in the eastern Pacific, when encountering a suspected drug trafficking vessel.

    CNN’s Haley Britzky contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Portland Police Swears In Largest New Officer Class In Over Two Decades – KXL


    Photo Courtesy Portland Police

    PORTLAND, Ore. – The Portland Police Bureau on Thursday welcomed 22 new officers to its ranks, marking the largest single swearing-in ceremony in more than 25 years.

    The last time the bureau brought in a group this large was in 1999.

    In recent months, PPB’s Recruitment Unit says it has implemented a wide-ranging strategy to revitalize hiring, including new advertising efforts, social media campaigns spotlighting current officers, and updates to its communication platforms that allow recruiters to engage directly with applicants.

    The bureau says it has also updated its customer service approach to better support candidates during the hiring process.

    The 22 new officers are part of an initiative to strengthen staffing while maintaining rigorous training standards.

    The bureau’s next Hiring Workshop is scheduled for Oct. 11 and will include an overview of the application process as well as the required physical abilities test.

    More about:


    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Orlando police shoot at man fleeing from officers downtown

    Orlando police shoot at man fleeing from officers downtown

    One man is in custody after police say he went on a wild ride through downtown Orlando, crashing into two police cars.Cliff Francois, 29, was arrested late Sunday night. Orlando Police said they responded to the parking garage of 55 West just before 11 p.m. for a suspicious vehicle. The driver allegedly sped away from them and crashed into police cars throughout downtown.OPD says the car was driving toward officers at Pine Street and Magnolia Avenue, and one officer opened fire. The driver kept going before crashing into another car near the Orange County Courthouse, and he was arrested.According to OPD, the man was not hit by gunfire. The officer involved was not injured and will be placed on paid administrative leave while the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the state attorney’s office investigate the incident, which are procedures common with all shootings involving law enforcement officers.OPD says it will also conduct its own internal investigation.Francois is a convicted felon with a criminal history that includes carjacking and home invasion, according to OPD.

    ORLANDO, Fla. —

    One man is in custody after police say he went on a wild ride through downtown Orlando, crashing into two police cars.

    Cliff Francois, 29, was arrested late Sunday night. Orlando Police said they responded to the parking garage of 55 West just before 11 p.m. for a suspicious vehicle. The driver allegedly sped away from them and crashed into police cars throughout downtown.

    OPD says the car was driving toward officers at Pine Street and Magnolia Avenue, and one officer opened fire. The driver kept going before crashing into another car near the Orange County Courthouse, and he was arrested.

    According to OPD, the man was not hit by gunfire. The officer involved was not injured and will be placed on paid administrative leave while the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the state attorney’s office investigate the incident, which are procedures common with all shootings involving law enforcement officers.

    OPD says it will also conduct its own internal investigation.

    Francois is a convicted felon with a criminal history that includes carjacking and home invasion, according to OPD.

    Source link

  • 3 officers convicted in Tyre Nichols fatal beating but 2 are acquitted of civil rights charges

    3 officers convicted in Tyre Nichols fatal beating but 2 are acquitted of civil rights charges

    Three former Memphis officers were convicted Thursday of charges of witness tampering in the 2023 fatal beating of Tyre Nichols, and two were acquitted of federal civil rights violations in a death that sparked national protests and calls for broad changes in policing.After a nearly monthlong trial, a jury found Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith guilty of witness tampering.Haley was acquitted of violating Nichols’ civil rights causing death, but convicted of the lesser charge of violating his civil right causing bodily injury.Bean and Smith were acquitted of all civil rights charges.THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.The jury has reached verdicts for three former Memphis police officers charged with violating Tyre Nichols’ federal civil rights in a 2023 videotaped fatal beating that sparked national protests and calls for broad changes in policing.After a nearly monthlong trial, jurors informed the judge Thursday that they had agreed on their verdicts in the case against Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith. The parties and attorneys were reconvening for the reveal of the jury’s decisions.Jurors began their deliberations Thursday, a day after prosecutors and defense attorneys presented closing arguments. Bean, Haley and Smith were among five officers who were fired from the Memphis Police Department after the Jan. 7, 2023, beating.Prosecutor Kathryn Gilbert told jurors that the officers wanted to punish Nichols for running from a traffic stop and that they thought they could get away with it. Prosecutors argued the beating reflected a common police practice that officers refer to as the “street tax” or “run tax. ””They wanted it to be a beatdown,” Gilbert said. “That’s what it was.”Defense lawyers sought to downplay their clients’ involvement.Bean’s attorney, John Keith Perry, told jurors that Nichols ignored commands such as “give me your hands” and said his client followed department policies.“The force was not excessive,” Perry said.Throughout the trial, jurors repeatedly watched clips of graphic police video of the beating and traffic stop that preceded it. The video shows officers using pepper spray and a Taser on Nichols, who was Black, before the 29-year-old ran away. The five officers, who also are Black, then punched, kicked and hit him about a block from his home, as he called out for his mother.As they held Nichols, officers said, “hit him,” and “beat that man,” prosecutor Forrest Christian said during closing arguments.“This was not a fight. This was just a beating,” Christian said.Nichols died three days later. An autopsy report shows Nichols — the father of a boy who is now 7 — died from blows to the head. The report describes brain injuries, and cuts and bruises on his head and elsewhere on his body.Two of the officers, Emmitt Martin and Desmond Mills Jr., pleaded guilty to depriving Nichols of his civil rights and testified for prosecutors. Haley, Bean and Smith pleaded not guilty to federal charges of excessive force, failure to intervene, and obstructing justice through witness tampering.Defense lawyers sought to portray Martin as a principal aggressor. They also suggested without evidence that Nichols may have been on drugs — something Christian called “shameful.” The autopsy report showed only low amounts of alcohol and marijuana in his system.The five officers were part of the Scorpion Unit, which looked for drugs, illegal guns and violent offenders. It was disbanded after Nichols’ death.After the beating, the officers did not tell medical professionals on scene or at the hospital that they had punched and kicked Nichols in the head, witnesses said. They also failed tell their supervisor on the scene and write in required forms about the amount of force used, prosecutors argued.Martin testified that Nichols was no threat to officers.Martin’s testimony provided a glimpse into the Memphis Police Department’s culture, which the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating.Martin discussed an understanding between members of the Scorpion Unit to not tell on each other after they used excessive force and said they would justify their use of force by exaggerating the person’s actions against them. He also described feeling pressure to make arrests to accumulate “stats” to be able to stay on the street with the unit.The five officers also have been charged with second-degree murder in state court, where they pleaded not guilty. Mills and Martin are expected to change their pleas. A trial date in state court has not been set.

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. —

    Three former Memphis officers were convicted Thursday of charges of witness tampering in the 2023 fatal beating of Tyre Nichols, and two were acquitted of federal civil rights violations in a death that sparked national protests and calls for broad changes in policing.

    After a nearly monthlong trial, a jury found Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith guilty of witness tampering.

    Haley was acquitted of violating Nichols’ civil rights causing death, but convicted of the lesser charge of violating his civil right causing bodily injury.Bean and Smith were acquitted of all civil rights charges.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    The jury has reached verdicts for three former Memphis police officers charged with violating Tyre Nichols’ federal civil rights in a 2023 videotaped fatal beating that sparked national protests and calls for broad changes in policing.

    After a nearly monthlong trial, jurors informed the judge Thursday that they had agreed on their verdicts in the case against Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith. The parties and attorneys were reconvening for the reveal of the jury’s decisions.

    Jurors began their deliberations Thursday, a day after prosecutors and defense attorneys presented closing arguments. Bean, Haley and Smith were among five officers who were fired from the Memphis Police Department after the Jan. 7, 2023, beating.

    Prosecutor Kathryn Gilbert told jurors that the officers wanted to punish Nichols for running from a traffic stop and that they thought they could get away with it. Prosecutors argued the beating reflected a common police practice that officers refer to as the “street tax” or “run tax. ”

    “They wanted it to be a beatdown,” Gilbert said. “That’s what it was.”

    Defense lawyers sought to downplay their clients’ involvement.

    Bean’s attorney, John Keith Perry, told jurors that Nichols ignored commands such as “give me your hands” and said his client followed department policies.

    “The force was not excessive,” Perry said.

    Throughout the trial, jurors repeatedly watched clips of graphic police video of the beating and traffic stop that preceded it. The video shows officers using pepper spray and a Taser on Nichols, who was Black, before the 29-year-old ran away. The five officers, who also are Black, then punched, kicked and hit him about a block from his home, as he called out for his mother.

    As they held Nichols, officers said, “hit him,” and “beat that man,” prosecutor Forrest Christian said during closing arguments.

    “This was not a fight. This was just a beating,” Christian said.

    Nichols died three days later. An autopsy report shows Nichols — the father of a boy who is now 7 — died from blows to the head. The report describes brain injuries, and cuts and bruises on his head and elsewhere on his body.

    Two of the officers, Emmitt Martin and Desmond Mills Jr., pleaded guilty to depriving Nichols of his civil rights and testified for prosecutors. Haley, Bean and Smith pleaded not guilty to federal charges of excessive force, failure to intervene, and obstructing justice through witness tampering.

    Defense lawyers sought to portray Martin as a principal aggressor. They also suggested without evidence that Nichols may have been on drugs — something Christian called “shameful.” The autopsy report showed only low amounts of alcohol and marijuana in his system.

    The five officers were part of the Scorpion Unit, which looked for drugs, illegal guns and violent offenders. It was disbanded after Nichols’ death.

    After the beating, the officers did not tell medical professionals on scene or at the hospital that they had punched and kicked Nichols in the head, witnesses said. They also failed tell their supervisor on the scene and write in required forms about the amount of force used, prosecutors argued.

    Martin testified that Nichols was no threat to officers.

    Martin’s testimony provided a glimpse into the Memphis Police Department’s culture, which the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating.

    Martin discussed an understanding between members of the Scorpion Unit to not tell on each other after they used excessive force and said they would justify their use of force by exaggerating the person’s actions against them. He also described feeling pressure to make arrests to accumulate “stats” to be able to stay on the street with the unit.

    The five officers also have been charged with second-degree murder in state court, where they pleaded not guilty. Mills and Martin are expected to change their pleas. A trial date in state court has not been set.

    Source link

  • Minneapolis police officer dies in ambush shooting that killed 2 others

    Minneapolis police officer dies in ambush shooting that killed 2 others

    A Minneapolis police officer who was killed Thursday had responded to a shooting call and was providing medical attention to a man when he was ambushed in a shooting that killed two other people, including the suspected gunman, authorities said.Minneapolis Officer Jamal Mitchell was trying to help an injured man when the man shot him, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said.The Minneapolis Police Department said the public was not in danger but encouraged people to stay away from the scene at a Minneapolis apartment complex in the south Minneapolis neighborhood of Whittier.The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association said a second officer was injured while they were responding to the call.Police were holding a late evening news conference to address the shooting.News footage showed a large police presence at both the apartment complex and the hospital.Melvin Carter, the mayor of neighboring St. Paul, said the city was sending police and other first responders to Minneapolis to provide support, including having officers help with security at the NBA playoff game between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Dallas Mavericks.Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had responded to “an active shooting situation,” said Ashlee Sherrill, a spokeswoman for the local field division.ATF agents were “there to help expedite the firearms investigation piece of it,” she said.

    MINNEAPOLIS —

    A Minneapolis police officer who was killed Thursday had responded to a shooting call and was providing medical attention to a man when he was ambushed in a shooting that killed two other people, including the suspected gunman, authorities said.

    Minneapolis Officer Jamal Mitchell was trying to help an injured man when the man shot him, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said.

    The Minneapolis Police Department said the public was not in danger but encouraged people to stay away from the scene at a Minneapolis apartment complex in the south Minneapolis neighborhood of Whittier.

    The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association said a second officer was injured while they were responding to the call.

    Police were holding a late evening news conference to address the shooting.

    News footage showed a large police presence at both the apartment complex and the hospital.

    Melvin Carter, the mayor of neighboring St. Paul, said the city was sending police and other first responders to Minneapolis to provide support, including having officers help with security at the NBA playoff game between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Dallas Mavericks.

    Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had responded to “an active shooting situation,” said Ashlee Sherrill, a spokeswoman for the local field division.

    ATF agents were “there to help expedite the firearms investigation piece of it,” she said.

    Source link

  • Davenport man had marijuana near child, police allege – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Davenport man had marijuana near child, police allege – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    A 25-year-old Davenport man was released on bond after police allege he had 7.2 pounds of marijuana in a home where a 3-year-old child lives.

    Elijah Gay faces felony charges of failure to affix a drug tax stamp and a controlled-substance violation, as well as an aggravated misdemeanor charge of child endangerment, court records show.

    Elijah Gay (Scott County Jail)

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • Two police officers injured in ‘serious’ CBD crash with Auckland Transport bus – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Two police officers injured in ‘serious’ CBD crash with Auckland Transport bus – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    The Serious Crash Unit is attending the bus crash. Photo / Supplied

    Two police staff have been left injured this afternoon following a crash in Auckland’s CBD involving a police car and an Auckland Transport bus.

    The crash occurred at around 3.20pm on Friday at the intersection of Beach Rd and Tangihua St as police were “responding to an incident”.

    Auckland City road policing manager Greg Brand said the police vehicle entered the intersection at “low speed”, under lights and sirens, when the collision with a bus occurred.

    “One officer is being taken to Auckland City Hospital with serious injuries, however these are not currently thought to be life-threatening. A second officer has also been taken to hospital with moderate injuries,” he said.

    Advertisement

    Advertise with NZME.

    Commuters onboard the bus at the time of the crash were also being assessed at the scene and at least one was being transported to hospital with minor injuries.

    A Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fenz) spokesperson confirmed that crews from the Auckland City and Parnell stations were attending.

    “I would like to acknowledge the members of the public who immediately came to our officers’ aid and assisted at the scene. Police will be ensuring welfare is put in place for…

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    MMP News Author

    Source link