Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Donna Deiss police brutality criminal trial abruptly ends
The "resisting arrest" trial of Donna Deiss whose arm was broken by Sgt. Christian LeMoss last May, lasted only as long as it took to keep 70 jurors away from their jobs and homes. The nervous district attorney apparently was none too eager to try a case where a beefy police sergeant slams a disabled elderly woman to the ground. Becky Johnson was one of the few activists in the courtroom watching the trial and posted her report on her blog. She gave me permission to post her report here.
Santa Cruz, Ca. -- When Donna Deiss went to put sugar in her cup of coffee the last thing she thought was that she would be assaulted by a police officer, but that is what occurred. SCPD Lt. Christian LeMoss grabbed Donna from behind as she stepped into her RV, grabbed her arm, hurled her backwards and into a parked car, and then dropped her onto the ground hard enough to break her arm. She was initially charged with assault and battery on a police officer, and resisting arrest. Then a charge of drug paraphernalia was added three days later. Then that was dropped. By June 28th, the assault and battery on a police officer charge had also been dropped. Today, in a plea bargain, she plead no lo contendere to an infraction littering charge and the resisting arrest charge was dropped. She has been ordered to perform community service at a non-profit organization.
"I'm so relieved," Donna stated outside the courtroom as she met with her two attorneys, Ben Rice,Greg Coben and another supporter. "This whole case has been a nightmare." Rice defended Donna in her criminal trial. Coben is her attorney for her civil suit against the City.
LeMoss remains on duty.
A full panel of potential jurors waited in the trailer while Santa Cruz City Attorney, Delgadillo pitched the charge reduction. This could easily have been done at Friday's hearing on May 15th, but in a practice that has now become quite familiar, in cases where the City is likely to lose, they wait until the last possible minute to either drop charges or, as in this case, cut a deal.
"Ben spent all weekend preparing for trial," said one woman supporter. No doubt, most of those jurors would have preferred to go to their jobs, schools, or be at home with their families.
So what did Sgt. Christian LeMoss do at the Three Trees parking lot on W. Cliff Dr. last May?
Shortly after the incident,Zach Friend, the Santa Cruz Police Department spokesperson told reporters that “Deiss was with a group using drugs,” “Sergeant LeMoss asked her to stop moving, he identified himself as a police officer several times, and when he grabbed her arm to detain her she threw hot coffee into his face.”
The Santa Cruz Police Department press release, issued three days after the incident claimed "When the officer attempted to detain Ms. Deiss she threw a cup of hot liquid onto his face. Despite being burned, the officer was able to control and eventually take Ms. Deiss into custody ."
Deiss claims the officer never properly detained her, was not in uniform, did not identify himself as a police officer, and was driving an unmarked car. He had no reason to detain her, much less violently spin her onto a parked car, cuff her, then throw her on the ground so hard that he broke her arm. The cup of coffee she had been holding in her left hand spilled everywhere including on Ms. Deiss.
"It was lukewarm," she told HUFF. "I was not burned. I am surprised that the officer claims he was burned." Donna's shirt was stained with the spilled coffee.
No marijuana was found on Ms. Deiss at the time of her arrest. Another woman, known as White Dove was also arrested. She didn't have any marijuana either but two empty pipes were found in a garbage can near her.
The SCPD repeatedly identifies the lot by its street address. This raises the question of whether they even had jurisdiction to patrol that particular parking lot since it belongs to the State. A nearby City parking lot is repeatedly mentioned leading to some confusion as to where the incident occurred. The parking lot, locally known as "Three Trees" has been a gathering place for homeless and poor people, and at least one drum circle.
Today, one year and nine days after Deiss was brutally assaulted, injured, charged, and threatened, she has been convicted of littering. The evidence? A defense exhibit photo showing the coffee cup on the sidewalk where it lay after Sgt. LeMoss had broken Donna's arm and arrested her.
Attorneys continue to prepare for Donna's federal lawsuit against the City of Santa Cruz.
"I'm so relieved," Donna stated outside the courtroom as she met with her two attorneys, Ben Rice,Greg Coben and another supporter. "This whole case has been a nightmare." Rice defended Donna in her criminal trial. Coben is her attorney for her civil suit against the City.
LeMoss remains on duty.
A full panel of potential jurors waited in the trailer while Santa Cruz City Attorney, Delgadillo pitched the charge reduction. This could easily have been done at Friday's hearing on May 15th, but in a practice that has now become quite familiar, in cases where the City is likely to lose, they wait until the last possible minute to either drop charges or, as in this case, cut a deal.
"Ben spent all weekend preparing for trial," said one woman supporter. No doubt, most of those jurors would have preferred to go to their jobs, schools, or be at home with their families.
So what did Sgt. Christian LeMoss do at the Three Trees parking lot on W. Cliff Dr. last May?
Shortly after the incident,Zach Friend, the Santa Cruz Police Department spokesperson told reporters that “Deiss was with a group using drugs,” “Sergeant LeMoss asked her to stop moving, he identified himself as a police officer several times, and when he grabbed her arm to detain her she threw hot coffee into his face.”
The Santa Cruz Police Department press release, issued three days after the incident claimed "When the officer attempted to detain Ms. Deiss she threw a cup of hot liquid onto his face. Despite being burned, the officer was able to control and eventually take Ms. Deiss into custody ."
Deiss claims the officer never properly detained her, was not in uniform, did not identify himself as a police officer, and was driving an unmarked car. He had no reason to detain her, much less violently spin her onto a parked car, cuff her, then throw her on the ground so hard that he broke her arm. The cup of coffee she had been holding in her left hand spilled everywhere including on Ms. Deiss.
"It was lukewarm," she told HUFF. "I was not burned. I am surprised that the officer claims he was burned." Donna's shirt was stained with the spilled coffee.
No marijuana was found on Ms. Deiss at the time of her arrest. Another woman, known as White Dove was also arrested. She didn't have any marijuana either but two empty pipes were found in a garbage can near her.
The SCPD repeatedly identifies the lot by its street address. This raises the question of whether they even had jurisdiction to patrol that particular parking lot since it belongs to the State. A nearby City parking lot is repeatedly mentioned leading to some confusion as to where the incident occurred. The parking lot, locally known as "Three Trees" has been a gathering place for homeless and poor people, and at least one drum circle.
Today, one year and nine days after Deiss was brutally assaulted, injured, charged, and threatened, she has been convicted of littering. The evidence? A defense exhibit photo showing the coffee cup on the sidewalk where it lay after Sgt. LeMoss had broken Donna's arm and arrested her.
Attorneys continue to prepare for Donna's federal lawsuit against the City of Santa Cruz.
For more information:
http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspo...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
http://twitter.com/Da_Buffalo/status/1841184328
...and it's gonna get worse before it gets better, as glorified security guards start patrolling the streets of America:
Private Police State: Domestic police operations in the US are becoming the newest business for private security companies - ISN Security Watch http://razedbywolves.blogspot.com/2009/05/private-police-state-domestic-police.html
...and it's gonna get worse before it gets better, as glorified security guards start patrolling the streets of America:
Private Police State: Domestic police operations in the US are becoming the newest business for private security companies - ISN Security Watch http://razedbywolves.blogspot.com/2009/05/private-police-state-domestic-police.html
"Donna has reportedly been offered a deal if she rolls over and agrees not to sue the City, but she has refused, feeling it's a matter of community importance that there be some check against police violence."....is what you posted the other day.
The story on this woman and her case has been changed and retold so many times that I find it all non-credible.
The story on this woman and her case has been changed and retold so many times that I find it all non-credible.
Today you say he dropped her on the ground hard enough to break her arm.
When it happened, you claimed he twisted her arm up behind her back and broke it.
http://huffsantacruz.blogspot.com/2008/07/60-year-old-homeless-wolman-says-police.html
It's not adding up.
When it happened, you claimed he twisted her arm up behind her back and broke it.
http://huffsantacruz.blogspot.com/2008/07/60-year-old-homeless-wolman-says-police.html
It's not adding up.
What adds up is the fact that Donna's arm was broken by a policeman. Whom is employed by the City of Santa Cruz. Measure K was voted in in November 2006, which has declared marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority. Why do police feel the need to use overbearing force so often? This woman posed no threat to the officer. Police all too often heighten a situation beyond their means to control their anger.
STORY KEEPS A CHANGIN' WRITES: "Today you say he dropped her on the ground hard enough to break her arm."
BECKY: When I first interviewed Donna, she told me how she believed she had been injured. However, after meeting with her chiropractor who examined the x-rays and Donna herself, he told her that her arm was most likely broken after she was in cuffs when he threw her onto the ground. Yes, as new facts come to light, the story must reflect them.
BECKY: When I first interviewed Donna, she told me how she believed she had been injured. However, after meeting with her chiropractor who examined the x-rays and Donna herself, he told her that her arm was most likely broken after she was in cuffs when he threw her onto the ground. Yes, as new facts come to light, the story must reflect them.
For more information:
http://www.beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blo...
ABACUS WRITES: "What adds up is the fact that Donna's arm was broken by a policeman. Whom is employed by the City of Santa Cruz. Measure K was voted in in November 2006, which has declared marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority"
BECKY: Was the State-owned parking lot even part of their jurisdiction? All police reports written on the case repeatedly show the SCPD trying to make those reading it believe the event took place in a City-owned parking lot (nearby) and not the State parking lot where it did occur.
BECKY: Was the State-owned parking lot even part of their jurisdiction? All police reports written on the case repeatedly show the SCPD trying to make those reading it believe the event took place in a City-owned parking lot (nearby) and not the State parking lot where it did occur.
Photo by Bradley of Sgt. Christian LeMoss taken on June 6, 2008 on duty shortly after breaking Donna Deiss' arm.
This is a HUFF photo of Donna Deiss taken on May 28, 2008 in Santa Cruz, Ca.
Becky, you've now presented a third version of the story. It's not adding up.
I pointed out that Donna initially claimed her arm was broken by the officer twisting her arm behind her back. Then it was when he threw her to the ground. You now say that she figured it out later, thanks to her chiropracter, that it likely broke when she was thrown to the ground?
But that's not what Donna said happened when she reported the story initially. She said then that it was broken before he handcuffed her. Quote: "He put me in handcuffs althogh I screamed my arm was brohen, but he threw me onto the blacktop and put his boot on my chest swinging his billy club and hitting me while threatening all others from helping me with his billy club""http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/14/18499096.php" (She also changed the part about being hit with the club. Her initial self-reported claim was that he brandished it at her.).
I'm sorry she got hurt, but I'm not buying the ever-changing story.
I pointed out that Donna initially claimed her arm was broken by the officer twisting her arm behind her back. Then it was when he threw her to the ground. You now say that she figured it out later, thanks to her chiropracter, that it likely broke when she was thrown to the ground?
But that's not what Donna said happened when she reported the story initially. She said then that it was broken before he handcuffed her. Quote: "He put me in handcuffs althogh I screamed my arm was brohen, but he threw me onto the blacktop and put his boot on my chest swinging his billy club and hitting me while threatening all others from helping me with his billy club""http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/14/18499096.php" (She also changed the part about being hit with the club. Her initial self-reported claim was that he brandished it at her.).
I'm sorry she got hurt, but I'm not buying the ever-changing story.
STORY KEEPS A CHANGIN' WRITES: "I pointed out that Donna initially claimed her arm was broken by the officer twisting her arm behind her back."
BECKY: I appreciate your precision. Donna initially thought that LeMoss broke her arm when he crushed her shoulder with a painful grip from behind causing the coffee cup to go flying. Had it been hot, she would have been scalded. But that 'only' led to heavy bruising. It was the chiropractors opinion that Donna's arm was most likely broken after he gripped her arm from behind, flung her backwards and onto a nearby parked, car, where he cuffed her. Then, in the position she would have had to have been in, while in handcuffs, flung her to the ground. It was his professional opinion that it was this last act which resulted in the breakage to her arm.
Last Friday, May 15th, Deiss' defense attorney, Ben Rice, told Judge Symons that he had subpoenaed two medical witnesses, the doctor and paramedic who treated Donna on the night she was arrested He stated that these witnesses would testify that the injuries they treated that night showed no signs of swelling or bruising which are usually not observed in a trauma injury until a few days after the injury. He said that they would testify that in their professional opinion, the injuries took place that night.
BECKY: I appreciate your precision. Donna initially thought that LeMoss broke her arm when he crushed her shoulder with a painful grip from behind causing the coffee cup to go flying. Had it been hot, she would have been scalded. But that 'only' led to heavy bruising. It was the chiropractors opinion that Donna's arm was most likely broken after he gripped her arm from behind, flung her backwards and onto a nearby parked, car, where he cuffed her. Then, in the position she would have had to have been in, while in handcuffs, flung her to the ground. It was his professional opinion that it was this last act which resulted in the breakage to her arm.
Last Friday, May 15th, Deiss' defense attorney, Ben Rice, told Judge Symons that he had subpoenaed two medical witnesses, the doctor and paramedic who treated Donna on the night she was arrested He stated that these witnesses would testify that the injuries they treated that night showed no signs of swelling or bruising which are usually not observed in a trauma injury until a few days after the injury. He said that they would testify that in their professional opinion, the injuries took place that night.
It's getting murkier by the post, not clearer.
So now you're proposing that it was broken by the fall, and after the grab. Not by the grab? But what then would have caused Donna to be yelling that her arm was broken before it was broken. (Because in your initial recounting, you have her screaming that it was broken by the grab, before the fall.
Pre-emptive screaming, coupled with your unsolicited addendum that her attorney was preparing to call to witness 2 individuals who would state that the injury occurred as a result of her interaction with the cop? The two of these put together almost make it seem that the injury was pre-existing. Why did you even bring the issue of the injury and it's timing up?
I'll stop parsing the statements and timeline, but my opinion remains unchanged; she's lost her credibility as a result of the ever-shifting "evidence".
So now you're proposing that it was broken by the fall, and after the grab. Not by the grab? But what then would have caused Donna to be yelling that her arm was broken before it was broken. (Because in your initial recounting, you have her screaming that it was broken by the grab, before the fall.
Pre-emptive screaming, coupled with your unsolicited addendum that her attorney was preparing to call to witness 2 individuals who would state that the injury occurred as a result of her interaction with the cop? The two of these put together almost make it seem that the injury was pre-existing. Why did you even bring the issue of the injury and it's timing up?
I'll stop parsing the statements and timeline, but my opinion remains unchanged; she's lost her credibility as a result of the ever-shifting "evidence".
Continuing congrats for Donna Deiss, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse, and all others who are uncovering governments' attempt to exterminate poor people through the use of police to attack every person who displays signs of poverty or homelessness. Donna won this round, and will win her next one too.
Recently I was sitting behind my driver's wheel in Redwood City at 2 a.m. Suddenly there was a piercing spotlight in my face, and 3 cop cars surrounding me. With absolutely no evidence of any abnormality they made me leave the vehicle, began searching it, and gave me the third degree. "What are you doing here?," they demanded. I replied that I was reading the Holy Bible. It was clear that they were searching for homeless people to exterminate.
May God help us to make it clear to Americans that a holocaust is at hand.
Recently I was sitting behind my driver's wheel in Redwood City at 2 a.m. Suddenly there was a piercing spotlight in my face, and 3 cop cars surrounding me. With absolutely no evidence of any abnormality they made me leave the vehicle, began searching it, and gave me the third degree. "What are you doing here?," they demanded. I replied that I was reading the Holy Bible. It was clear that they were searching for homeless people to exterminate.
May God help us to make it clear to Americans that a holocaust is at hand.
STORY KEEPS CHANGIN' WRITES: "Pre-emptive screaming, coupled with your unsolicited addendum that her attorney was preparing to call to witness 2 individuals who would state that the injury occurred as a result of her interaction with the cop? The two of these put together almost make it seem that the injury was pre-existing. Why did you even bring the issue of the injury and it's timing up?"
BECKY: Donna started to scream that her arm had been broken when she experienced severe pain. That was when LeMoss gripped her arm so hard she believed her arm was broken. The addendum as you call it is actually an update re: last Friday's hearing which I attended. At that hearing, we learned that the City was claiming that Donna's arm was not broken during the arrest, but had been previously broken. That is when we learned that Rice planned to call these two medical witnesses and what they were likely to testify to.
BECKY: Donna started to scream that her arm had been broken when she experienced severe pain. That was when LeMoss gripped her arm so hard she believed her arm was broken. The addendum as you call it is actually an update re: last Friday's hearing which I attended. At that hearing, we learned that the City was claiming that Donna's arm was not broken during the arrest, but had been previously broken. That is when we learned that Rice planned to call these two medical witnesses and what they were likely to testify to.
Donna was reportedly offered a deal before trial--if she agreed not to sue the city, they'd drop all the charges.
When the D.A. came slinking in on Monday morning, he reportedly offered her ANY infraction if she'd plead guilty, reducing the cost of the forthcoming lawsuit. She chose littering. So a year's bullshit and public expense to cover over violent behavior from a police sergeant who's never been held accountable for his actions and spare the city a lawsuit that they'll have to defend against anyway.
Her plea bargain removes a lawsuit for false arrest (since she agrees there was "probable cause"), but it doesn't eliminate what seems clearly to be excessive force.
The tendentious troll who keeps trying to pick apart the obvious facts--an elderly woman, a broken arm, a hyperactive cop, a protective police department, seems to me either paranoid or partisian. Perhaps both.
In any case s/he'll have a chance to view the medical reports and witness testimony as they come out in federal court, if he wants.
When the D.A. came slinking in on Monday morning, he reportedly offered her ANY infraction if she'd plead guilty, reducing the cost of the forthcoming lawsuit. She chose littering. So a year's bullshit and public expense to cover over violent behavior from a police sergeant who's never been held accountable for his actions and spare the city a lawsuit that they'll have to defend against anyway.
Her plea bargain removes a lawsuit for false arrest (since she agrees there was "probable cause"), but it doesn't eliminate what seems clearly to be excessive force.
The tendentious troll who keeps trying to pick apart the obvious facts--an elderly woman, a broken arm, a hyperactive cop, a protective police department, seems to me either paranoid or partisian. Perhaps both.
In any case s/he'll have a chance to view the medical reports and witness testimony as they come out in federal court, if he wants.
In response to Robert's theory; yes, I'm partisan.
I'm partisan to honesty and integrity and dealing with realty as it stands. I'm partisan against facts shifting and changing to suite ones agenda or version of the truth.
And if LeMoss broke the arm of an innocent woman who was not given notification that he was a cop and she was being detained, I'd be against that. But with all the stories that have been told about this case, I think it now equally probable that she did know, and she was ignoring him
....and I'm partisan against people using derogatory terms like "troll" in an attempt to label and belittle those they disagree with. Whether its on the internet or on the mall, it's not cool. But you should know that Robert; you've rallied against the term yourself. Rather ironic to see you now employing it so regularly yourself.
I'm partisan to honesty and integrity and dealing with realty as it stands. I'm partisan against facts shifting and changing to suite ones agenda or version of the truth.
And if LeMoss broke the arm of an innocent woman who was not given notification that he was a cop and she was being detained, I'd be against that. But with all the stories that have been told about this case, I think it now equally probable that she did know, and she was ignoring him
....and I'm partisan against people using derogatory terms like "troll" in an attempt to label and belittle those they disagree with. Whether its on the internet or on the mall, it's not cool. But you should know that Robert; you've rallied against the term yourself. Rather ironic to see you now employing it so regularly yourself.
On further reflection, I apologize to Story Keeps Changing.
I think we're all interested in honesty and integrity.
We draw different conclusions from the same accounts.
It might be helpful to remember the instructions judges give jurors regularly about eyewitness testimony--that folks can remember differently and seem to be inconsistent.
Story and I draw different conclusions from the accounts.
In calling Story a "troll", I've probably been reading the Sentinel website too much where police groupies delight in attacking advocates and trashing homeless people.
Having taken the accounts of at least five witnesses, some at different times, I believe Donna is telling the truth as she experienced it. We'll see if a civil jury agrees (though I think the city attorney will settlle this one out of court).
I think we're all interested in honesty and integrity.
We draw different conclusions from the same accounts.
It might be helpful to remember the instructions judges give jurors regularly about eyewitness testimony--that folks can remember differently and seem to be inconsistent.
Story and I draw different conclusions from the accounts.
In calling Story a "troll", I've probably been reading the Sentinel website too much where police groupies delight in attacking advocates and trashing homeless people.
Having taken the accounts of at least five witnesses, some at different times, I believe Donna is telling the truth as she experienced it. We'll see if a civil jury agrees (though I think the city attorney will settlle this one out of court).
Thank you Robert. Though we may, and usually do, disagree...I appreciate your civility and reflection re this discussion.
I absolutely agree that witnesses to the same situation often report differing or even contradictory viewpoints. What has caused me to question this particular case/story is the fact that individual witnesses seem to have changed their accounts or recountings.
I absolutely agree that witnesses to the same situation often report differing or even contradictory viewpoints. What has caused me to question this particular case/story is the fact that individual witnesses seem to have changed their accounts or recountings.
THE STORY DOES KEEP A CHANGIN'!!j
-- First the cops said that they observed people smoking marijuana (no marijuana was found)
-- then the cops said Donna assaulted and battered LeMoss by throwing scalding hot coffee in his face, and that Donna was injured while resisting arrest
-- then they said Donna was charged with possession of marijuana
--then they said Donna WASN'T charged with possession of marijuana
--then they said that Donna didn't throw scalding hot coffee into LeMoss' face
--then they said that Donna was only charged with 'resisting arrest'
--then they said that Donna's arm had been previously broken
--then they said that they would drop the 'resisting arrest' charge if she would
plead to an infraction. ANY infraction. She chose 'littering' She plead "no contest"
YUP, I can see why you have your doubts!!
-- First the cops said that they observed people smoking marijuana (no marijuana was found)
-- then the cops said Donna assaulted and battered LeMoss by throwing scalding hot coffee in his face, and that Donna was injured while resisting arrest
-- then they said Donna was charged with possession of marijuana
--then they said Donna WASN'T charged with possession of marijuana
--then they said that Donna didn't throw scalding hot coffee into LeMoss' face
--then they said that Donna was only charged with 'resisting arrest'
--then they said that Donna's arm had been previously broken
--then they said that they would drop the 'resisting arrest' charge if she would
plead to an infraction. ANY infraction. She chose 'littering' She plead "no contest"
YUP, I can see why you have your doubts!!
If she was so innocent, then why accept a plea? Robert and Becky have made this sound like a open and shut case in Donna's favor. Yet in the end she accepted a plea, however stupid it is.
I think there is more to this then we are reading here. Becky and Robert do have a tendency to leave out certain information when telling people what went down. I don't mean to be a troll for disagreeing, but things have not added up ON BOTH SIDES since the beginning.
I think there is more to this then we are reading here. Becky and Robert do have a tendency to leave out certain information when telling people what went down. I don't mean to be a troll for disagreeing, but things have not added up ON BOTH SIDES since the beginning.
You can have a very solid case. But will your witnesses be believed over the testimony of cops? will the jury be likely to acquit a homeless woman living in her RV? There are many factors to consider. One of the biggest was whether she can still sue in civil court. Apparently she can and will. So, for Donna, this seemed the best choice.
Of course, there is the shame in being a convicted litterer!
Of course, there is the shame in being a convicted litterer!
-Becky is crowing that no pot was found. But Donna's trailermate and first-hand-witness-Shane is on record and on the air stating on Robert's show that they were all smoking at the time.
-Donna changed her account of the baton from being brandished to being struck.
-The story of how her arm was broken changed from when it was twisted to when she was cuffed to when she was thrown to the ground to possibly before hand.
-Donna changed her account from being thrown and held on her stomach to being thrown and held on her back.
-Donna said she'd never go for a plea bargin then went for a plea bargin.
Ayup; lots of changing.
-Donna changed her account of the baton from being brandished to being struck.
-The story of how her arm was broken changed from when it was twisted to when she was cuffed to when she was thrown to the ground to possibly before hand.
-Donna changed her account from being thrown and held on her stomach to being thrown and held on her back.
-Donna said she'd never go for a plea bargin then went for a plea bargin.
Ayup; lots of changing.
I like the civil point counterpoint going on here. It is nice to see people debating without resorting to name calling etc. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
STORY KEEPS CHANGING WRITES: "Becky is crowing that no pot was found. But Donna's trailermate and first-hand-witness-Shane is on record and on the air stating on Robert's show that they were all smoking at the time."
BECKY: Neither Donna nor White Dove had any pot. But isn't marijuana use among adults supposed to be the lowest priority? Even if she was smoking pot...he broke her arm!!! THat is excessive force! And LeMoss is still on the force representing a liability for this City. Perhaps some others at that location WERE smoking pot, but since White Dove and Donna didn't have any, why were they singled out? And why was the SCPD policing that particular parking lot anyway? It's not part of their jurisdiction. It's a State parking lot, not a City owned one.
We believe that police and Parks and Rec Rangers have been regularly harassing the folks who hang out there because many of them are homeless or living in their vehicles. This was just an extreme case of harassing homeless people. People of good will should challenge what the city is doing rather than try to blame Donna.
BECKY: Neither Donna nor White Dove had any pot. But isn't marijuana use among adults supposed to be the lowest priority? Even if she was smoking pot...he broke her arm!!! THat is excessive force! And LeMoss is still on the force representing a liability for this City. Perhaps some others at that location WERE smoking pot, but since White Dove and Donna didn't have any, why were they singled out? And why was the SCPD policing that particular parking lot anyway? It's not part of their jurisdiction. It's a State parking lot, not a City owned one.
We believe that police and Parks and Rec Rangers have been regularly harassing the folks who hang out there because many of them are homeless or living in their vehicles. This was just an extreme case of harassing homeless people. People of good will should challenge what the city is doing rather than try to blame Donna.
STORY KEEPS CHANGING WRITES: "-Donna changed her account of the baton from being brandished to being struck."
BECKY: True. Donna does not remember being struck with the baton. But more than one witness saw him strike her so she has changed her version of events to include events based on witness statements. She also inititially reported landing face down, but later changed that to landing on her back because she later said that she remembered seeing LeMoss standing over her waving the baton as though he was going to strike her, and she must have been on her back to see that.
BECKY: True. Donna does not remember being struck with the baton. But more than one witness saw him strike her so she has changed her version of events to include events based on witness statements. She also inititially reported landing face down, but later changed that to landing on her back because she later said that she remembered seeing LeMoss standing over her waving the baton as though he was going to strike her, and she must have been on her back to see that.
You didn't answer the comment. You have said that NO ONE was smoking in the group. But there have been a few people from the group documented as saying that they were smoking. I'm sorry, but saying "possibly" people were smoking is not being accurate. Once people say they WERE doing something it rather negates the "possible" argument.
Do you even understand what your doing? Your sinking her case in your efforts to support her.
You've just confirmed that Donna changed her story based on hearsay. Her personal recollection was that she was not struck, but someone told her differently and so she's changed her recollection of the "facts". You've also confirmed in writing that she has no personal memory or recollection of the incident to back up her claim.
That admission essentially scotches and invalidates all of her other claims, as it confirms the fact that she's changing her story based on second hand information and not her own recollections.
You sure you're not working against her instead of for her? I think you'd be of the most help to her by not posting any further helpful explanations. They may be making you feel helpful, but they aren't helping her at all.
You've just confirmed that Donna changed her story based on hearsay. Her personal recollection was that she was not struck, but someone told her differently and so she's changed her recollection of the "facts". You've also confirmed in writing that she has no personal memory or recollection of the incident to back up her claim.
That admission essentially scotches and invalidates all of her other claims, as it confirms the fact that she's changing her story based on second hand information and not her own recollections.
You sure you're not working against her instead of for her? I think you'd be of the most help to her by not posting any further helpful explanations. They may be making you feel helpful, but they aren't helping her at all.
For her to change her statements based on what people have told her happened is not kosher. I hope for her sake she does not do that in court, although there is probably enough documented flip-floppery on her part to seriously discredit her pretty much entirely. Too bad, maybe the city will settle with her.
I know that tampering with a jury is illegal. But what is it called when people work with a defendant to form a different version of events from that which the person remembers? Obviously it's tampering with the truth, but is there a name for it? And is it legal?
CRAIG WRITES: "You've also confirmed in writing that she has no personal memory or recollection of the incident to back up her claim."
BECKY: Hardly!! She remembers the incident quite intensely. It's just that it happened very quickly and was painful, frightening, and jarring. She honestly says that she doesn't have a specific memory of being struck by the baton but now believes she was because more than one eyewitness observed this happen. That is hardly saying she has "no personal memory or recollection of the incident". You really like twist people's meaning and have no allegiance towards getting at the truth. Instead for you CRAIG, it is SMEAR, SMEAR, SMEAR!!
Are you a cop?
BECKY: Hardly!! She remembers the incident quite intensely. It's just that it happened very quickly and was painful, frightening, and jarring. She honestly says that she doesn't have a specific memory of being struck by the baton but now believes she was because more than one eyewitness observed this happen. That is hardly saying she has "no personal memory or recollection of the incident". You really like twist people's meaning and have no allegiance towards getting at the truth. Instead for you CRAIG, it is SMEAR, SMEAR, SMEAR!!
Are you a cop?
Uhh... I didn't say that Becky. It was Story Keeps Changing who made that comment. I am not Story Keeps Changing.
The fact that you consider my statement "she has no personal memory or recollection" to be significantly different than your statement "she doesn't have a specific memory".....sort of boggles the mind.
While second hand memory is good enough for you because you support her; it's going to sound unbelievable to a jury. The lawyer will ask her "Can you recall the officer striking you?". And her answer will have to be, if she's honest..."No, I don't. But people tell me it happened.".
And no, I'm not a cop. I'm merely someone who feels that this story has morphed and changed over time. And you've reinforced that belief by proclaiming and confirming that Donna is now basing her recollection on the memory/observation of others, and not her own. And this new belief contradicts her original statement; which you also posted on this site. Which is why I say the story is changing and why I say YOU have done a great job of documenting her out of a successful civil suit.
While second hand memory is good enough for you because you support her; it's going to sound unbelievable to a jury. The lawyer will ask her "Can you recall the officer striking you?". And her answer will have to be, if she's honest..."No, I don't. But people tell me it happened.".
And no, I'm not a cop. I'm merely someone who feels that this story has morphed and changed over time. And you've reinforced that belief by proclaiming and confirming that Donna is now basing her recollection on the memory/observation of others, and not her own. And this new belief contradicts her original statement; which you also posted on this site. Which is why I say the story is changing and why I say YOU have done a great job of documenting her out of a successful civil suit.
STORY KEEPS CHANGING WRITES: "I say YOU have done a great job of documenting her out of a successful civil suit. "
BECKY: So if she ends up winning a substantial settlement from the City, you will come back here and apologize to me?
BECKY: So if she ends up winning a substantial settlement from the City, you will come back here and apologize to me?
It's telling of your personality and style that you decline to rebut or speak intelligently about the refutiation of your confused statement.
I'm done discussing this topic with you here, and thanks for the reminder as to why you became the pariah of this site.
I'm done discussing this topic with you here, and thanks for the reminder as to why you became the pariah of this site.
Becky, I kindly ask that you apologize for attributing statements to me when I did not make them. I have brought this to your attention and you have not made a correction.
I believe you are currently at odds with Indybay for a similar circumstance. If you have integrity you will do the right thing.
I believe you are currently at odds with Indybay for a similar circumstance. If you have integrity you will do the right thing.
I guess Becky's silence speaks to her integrity.
I apologize to CRAIG. I attributed a statement made by STORY KEEPS CHANGING to CRAIG.
It is STORY KEEPS CHANGING who is not interested in the truth but would rather SMEAR than clarify. CRAIG is just clueless.
It is STORY KEEPS CHANGING who is not interested in the truth but would rather SMEAR than clarify. CRAIG is just clueless.
I would like readers to note the comment made above by Kudos. It was very nice to see a respectful back and forth between people even when the same people didn't share the exact viewpoint.
Then Becky started posting.
With the entrance of Becky came the accusations of smearing and insults and name calling. Why? Is it not possible for Becky to have a dialogue with people expressing a different opinion? Just look at her comments in The Sentinel. Always calling people names and being rude. The worst is when she deletes people's comments when she does not agree. I guess she does not believe in free speech. Who knows?
Then Becky started posting.
With the entrance of Becky came the accusations of smearing and insults and name calling. Why? Is it not possible for Becky to have a dialogue with people expressing a different opinion? Just look at her comments in The Sentinel. Always calling people names and being rude. The worst is when she deletes people's comments when she does not agree. I guess she does not believe in free speech. Who knows?
The relevant issues that interest me on this thread have to do with how police (like Sgt. Christian Le Moss) treat homeless people (like Donna Deiss) (who happens also to be an older short disabled woman) whose home is their vehicle.
We at HUFF have been following Donna's case in particular because it's so egregious and so transparent (i.e. a bogus "resisting arrest" charge ultimately reduced to "littering").
"60 Year Old Homeless Woman Says Police Broke Her Arm"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/10/18498341.php
"Sgt. LeMoss #114 Santa Cruz PD breaks arm of 60 year old disabled woman without cause"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/14/18499096.php
I think the stark facts in the case (husky cop looking for pot assaults and seriously injures a relatively frail older woman) speak for themselves. They explain why a "resisting arrest" charge was reduced to the absurd "littering"--for the paper coffee cup knocked out of her hand by Le Moss, was it?
There's a longer history involving Donna's activism and ongoing police harassment of those whose home is an RV:
"Harassment of Homeless in RVs, a Letter from Donna Deiss"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/08/18452903.php
"Superintendant Hammack Stonewalls on RV Ban in Coastal Parking Lots"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/12/18447267.php
"Coastal Access Denied to Motorhomes and Trailers in Santa Cruz"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/30/18444952.php
"Struggling on the Street"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/14/18311712.php
When a cop breaks a person's arm, there should be disciplinary consequences, of which we've seen none. Instead he racks up the overtime (Regular pay 119463.4; Overtime pay 24170.68 according to the Sentinel's listing of City employee salaries in April). Ordinary mortals who did what LeMoss did would be in jail or under court supervision. In Santa Cruz, such people are appointed to rule over us.
Becky's accounts are largely accurate. I appreciate her writing.
While I also respect her wit and determination in trying to respond to personal attacks with more information about the issue, I think it's important we all realize that some folks just hate her (and me, for that matter). That's their prerogative. It's not helpful to feed this situation (perhaps even mentioning it here is counterproductive). Becky would do well to avoid grabbing the bigotry tarbaby.
Those who care more about vilifying and mocking critics of the SCPD than addressing the issue are diversions from the real issues. Let's not and say we did.
For those who can't resist tagteam taunting, irrelevant insults, and a whole culture of hatred, check out http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/T4TURO2RN02J88AN1/p7, for instance....involving some of the same critics posting here.
Meanwhile, back at the issue..
Becky has posted a medical report documenting Donna Deiss's injuries (the top story at) http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/
What I hope most posting on and reading this website seek is community control of the police, accountability in the PD and in city government, and fair treatment for everyone (particularly those who are poor and homeless).
For those eager to vindicate the police, check out http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/nationalbreaking/ci_12459785 for the latest video to be released in the slaying of Oscar Grant III up in the East Bay.
I spoke with Donna Deiss today at the Injunction Hearing for Anna Richardson and Miguel deLeon. It was her understanding that a lawsuit was going forward and she'd have more information for the public soon.
Meanwhile, outside, the nightly trial of those who live in their RVs goes on.
HRO (Human Rights Organization) meets tomorrow at 3 PM to discuss a response to the latest criminalization campaign by the City Attorney and the Downtown Association gang--which secured an injunction against "sleeping at night downtown" by Anna Richardson and Miguel deLeon. Come on down to the Sub Rosa Cafe to discuss a practical protest response.
We at HUFF have been following Donna's case in particular because it's so egregious and so transparent (i.e. a bogus "resisting arrest" charge ultimately reduced to "littering").
"60 Year Old Homeless Woman Says Police Broke Her Arm"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/10/18498341.php
"Sgt. LeMoss #114 Santa Cruz PD breaks arm of 60 year old disabled woman without cause"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/14/18499096.php
I think the stark facts in the case (husky cop looking for pot assaults and seriously injures a relatively frail older woman) speak for themselves. They explain why a "resisting arrest" charge was reduced to the absurd "littering"--for the paper coffee cup knocked out of her hand by Le Moss, was it?
There's a longer history involving Donna's activism and ongoing police harassment of those whose home is an RV:
"Harassment of Homeless in RVs, a Letter from Donna Deiss"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/08/18452903.php
"Superintendant Hammack Stonewalls on RV Ban in Coastal Parking Lots"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/12/18447267.php
"Coastal Access Denied to Motorhomes and Trailers in Santa Cruz"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/30/18444952.php
"Struggling on the Street"
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/14/18311712.php
When a cop breaks a person's arm, there should be disciplinary consequences, of which we've seen none. Instead he racks up the overtime (Regular pay 119463.4; Overtime pay 24170.68 according to the Sentinel's listing of City employee salaries in April). Ordinary mortals who did what LeMoss did would be in jail or under court supervision. In Santa Cruz, such people are appointed to rule over us.
Becky's accounts are largely accurate. I appreciate her writing.
While I also respect her wit and determination in trying to respond to personal attacks with more information about the issue, I think it's important we all realize that some folks just hate her (and me, for that matter). That's their prerogative. It's not helpful to feed this situation (perhaps even mentioning it here is counterproductive). Becky would do well to avoid grabbing the bigotry tarbaby.
Those who care more about vilifying and mocking critics of the SCPD than addressing the issue are diversions from the real issues. Let's not and say we did.
For those who can't resist tagteam taunting, irrelevant insults, and a whole culture of hatred, check out http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/T4TURO2RN02J88AN1/p7, for instance....involving some of the same critics posting here.
Meanwhile, back at the issue..
Becky has posted a medical report documenting Donna Deiss's injuries (the top story at) http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/
What I hope most posting on and reading this website seek is community control of the police, accountability in the PD and in city government, and fair treatment for everyone (particularly those who are poor and homeless).
For those eager to vindicate the police, check out http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/nationalbreaking/ci_12459785 for the latest video to be released in the slaying of Oscar Grant III up in the East Bay.
I spoke with Donna Deiss today at the Injunction Hearing for Anna Richardson and Miguel deLeon. It was her understanding that a lawsuit was going forward and she'd have more information for the public soon.
Meanwhile, outside, the nightly trial of those who live in their RVs goes on.
HRO (Human Rights Organization) meets tomorrow at 3 PM to discuss a response to the latest criminalization campaign by the City Attorney and the Downtown Association gang--which secured an injunction against "sleeping at night downtown" by Anna Richardson and Miguel deLeon. Come on down to the Sub Rosa Cafe to discuss a practical protest response.
I guess this is where we will continue to differ Robert; on the issue of transparency. You say it's clear what happened, but I feel it's anything but. The numerous contradictions and changes in story have caused me to question the credibility of what's being said. And to be frank, I question the objectivity of your and Becky's reporting as well. It's gone back and forth...and not on just this case but on several cases over time.
For example one; the broken arm. You say Becky has posted the medical report proving the arm is broken. Okay, I'll accept that. But the real question is how it broke, and that seems in question, to me. Particularly because not even Donna seems to be able to state how it happened. First it was when he grabbed her, later it was when she was thrown to the ground. And if it was when she was thrown to the ground, it perplexes me how she was then screaming "you broke my arm!" BEFORE he threw her to the ground.
The latest example; your current case at the bus/metro station. You started out by claiming that the guards had forced the two individuals to leave the grounds. Now you've printed your transcript, and it shows them to have been given the choice to leave and they took it. Those are two very different situations. And what makes the reporting particularly questionable, IMO, is that you had that transcript from the beginning, and yet you chose to print a different scenario than what actually occurred. You exagerated the reality.
So in the Metro case, you had the actual facts in hand, but reported otherwise. In the Deiss case, many key points have been reported and then changed. (When the arm broke, how it broke, whether or not she knew he was a cop, whether or not she read him ACLU points or not, whether there was pot being smoked or not). And in the case of pot smoking, Becky keeps maintaining that it may not have happened, even though your very own radio interviews confirmed that it did.
Transparent? Not so much.
For example one; the broken arm. You say Becky has posted the medical report proving the arm is broken. Okay, I'll accept that. But the real question is how it broke, and that seems in question, to me. Particularly because not even Donna seems to be able to state how it happened. First it was when he grabbed her, later it was when she was thrown to the ground. And if it was when she was thrown to the ground, it perplexes me how she was then screaming "you broke my arm!" BEFORE he threw her to the ground.
The latest example; your current case at the bus/metro station. You started out by claiming that the guards had forced the two individuals to leave the grounds. Now you've printed your transcript, and it shows them to have been given the choice to leave and they took it. Those are two very different situations. And what makes the reporting particularly questionable, IMO, is that you had that transcript from the beginning, and yet you chose to print a different scenario than what actually occurred. You exagerated the reality.
So in the Metro case, you had the actual facts in hand, but reported otherwise. In the Deiss case, many key points have been reported and then changed. (When the arm broke, how it broke, whether or not she knew he was a cop, whether or not she read him ACLU points or not, whether there was pot being smoked or not). And in the case of pot smoking, Becky keeps maintaining that it may not have happened, even though your very own radio interviews confirmed that it did.
Transparent? Not so much.
SKC: I tend to be fairly generous about the account of someone traumatized by an assault, as Donna apparently was. We don't have a tape of what happened, just various accounts. Witness accounts, as I've written before, can be inconsistent, since folks see things different, and remember things differently. If you believe that Donna, Becky, and I are cooking up a story, then discrepancies become very important and telling. I know Becky and I are not, and seriously doubt Donna is.
If I've ever said that the two who complained about religious sermons were ordered to leave the Metro by the first security guard, that was not the case. In all subsequent reports on the radio and in writing, I've clarified that. But I have had reports of others hassled there; I felt they were treated with disrespect ("leave if you don't like it"), and I know I was treated disdainfully and punitively.
Actually the relevant consideration is how I was treated when trying to get the guards to identify themselves, leave me alone to continue my conversations, stop directing others to move, etc. And the key issue is the amount of time and energy the city, the PD, the Metro, and the courts have chosen to expend on an issue that should have been dropped with an apology and a policy change months ago.
I've presented the audio witnesses accounts of the Deiss affair and the tape of the Metro incident, You're certainly welcome to draw your own conclusions. I think, without trying to sound disrespectful, that you're nitpicking. What's important to you is clearly not important to me.
Note, however, that you have introduced no independent evidence. Your search for an ironclad case may lead you to tolerate and condone ongoing abusive behavior. I think that would be unfortunate.
If I've ever said that the two who complained about religious sermons were ordered to leave the Metro by the first security guard, that was not the case. In all subsequent reports on the radio and in writing, I've clarified that. But I have had reports of others hassled there; I felt they were treated with disrespect ("leave if you don't like it"), and I know I was treated disdainfully and punitively.
Actually the relevant consideration is how I was treated when trying to get the guards to identify themselves, leave me alone to continue my conversations, stop directing others to move, etc. And the key issue is the amount of time and energy the city, the PD, the Metro, and the courts have chosen to expend on an issue that should have been dropped with an apology and a policy change months ago.
I've presented the audio witnesses accounts of the Deiss affair and the tape of the Metro incident, You're certainly welcome to draw your own conclusions. I think, without trying to sound disrespectful, that you're nitpicking. What's important to you is clearly not important to me.
Note, however, that you have introduced no independent evidence. Your search for an ironclad case may lead you to tolerate and condone ongoing abusive behavior. I think that would be unfortunate.
I appreciate your reply, and conclude that we'll continue to have a different viewpoint on the issues of both cases. And I certainly think we'll maintain different perspectives of what constitutes nitpicking and transparency.
For example, in the case at the Metro? Let's agree that the salient issue may be the way in which the guard responded. If so, then I don't think that the steps/facts leading up to his response are unimportant, or nitpicking. In fact, I think the are very important and likely shape his response. Depending on the details/nitpicking, the situation could be viewed from two polarized perspectives.
In one scenario, we have an abusive guard who chased people off the property for no good cause, and then refuses to provide you with any information,and that response on his part seems inappropriate and inexplicable.
But if I look at it from another perspective? Of him having just had two racists in his face, telling him they didn't like the sermonizing. And he, who didn't force to leave but rather told them they could leave probably heard them spewing the same derogatory terms like "fat stupid nigger" within his ear range; much the terms as they used in your interview with them. And then 15 minutes later you appear as the self-appointed representatives of these racists to defend their rights?
Yeah, I think you're going to get an entirely different response. So I do think the details are important, and not nitpicking. They shape context and response.
(And to clarify? Your initial post on Indybay about this story, which still stands, begins with the statement "They said they'd complained and were told to leave".)
For example, in the case at the Metro? Let's agree that the salient issue may be the way in which the guard responded. If so, then I don't think that the steps/facts leading up to his response are unimportant, or nitpicking. In fact, I think the are very important and likely shape his response. Depending on the details/nitpicking, the situation could be viewed from two polarized perspectives.
In one scenario, we have an abusive guard who chased people off the property for no good cause, and then refuses to provide you with any information,and that response on his part seems inappropriate and inexplicable.
But if I look at it from another perspective? Of him having just had two racists in his face, telling him they didn't like the sermonizing. And he, who didn't force to leave but rather told them they could leave probably heard them spewing the same derogatory terms like "fat stupid nigger" within his ear range; much the terms as they used in your interview with them. And then 15 minutes later you appear as the self-appointed representatives of these racists to defend their rights?
Yeah, I think you're going to get an entirely different response. So I do think the details are important, and not nitpicking. They shape context and response.
(And to clarify? Your initial post on Indybay about this story, which still stands, begins with the statement "They said they'd complained and were told to leave".)
The issue, the verdict and appeal notwithstanding, was whether a Security Guard should be empowered to order a member of the public off the property for standing in front of the 7' long Metro sign and making a visible audio recording of the police interaction.
The whole thing is on audio tape, as can be found if you follow the links on this story back to the earlier accounts.
As mentioned before, we won the broader victory when we returned several weeks later, did exactly the same thing without permits, permission, or apology, and were ignored.
However, the fact remains that reports continue to reach me of aggressive and abusive behavior by Metro guards. One man reported to me several days ago that he had to physically wrest his bike back from the guard, who only desisted when he began calling out loudly for help to bystanders.
And Mayor Mike Rotkin, still on the Metro Transit Board, stillrefuses to clarify what the power and limits of Metro security guards are there ("police discretion) and how far city police are allowed to go in supporting their "leave the property" demands if no crime has been committed. I hope to write about this more and give Rotkin's verbatim comments in a future article.
Please contact HUFF (831-423-4833) if you've had problems there.
The whole thing is on audio tape, as can be found if you follow the links on this story back to the earlier accounts.
As mentioned before, we won the broader victory when we returned several weeks later, did exactly the same thing without permits, permission, or apology, and were ignored.
However, the fact remains that reports continue to reach me of aggressive and abusive behavior by Metro guards. One man reported to me several days ago that he had to physically wrest his bike back from the guard, who only desisted when he began calling out loudly for help to bystanders.
And Mayor Mike Rotkin, still on the Metro Transit Board, stillrefuses to clarify what the power and limits of Metro security guards are there ("police discretion) and how far city police are allowed to go in supporting their "leave the property" demands if no crime has been committed. I hope to write about this more and give Rotkin's verbatim comments in a future article.
Please contact HUFF (831-423-4833) if you've had problems there.
I have had to deal with Donna on several occassions over the last 7 years. She is a rabble rousing drug user who used to invite underage girls into her apartment to do drugs. When she was finally evicted from her apartment (after setting fire to it in a drug induced stupor so that she didn't know it was on fire), the owner had to have a HazMat team go in to clean and remove all of the flooring and cabinetry. The kitchen floor was scared by 100's of burn marks where matches were dropped after cooking heroin in a spoon prior to injecting. Why anybody other than Robert Norse, another no good stick his nose in city business jerk would care about this person is beyond me. I firmly beleive that Donna was doing or had just done illegal drugs upon being accosted by the officer and would not at all be surprised that she would throw hot coffee in the officers face and ignore requests to stop and turn around.
Hmm what was the serious concern that prompted Sgt. LeMoss to use such force that he had to break Deiss's arm? And how in the world was that serious criminal concern magically reduced to a "littering" charge a year later?
Probably because he punished Deiss for her attitude in an investigation of marijuana smoking.
To raise Deiss's personal habits or her history is to obscure the issue (perhaps intentionally). Did LeMoss use excessive force in slamming around a 60+ year old disabled woman? Apparently the City felt there was a damn good chance of a jury believing so because it settled short of trial.
The important issue is what kind of oversight is happening in the SCPD--which had LeMoss proceeding to tote badge and gun about town without apparent consequences.
If anyone has any reports on LeMoss, Azua, Winston, or any other officers who I have heard accused of serious excessive force, please post the details. Anonymously if necessary.
For those who wish to see the pro-police City Council in all its mind-numbing obliviousness, check out the City Council's Public Safety Committee. It meets next week Monday December 13 4 PM at the City Council Conference Room. Contact Chair Lynn Robinson at 420-5020 for more info.
Probably because he punished Deiss for her attitude in an investigation of marijuana smoking.
To raise Deiss's personal habits or her history is to obscure the issue (perhaps intentionally). Did LeMoss use excessive force in slamming around a 60+ year old disabled woman? Apparently the City felt there was a damn good chance of a jury believing so because it settled short of trial.
The important issue is what kind of oversight is happening in the SCPD--which had LeMoss proceeding to tote badge and gun about town without apparent consequences.
If anyone has any reports on LeMoss, Azua, Winston, or any other officers who I have heard accused of serious excessive force, please post the details. Anonymously if necessary.
For those who wish to see the pro-police City Council in all its mind-numbing obliviousness, check out the City Council's Public Safety Committee. It meets next week Monday December 13 4 PM at the City Council Conference Room. Contact Chair Lynn Robinson at 420-5020 for more info.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$205.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network