The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.
Police officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor were part of a massive NYPD manhunt. They were in the operator’s cab, watching the tracks between Penn Station and 42nd Street for any sign of the fugitive. Lozito was seated next to the cab.
In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.
The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.
Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.
“You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.
Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him.
“Most of my wounds are in the back of my head,” Lozito said. “He got to the back of my head because my left shoulder [was] in his waist.”
In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said.
“By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.
Gelman was convicted in the spree — which left his girlfriend, her mother, his stepfather and a pedestrian dead, and five others injured.
Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.
An angry Lozito decided to sue the city for negligence, arguing the cops should have recognized Gelman and prevented, or reacted more quickly to, the assault.
The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.
He is currently doing an AmA. I encourage anyone who doesn’t know who the Institute for Justice is to do some research on them. Anytime someone says libertarians don’t care about the poor, refer them to the institute for Justice. They are purely non-profit, they don’t charge their clients, and they sue governments on behalf of people whom cannot afford to in order to knock down legislation that holds the client back from being business owners. They are highly influential and have been involved with many different Supreme Court cases (and won 80%).
Somebody in the crowd fired a pistol and the people again started to scream hysterically, ‘Kill the niggers! Kill the niggers! Pour gasoline on the niggers!’ The mob started to throw stones on top of my car. So I opened the door of the car and I put one foot on the ground and I stood up in the door holding an Italian carbine. All this time three policemen had been standing about 50 feet away from us while we kept waiting in the car for them to come and rescue us. Then when they saw that we were armed and the mob couldn’t take us, two of the policemen started running. One ran straight to me, grabbed me on the shoulder and said, ‘Surrender your weapon! Surrender your weapon!’ I struck him in the face and knocked him back away from the car and put my carbine in his face and told him that we didn’t intend to be lynched. The other policeman who had run around the side of the car started to draw his revolver out of the holster. He was hoping to shoot me in the back. They didn’t know that we had more than one gun. One of the students (who was 17 years old) put a .45 in the policeman’s face an told him that if he pulled out his pistol he would kill him.
The policeman started putting his gun back into the holster and backing away from the car and he fell into the ditch. There was a very old man, an old white man, out in the crowd, and he started screaming and crying like a baby, and he kept crying and he said, ‘God damn, God damn what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them?!’ He kept crying and somebody led him away through the crowd.
Robert F. Williams
Telling the reason why he called his book “Negros with guns.” This book had an important influence on the Black Panther Party. The quote is a selection from the book.
Several years later, Williams explains why he felt that the old white man was crying:
"It took me a long time to understand his feeling. Now I realize why he was crying. Because the gun had been the thing that had always kept them on top, and the police power. And he could see that slipping away, and his way of life was going. And this is why he was crying. And this is why I named my book "Negro’s with Guns."disciplesofmalcolm)
The LAPD is facing a lawsuit from Roy Galvan, a 24-year-old father who spent more than a year in jail before being tried and acquitted for a murder he says police tried to frame him for. Via NBC Los Angeles:[The lawsuit] accuses LAPD Officers Miguel Terrazas, David Nunn and Richard Arciniega of destroying evidence in the case, falsifying reports and bribing witnesses for statements, false arrest and malicious prosecution, among other claims of misconduct and civil rights violations…
Galvan claims the officers who took him to trial strong-armed, bribed and refused to investigate “several” potential witnesses, including two homeless people – Mark Loving and Syrella Carpenter, who had paranoid schizophrenia – living in a tent near the shooting scene.
The lawsuit alleges Loving and Carpenter were paid nearly $10,000 for their false testimony, and that the police requests for city checks for the two were submitted into evidence during Galvan’s trial. Other witnesses were allegedly promised they would not face deportation if they provided false testimony. The lawsuit also claims other eyewitnesses fingered a different suspect, but that cops did not interview him.
The police officers named in the lawsuit appear to remain with the LAPD. You can read the entire complaint here (pdf), via NBC.
Likely result of suit, echoing nearly every case of police misconduct ever: no criminal charges against officers involved with likely minimal disciplinary actions, and a settlement paid for by taxpayers.
Pearl Pearson is a 64 year-old diabetic deaf driver who resides in the Oklahoma City area. On the evening of January 3rd, Pearl crossed paths with the wrong cops.
What’s the story?At this time, only limited details can be provided since this case is under investigation.
1. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol pulled Pearl over late in the evening on January 3, 2014. Pearl pulled over as he should.
2. Pearl’s driver’s license indicates he is Deaf. He also has a placard in his driver’s door that says, “Driver is deaf”.
3. Pearl pulled over and rolled down his window, expecting an officer to ask for this identification. An officer struck him in the face before Pearl had the chance to do anything. As you can see, he was struck multiple times.
4. An interpreter was never provided while Pearl was under the care of law enforcement. Not during the booking, hospital, or time at the jail was an interpreter provided, even through Pearl requested one.
5. Pearl was left wondering “why” the the entire time. He has no clue why he was beat. Pearl and his family are still not sure, but are ready for some answers.
6. Pearl’s own son is a police officer, as was his son-in-law, who is now a deputy sheriff. He respects law enforcement and knows how to respond when pulled over. There is no reason for someone like Pearl to be hurt like this by those who are meant to protect and serve.
[LAL Note: "respect[ing] law enforcement" is not a prerequisite for proper treatment by law enforcement.]
Yelling at a deaf man to put up his hands will not do much, except aggravate an already aggressive police officer. This is a tragic scenario of ignorance and needless escalation of violence.
Eric Foster and Kelton Hayes were the two OHP officers that were involved in what an affidavit claims was a 7 minutes altercation.
Where is the dash cam footage from the units of Eric Foster and Kelton Hayes? Wouldn’t this clear up any inconsistencies in this story?
Naturally, it’s paid vacation time:
The two officers have been suspended with pay while the investigation into this incident continues.
This is hardly the first time a bully in blue has attacked a deaf man for not listening. One other notable example: in 2010, a Seattle cop shot and killed an older, partially deaf man for holding a folded pocket knife he used for whittling when the man couldn’t hear (probably unlawful) orders to drop it. He wasn’t harassing anyone, he was just walking (see video here, as man harmlessly crosses a crosswalk minding his own business, the cop jumps out of his car and starts yelling “hey” and “put the knife down” and literally 8 seconds after the cop first called out three shots are heard). The city of Seattle paid the man’s family $1.5 million. Which means, yet again, taxpayers were on the hook for the wrongdoing of state agents.
It is quite clear that the deaf man brutally and repeatedly assaulted the fists of those officers with his face, and such resistance to arrest - nevermind any probable cause - should not be tolerated. If deaf people cannot respond to the barked ordered of cops, then clearly they don’t deserve to keep their faces bruise-free. This is America, dammit. Learn to hear English.
An interesting lawsuit went to non-jury trial in a Los Angeles court room yesterday; nine public school students, with the support of an educational non-profit called “Students Matter,” are suing the state of California over teacher tenure laws and other protections, which they argue prevent school administrators from removing dysfunctional teachers from the system. To skeptics of the eternally optimistic apologists of the government school system, the argument seems pretty open and shut. Tenure and the other public employee protections (which public unions call “due process” as if their jobs were rights and not privileges) make it difficult to remove teachers even in some of the most egregious cases. In 2012, LA Weekly reported the city’s school district had 300 teachers in the “rubber rooms,” where teachers go after they’ve been removed from the classroom but before they’ve had their “due process.” According to LA Weekly, the average teacher spends 127 days hanging out in the rubber room, collecting full salary and benefits while “allegations” against them are investigated. It’s a system that’s pretty recognizably rigged in favor of the teacher and not the student, whose education can be severely handicapped by just one lousy teacher in one school year.The California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers intervened and asked the court to throw out the lawsuit filed against the state, including the Department of Education, Gov. Jerry Brown and Superintendent of Public Education Tom Torlakson.
"It is deceptive and dishonest to pretend that teacher due process rights are unfair to students," said California Federation of Teachers President Josh Pechthalt, the parent of a ninth-grade student in the Los Angeles Unified School District. "Students need a stable, experienced teaching workforce. They won’t have one if this lawsuit succeeds in gutting basic teacher rights."
So, teachers have more job security even though when they fail to do their jobs they risk the life-long income earning potentials of their students because that job security creates a stable workforce for them. It’s a bizarre assertion that a labor organization meant to protect the financial interests of teachers as employees could somehow also protect the educational interests of students. Talk about deceptive. The judge rejected the union’s motion to dismiss the case.
Over the weekend, the California Department of Education released a statement insisting there was “nothing in the law” that prevents districts “from removing teachers from the classroom when necessary.” The students who have brought the matter to court, and their parents, disagree. That those who profit off the educational bureaucracy don’t is no surprise.