This morning, I opened up social media to discover news about yet another Black man dead after an officer-involved shooting. Although details are still incredibly fuzzy, according to a few different accounts, last night a man named Leek Moss was shot and killed by Harrisburg, Pennsylvania police.

This was #LeekMoss yesterday morning w/ his newborn baby.

Police shot & killed him last night. pic.twitter.com/IwsZ5gREgH

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) August 8, 2016

Local news reports say that the shooting was at roughly 9 PM last night, August 7, and did involve a police officer, but “details surrounding the incident are unclear at this time.” Reports also discuss unrest and high emotions in the aftermath of the shooting.

As far as I could tell, there haven’t been any news articles that have disclosed Moss’s identity yet, but Twitter and Facebook have been mourning the 17-year-old father of a newborn infant, and a Facebook page that appears to be Moss’s shows expressions of condolence from his family members and friends.

Additionally, a press conference was held this morning that went over some of the details of the shooting. According to coverage of that press conference, the officer involved had been active for under two years, and there may have been a knife involved. The circumstances are still under investigation.

#AltonSterling#PhilandoCastile#KorrynGaines#PaulONeal#LeekMoss

In one month…

— ugh (@thetrapgoth) August 8, 2016

#LeekMoss is a teenager and a new father. A beloved son and brother. Killed by police last night in Harrisburg, PA. pic.twitter.com/A4PknSbcSk

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) August 8, 2016

#Harrisburg let Dauphin County DA @edmarsico know we want independent investigation into the shooting of #LeekMoss 717-780-6767

— Walter S Thomas Jr (@revthomasjr) August 8, 2016

#LeekMoss i hope this isn’t true. Again #blacklivesmatter

— on purpose amy (@ToxicSabrinaAF) August 8, 2016

While details of what happened to Moss are still unclear, police have mentioned several times to “not believe everything on social media” and to “remain calm.” While that’s expected after a death, it’s also worth noting that most probably wouldn’t even know about shooting without social media’s ability to disseminate information quickly.

More details are to come on Moss’s death, but as more and more Black Americans lose their lives in officer-involved incidents, the need for the #BlackLivesMatter movement and the palpability of America’s mistrust of police continues to ring true.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leek Moss: Social Media Reports Black Teen Killed by Officer in PA appeared first on Law Street.

Police have the duty of serving and protecting our communities. They are supposed to stop crime and make us feel a little safer knowing that we have people to help us during our times of need. Unfortunately this perception of the police has completely changed due to the enormous amount of unnecessary police brutality and senselessness that has affected the lives of many. A white Alabama police officer who was once awarded for his great work has been exposed to be another officer that may not be very heroic after all.

Alabama officer kept job after proposal to murder black man and hide evidence http://t.co/CT3Sw69SpF pic.twitter.com/9sr9YP1sfA

— The Guardian (@guardian) August 4, 2015

Officer Troy Middlebrooks, 33, was caught a few years ago on a secret recording device discussing how to kill Vincent Bias (an African American man) and get away with it. However, the tape was just revealed on Tuesday, sparking controversy.

In 2013 Bias was at his brother-in-law’s house when Middlebrooks showed up because of an unleashed dog. Bias was cited for the dog being unleashed even though it belonged to his brother-in-law. Bias alleged that at the time he was being repeatedly harassed by city officers, including Middlebrooks. He claimed he was singled out because he was a black man and because he was in a relationship with a white woman. Middlebrooks had previously arrested Bias on drug charges earlier in the year, but he had been released on bail after paying a bond. Reportedly frustrated that Bias had been released, the officer pulled aside his brother-in-law, who is white, and told him he did not trust Bias. The brother-in-law then secretly began to record Middlebrooks’ statements. On the recording, Middlebrooks is heard saying if he were in the same position he would, “f-cking kill that motherf-cker with whatever I had in that f-cking house”. He continued to say, “And before the police got here, I’d f-cking put marks all over my shit and make it look like he was trying to f-cking kill me. I god damn guarantee you. What would it look like? Self f-cking defense. F-ck that piece of sh-t. I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll f-cking tell you what’s on my f-cking mind.”

He also began to mock Bias’ brother stating, “That motherf-cker right there needs a god d-mn bullet. And you f-cking know exactly what I’m talking about. The way he f-cking talks to you? Like you’re a f-cking child? Like he’s your … Are you his b-tch or something? He talks to you like that.”

After receiving the tape, Bias hired lawyers and played the recording for police chiefs and the mayor and told the city that he planned to sue for $600,000. The situation ended up being handled quietly outside of court, and Bias was given a much smaller amount of $35,000 by Alexander City authorities so they could avoid being publicly sued. He told NBC News that he took the money in hopes of moving away from Alexander City, so that he would no longer be targeted unfairly by the police. But members of the Alexander City Council said they had not been told about the case or the payment to Bias. One city council member, Tony Goss, said he was “absolutely flabbergasted” to learn of the details. Goss also said,

 This is absolutely unbelievable. Thirty-five thousand dollars is a lot of money and our city council is being left out of deliberation.

While referring to the recording he stated:

If an officer is recorded saying something like that, there are potential grounds for termination.

Middlebrooks shockingly kept his job and could not be reached for comment. Police Chief Willie Robinson stated that Middlebrooks was disciplined, but would not give out any details. Robinson also tried to cover for Middlebrooks and said that he was suggesting for the brother-in-law to carry out the killing. “He wasn’t saying that he was going to do that,” said the police chief. “He was talking about the man doing it himself.” Middlebrooks was repeatedly investigated and cleared by the State Bureau of Investigation.

However, it is downright frightening that a policeman that may have tried to tell someone how to kill a person is still on the workforce. In an environment where distrust of police appears to be at an all time high, and many questions are being raised about the ethics of our police forces, the fact that this was covered up is simply unacceptable. 

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Police Officer Caught on Tape Explaining How to Get Away With Murder appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has an exciting new term ahead of it, and today’s case is no exception. This week the justices will hear arguments in Heien vs. North Carolina, a case that at its core poses one very simple question: should police officers be held to a higher standard? It’s a timely question, given the events of this summer, and one whose answer may hold some interesting ramifications.

In 2009, a man named Nicholas Heien was with another man who was driving his car in North Carolina when he was pulled over for having a busted tail light. Officers ended up searching the car — which belonged to Heien — and discovering a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now under North Carolina law, if Heien was pulled over because he was breaking a law, and the subsequent search yielded the cocaine discovery, that would have been legal. The problem is that he wasn’t actually breaking a law when he was pulled over — technically, as long as you have one functioning tail light, you’re operating within the law in North Carolina. The officer who pulled him over was simply wrong about the law.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches are lawful — and there’s significant evidence to suggest that the search of Heien’s car was not. There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated in order to conduct that search. A non-functioning brake light, which is not even illegal, is simply not enough.

Heien lost his original trial. He then won an appeals case, but lost in the North Carolina State Supreme Court. The case will now be making its way to the Supreme Court, which will have to figure out whether the North Carolina Supreme Court made the right decisions saying that Heien’s arrest was fair, even though the cop who pulled him over was ignorant of the laws in the state in which he worked.

The State Supreme Court held that requiring officers to be walking encyclopedias of the states’ laws is ridiculous and creates much higher standards than the Fourth Amendment mandates. But the dissenters pointed out that allowing that kind of subjectivity could create a sort of slippery slope. In the dissent, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:

The danger in adopting a new constitutional rule here is that this particular case seems so innocuous: Of course it is reasonable that an officer would pull over a vehicle for a malfunctioning brake light. But this new constitutional rule will also apply in the next case, when the officer acts based on a misreading of a less innocuous statute, or an incorrect memo or training program from the police department, or his or her previous law enforcement experience in a different state, or his or her belief in a nonexistent law.

Then there’s the context of this August to discuss. The events in Ferguson propelled a national dialogue, one that was opened by stop-and-frisk laws, militarization of our police departments, and dozens of other issues around the country about the power of our police departments. Obviously, none of these examples are about the same kind of issue — the cops in Heien’s case obviously did not shoot anyone. But it does hark back to that question: what leniency do we give to our cops?

In the United States, not knowing a law is no excuse for breaking it. Should not knowing it also be an excuse for incorrectly enforcing it? Now, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/police-decisions-debate-todays-scotus-case/feed/ 0 26197