Two different stories about Minneapolis police actions — one fairly recent, one decades ago — have me shaking my head once again.
The recent story (Star Tribune gift link) is about a man who was shot in the head with a "less than lethal" bullet by a cop standing on top of Minneapolis's Third Precinct the night before the building was burned to the ground in late May 2020, several days after Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. The wounded man has filed suit against the Minneapolis Police Department and the "John Doe" cop who shot him.
Abdi Adam was waiting for a bus on a street near the precinct at about 8:00 p.m. when there was no curfew or order to disperse. The scene was calm at the time.
He still has vision problems in one eye and an obvious dent in his forehead. He had a concussion at the time, and incurred medical bills, of course.
Adam's lawsuit is the first injury I've heard of from a person who was shot from the roof, but I remember at the time hearing people I know describe being shot at from that same roof while they were walking away from the precinct. I know this happened on the night before the burning, because it seemed so incongruous, so out of all proportion at the time. After the burning, I said those unprovoked shots from the rooftop were a significant factor in inciting people to the level where they burned the precinct — not just the obvious circumstances that brought them there in the first place.
(There are numerous other people who were shot and injured when in closer quarters with police on the streets, including journalists, and their lawsuits have been underway for a while. A list of some is included at the end of the linked story.)
Here are some more details from the Star Tribune story:
No officials rendered aid to Adam. Instead, protesters took him to the hospital.... Under MPD policy, officers are forbidden from deploying 40mm projectiles for crowd control purposes. Further, supervisors are required to respond any time one is used.
Officers violated MPD policy by not filing a use-of-force report. Had the report been filed, the identity of the shooter and witness officers would be known. The officers involved also had body-worn cameras. That video should have been included in the report.
Instead, supervisors turned a blind-eye and failed to hold officers accountable, the lawsuit claims.
In findings released this summer, the U.S. Department of Justice determined that MPD routinely uses excessive force, fails to render aid to people against whom they have used force, and its inadequate review system contributes to a pattern of unlawful use of excessive force.
The second story (Star Tribune gift link) is about a man convicted of first-degree murder almost 20 years ago when he was 16 years old. With help from the Innocence Project, he has just made the case for a new trial.
From the description in the Star Tribune story, Marvin Haynes was convicted because of cops and prosecutors rushing to judgment as they tried to close a high-profile case, when a shopkeeper was shot during a robbery in 2004:
...no physical evidence tied Haynes to the north Minneapolis flower shop or [the] killing. Haynes...did not match the physical description eyewitnesses provided to investigators. And several individuals who testified at his trial have since signed affidavits recanting their statements.
[the surviving] eyewitness to the crime described the shooter to police as a 19- to 22-year-old Black male, thin build, medium or dark-skinned, nearly 6 feet tall, 180 pounds, with "close-cropped" hair.
Police showed [the witness] an initial photo lineup that didn't include Haynes. With 75% to 80% certainty, she chose a man who matched her description but had an alibi.
Police then got an anonymous tip that the shooter was Haynes, so they arrested him for missing a court appearance for a minor infraction. At the time, he had a "long afro and thin mustache," as seen in his booking photo — so not a good match with the witness's description. He was also only 5'7" tall and weighed 130 pounds.
The cops showed the witness another photo lineup including Haynes, but they used a two-year-old photo when he had short, close-cropped hair instead of his new booking photo. She picked him as the shooter. They followed with an in-person lineup using five filler men. Haynes was the only person in both. And she picked out Haynes again.
[Sgt. Michael] Keefe, one of the original detectives on the case... testified... that presenting Haynes to the eyewitnesses multiple times was "reckless and irresponsible."
He recalled that, when a supervisor ordered him to conduct a second lineup with Haynes as the main suspect, he thought it was a joke and questioned its legality. Despite a contentious debate with command staff, Keefe was overruled; senior Hennepin County attorneys approved the procedure.
The final piece of evidence against Haynes was the statement of his then-14-year-old cousin, who had testified that Haynes took credit for the shooting. The cousin now says the cops threatened him with half the prison time Haynes faced "if he didn't help corroborate their theories about the case."
The same detective who describes the lineup as misbegotten denies coercing the cousin, but he does acknowledge that "officers did not seek parental consent before interrogating minors back then."
I sure hope Marvin Haynes gets a new trial and his sentence is overturned. This story also makes me glad once again that Mary Moriarty is Hennepin County Attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment