Mediaboss Marketing

Tiffany and Aaron James believe Cottonwood Heights police havent told the truth about the morning an officer fatally shot their 19-year-old son, Zane.

An internal document they have identifies two contradictions in the polices version of events and the information comes directly from shooting Officer Casey Davies.

The officer gave an interview as part of an internal review. The interviews fall under the 1967 Supreme Court ruling called Garrity v. New Jersey, which says police chiefs can force their officers to talk but the information cant be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding.

Cottonwood Heights fought to keep Davies Garrity statement out of the courtroom in a civil case and from the public. A federal judge disagreed, giving the family access to the interview.

Police officials have said Zane James crashed his motorcycle during a chase on May 29, 2018. Davies, in his interview, said he purposefully rammed into him.

They also said Davies was on his way to the department when he heard about the search for James, and thats why he didnt have his body camera. In his interview, Davies said he was already at the station.

Davies has since left Cottonwood Heights and now works at the Herriman Police Department.

These revelations are part of an amended federal civil lawsuit filed Thursday by Tiffany and Aaron James. In it, the couple also allege police hid and potentially destroyed video footage of the shooting.

Officer Davies statement is irrefutable evidence Zanes death was both illegal and should have never happened, the couple said in a statement.

Heather White, the attorney for Davies and Cottonwood Heights, said there are simple explanations for the inconsistencies.

There is no cover-up, she said.

She added, I can unequivocally tell you there is no recording of this incident and never has been.

She said the department did not talk to Davies about what happened until the internal review, which led to the misstatements.

When Davies signed a declaration in court saying he was on his way to work and was unable to grab his body camera, White said Davies didnt read the document closely enough to note the error.

I didnt actually write it, Davies said, according to a court transcript. I just signed the document that I was asked to sign.

Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill cleared Davies in the case in October 2018, though he made his decision without any comment from Davies, who declined an interview with investigators, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Gill told The Salt Lake Tribune he was unaware Davies intentionally crashed into Zane James, which is a deadly use of force his office would normally investigate. As the law requires, prosecutors cant review the Garrity statement, named after the Supreme Court case. The officers who did talk to D.A. investigators said they either saw James crash on a speed bump, heard that on the radio or assumed thats what happened.

Gill said to investigate Davies ramming into James, he would need to learn that fact from a source outside of the Garrity statement.

If nobody else knew that, or nobody else was aware of it, even though that may implicate potentially criminal conduct, Gill said, I cant get to it unless I can get to it independently.

He said would have his attorneys look into the discrepancies.

The Cottonwood Heights Police Department, which reviewed the Garrity interview, also cleared Davies, saying the shooting was within policy.

It wasnt easy for the James family to get the internal interview. After months of debate, a federal judge ruled July 7 that the James family could use that Garrity statement in its civil lawsuit.

Separately, the State Records Committee has ruled the city must turn it over to The Tribune. The city is fighting that ruling, taking The Tribune to court to prevent its release.

Read more: A Utah Prosecutor Says New Self-Defense Law Makes it Harder to Charge Problematic Police Officers

Here are the facts, gleaned from documents about the investigation, including the Garrity statements spelled out in the amended lawsuit:

Only one other officer, Cottonwood Heights Bryan Betenson, said he saw James crash and was there for the shooting.

He told Salt Lake City police investigators he and Davies were chasing James.

As the motorcycle went over the second speed bump, the investigator wrote in a report, he saw sparks and saw that the male had lost it and wrecked the motorcycle.

Salt Lake City Police Department investigators also talked to Cottonwood Heights Officer Jamie Croft, who had just finished a training shift that morning when he decided to respond to the chase. Croft said Davies reported James had crashed.

As he was driving into the area, Off. Davies called out the suspect had wrecked and to get medical started, an SLCPD investigator wrote in a report on the shooting.

In a motion to dismiss the familys civil suit, attorney Heather White wrote, James, in his flight from the police, unsuccessfully attempted to execute a turn and crashed his motorbike on a narrow neighborhood street.Officer Davies, who had been pursuing James, witnessed the crash.

Yet Davies told former Cottonwood Heights Sgt. Ryan Shosted during his Garrity interview that he made the decision to run James over because he thought James was going to pull a gun and shoot him and that running him over would be safer than shooting through the police cars windshield.

He said, So I made the decision Im going to run him over So I floored it, hit him as he was going over that second speed bump.

White said she repeated the claim that James wrecked because she wrote it without using the Garrity statement.

It was just a mistake on our end and on his end in reading that, she said.

In addition to Davies saying he intentionally wrecked James, he also told Shosted he was at the police station when he heard radio traffic and decided to get involved.

This is a small but important detail, because it is inconsistent with a legal declaration Davies signed in August 2020, as well as multiple public statements made by Cottonwood Heights police officials about why they havent released body camera footage.

I was not wearing my body camera during the incident involving Zane James on the morning of May, 29, 2018. I had been on my way to work at the time and had not yet gotten to the police station to pick up my body camera, according to the document, filed in U.S. District Court.

In a November evidentiary hearing, Davies told Attorney Bob Sykes that he misunderstood what he was signing. He contended he didnt mean to give a false statement.

In dispatch audio used as an exhibit in the amended complaint, Davies radios in that James had wrecked out. About 10 seconds later, he reports back: Shots fired.

Shosted, the same officer who would interview Davies as part of the departments internal investigation, told The Tribune the day of the shooting that Davies was on his way to work before the shooting.

KSL reported the same thing in mid-June, when the department released video showing the aftermath of the shooting.

In the internal interview, Davies told Shosted he actually arrived to work early for a seat belt enforcement shift.

He told Shosted he heard the chase on the scanner as he was putting on his uniform. He heard that police believed the motorcyclist might be the suspect in an earlier robbery.

At that time, I hurried and rushed. I so my camera was still in the docking station at that point and so my belt was hanging I was in my uniform at this time so I just grabbed my belt, threw it on, ran out, Davies said in the internal interview.

The James family alleges in the amended complaint that this is also false, because it has evidence that shows his camera was taken off the docking station at 5:50 a.m.

White said that its true someone removed Davies camera from the docking station, but it was another police officer who removed it to upload their own camera. She said that officer put Davies camera in a drawer, where it remained until he returned to duty after this shooting.

She compared it to sharing a phone charger with multiple people.

Another piece of evidence the family is relying on is a City Council member who maintains that not only does video of this shooting exist, but also that she has seen it.

Read more: A disturbing shooting: Salt Lake County district attorney says officer was justified in killing handcuffed man

When The Tribune asked Cottonwood Heights City Manager Tim Tingey in August 2020 about video of this shooting, he said he wasnt aware of any footage.

White said Thursday that the city has checked body camera records and can now say no such footage exists or ever existed.

The only video police have released is from an officer who arrives after Davies had already fired. It shows police standing around James and trying to assess his injuries and give him aid.

Tingey wrote the city believes the allegations of undisclosed bodycam footage are entirely mistaken and without any merit whatsoever, and that they stemmed from a councilperson confusing another, entirely different, non-fatal shooting with the Zane James shooting.

He was referring to City Council member Natalie Tali Bruce and arguing that she conflated this shooting with Cottonwood Heights Officer Chris McHugh shooting a different teenager in September 2017. That shooting took place under an overpass in a different part of the city at night. James was shot in daylight in a residential area of Cottonwood Heights.

Bruce has since testified in a November 2020 evidentiary hearing that she and others saw a video of Davies shooting Zane James during a June 12, 2018, closed meeting.

In the hearing, she described the video in detail. She said it begins with the image of a crumpled motorcycle and pans left to James hobbling on the grass. Bruce said it was clear that he was injured, according to a transcript.

[H]is pants were sliding down on his hips, you could see the waistband of his underwear. And his left arm went back, to me it looked evident that he was going to pull up his pants, which were dropping as he was attempting to flee, Bruce said. At that point, you hear pow-pow, pow-pow and he went down, facedown into the grass.

She added Davies didnt give any sort of verbal commands to James before shooting him in the back. Bruce said she didnt see a weapon. The next day, she asked the mayor and council a question in an email obtained by The Tribune.

I apologise [sic]. I should have asked this last night but my brain was exhausted, she wrote. Was a Tazer [sic] not an option with the pursuit?

At least 13 people including council members who would have been at this meeting, Tingey and Police Chief Robby Russo have signed sworn declarations they hadnt seen video of the shooting and that they dont believe it exists.

At the evidentiary hearing, White, the attorney representing the city, asked Bruce why so many people would have sworn the video didnt exist if they saw it. Bruce cited gaslighting by Tingey and former Mayor Kelvyn Cullimore.

Bruces attorney, Michael Young, released a statement about the Garrity revelations Wednesday.

I am not surprised by a continued pattern of malfeasance by Cottonwood Heights, as reflected in the current litigation between Ms. Bruce, the city and others, he said.

Russo sued Bruce and Cottonwood Heights in May 2020, alleging they were part of a scheme to get him fired. He recently received $70,000 as part of a settlement in that case, KUTV reported.

Bruce filed a countersuit to Russos initial complaint, alleging the police chief began a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Bruce after she questioned the utility of using city resources to fund a police department, according to the court filing.

That case is still pending.

The original May 2019 lawsuit alleges James didnt pose a threat and that officials covered up Davies negligence. It cited a witness of the shooting who said that despite law enforcement statements, Davies didnt give James any commands before firing, and that Davies fired as James ran away.

It also cast doubt on police statements that James reached for a gun.

Attorney Bob Sykes wrote in the original lawsuit that claim makes no sense because Zane knew he did not have a real gun, so why would he reach for a toy gun, knowing armed officers were close behind?

The amended complaint, filed Thursday in federal court, includes the facts established in the Garrity statement and builds on those earlier ideas.

The suit alleges that James was wrongfully killed and Cottonwood Heights didnt properly train its officers in de-escalation tactics and other established rules of policing.

Davies believed he could use deadly force against a fleeing felon, even if there is no imminent threat to the officer or the public, the lawsuit states, saying this belief is baked on a deep misunderstanding of the law.

The lawsuit is asking for Davies to be held in criminal contempt for his knowing submission of false testimony, as well as for Cottonwood Heights to eliminate its training programs and create new ones. It also asks that the matter be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for review, and that an outside supervisor be appointed to audit the departments training and policies.

The family is seeking monetary damages and attorney fees.

White said it is untrue that the city tried to hide anything in this case.

I feel for this family. Theyve been through a terrible ordeal and they dont trust police, White said, but their theories about what they think happened are completely inconsistent with the physical evidence and the testimony that has been given.

This story is part of a collaboration with The Salt Lake Tribune through FRONTLINEs Local Journalism Initiative, which is funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Read the original post:
Utah Couple Say Internal Police Interview Contradicts Cottonwood Heights on Shooting Death of Son - FRONTLINE

China wants the world to forget about its political takeover of Hong Kong, but well try to keep you as informed as we can. The latest news is the imposition of a Communist Party-friendly curriculum in the citys schools.

On Saturday the Education Bureau said it will no longer recognize the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union, which has 95,000 members and is more a guild than a union in the American sense. The Education Bureau says the union has been engaging in political propaganda under the guise of being a professional education organisation. But authorities real fear is that teachers will resist imposing Beijings patriotic education on Hong Kong students.

The new national security law directs Hong Kong to promote national security education in schools and universities. The Education Bureau is revamping the curriculum so students develop a sense of belonging to the country, an affection for the Chinese people, a sense of national identity, as well as an awareness of and a sense of responsibility for safeguarding national security. Public libraries have removed the books of pro-democracy figures.

Thus the purge of teachers. Authorities took particular issue with the unions longtime alliance with groups that organized peaceful pro-democracy protests and annual Tiananmen vigils. Authorities have warned teachers and students that political expression in classrooms or on campus may violate the national security law. The maximum penalty is life in prison.

In May the union reported that nearly one in five teachers surveyed said they planned to leave the profession. Most said the reason was increased political pressure.

View original post here:
Communism in the Classroom - The Wall Street Journal

Supporters of the Cuban government demonstrate in Havana on July 11. (Associated Press)

To the editor: In her recent column urging a shift in Cuba policy, Jean Guerrero makes two tragic but typical mistakes.

First, she pits Cuban whites against Cuban persons of color, assuming that the prosperity of whites (it was the rich ones, after all, who fled the communist regime, wasn't it?) numbs them to the plight of their fellow Cubans.

As a white Marielito Cuban who lived in abject poverty for the first 13 years of his life under the Cuban regime's oppression, and having met many like me during my time in that country, I can assure Guerrero that in Cuba, people of all skin colors suffer the same plight.

Secondly, the assumption that economic relief will inspire Cubans to aspire to a more liberal system fails miserably when one considers China, another communist country. Anyone who thinks economic improvements or prosperity will necessarily bring about political change needs to understand the fact that regimes intent on retaining power have proved themselves unwilling to surrender any.

The U.S. economic embargo against Cuba may have failed miserably, but I was there when dollars from Miami and care packages with Lee jeans started rolling in. The communist regime and its oppression kept on ticking.

Eduardo Suastegui, Downey

..

To the editor: Cuba does have a communist government and is not a democracy, and that is also true for Vietnam and China, but companies still do business in the latter countries. Intel's largest chip plant is in Vietnam.

The U.S. was instrumental in the overthrow of democracies in Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, Iran, Egypt and Peru, and it supported the dictators in those countries as well as in Cuba prior to the hasty departure in 1959 of Fulgencio Batista, with many millions of dollars of the Cuban government's money.

Cuba has a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the United States. Heaven forbid that a country without white elites running it be allowed to prosper.

Story continues

Bruce Stenman, Prunedale, Calif.

..

To the editor: Brava and thank you to Guerrero. After weeks of shoddy and partisan reporting in U.S. media on the Cuba protests, here is a simple, clear analysis of the current situation between the two countries.

Crucially, Guerrero well explains the race and class dynamics that are rarely discussed in U.S. reporting on Cuba.

On the subject of embargoes, isn't it odd that no country has ever blockaded the United States for its actions in Vietnam, Central America, the Middle East and many other places?

John Newby, Studio City

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

The rest is here:
Letters to the Editor: I fled communism in Cuba. Everyone there is oppressed, no matter their ethnicity - Yahoo News

The curator of a major public art show in Florida has resigned after the local mayor claimed two of the artists spoke too favorably about communism and pushed to defund the show. Shortly thereafter, the event fell apart.

In a marathon city commission meeting last month, Vince Lago, mayor of Coral Gables, Florida, objected to the inclusion of artists Sandra Ramos and Cai Guo-Qiang in the citys Illuminate Coral Gables art show. The recently elected official referenced interviews that Ramos and Cai had given in the past in which he felt the artists expressed sympathetic views toward the communist regimes of their respective home countries, Cuba and China. (Ramos currently lives in Havana; Cai in New York.)

I will continue to support the arts, but not at the expense of democracy and liberty, Lago said at the meeting, a video of which is available online. It is very easy to make comments on the record supporting communism and saying that communism is a great idea, but they are here in the United States taking American money. At the end of the day, that doesnt bode well for me.

Following Lagos comments, the commission voted to fund part of the 2022 edition of the art show on the condition that the two artists be dropped from the roster.

Days later, the board of Illuminate Coral Gables announced that the 2022 show had been postponed due to extenuating circumstances beyond our control, and that its chief curator, Lance Fung, had stepped down, according to the Miami Herald.

In an email to Artnet News, Fung clarified that he resigned primarily over the censorship of my curatorial work, as did John Talley, the executive director of Fungs company Fung Collaboratives who was helping in Coral Gables. However, we also knew we needed to support all 20-plus artists we were working with by not validating false claims and speaking up for their first-amendment rights.

Lago did not respond to a request for comment.

Sandra Ramos, 90 Miles: De-construction (2011-2021).

The first edition of Illuminate Coral Gables took place in February and March of this year. Eight site-specific projects, including video projections, sculptures, and installations, went on view throughout the city.

Both Ramos and Cai participated in the inaugural show, alongside artists including Kiki Smith and David Gumbs. Ramos, a Havana-born artist now based in Miami, installed a 32-foot walkway made of a dozen lightboxes as part of the project this year. The work, she said, was meant to symbolize a bridge between Florida and Cuba.

For his part, Cai, a major international artist who was born in Quanzhou, China, and now works in New York, transformed 27 pedicabs into roving, interactive sculptures, decking out each with handmade silk Chinese lanterns. The pieces belong to the artists ongoing Fireflies series.

I think the artwork is spectacular; hes an incredible artist, Lago said of Cai. But art doesnt trump my own personal beliefs, especially when youre talking about public funds.

Lago was prepared to increase the events budget from $100,000 to $300,000 prior to the postponement. The art world brings an opportunity to this community for dialogue, the mayor said at the meeting. Where my dialogue ends is people who sympathize with oppression, tyranny.

Fung, meanwhile, disagreed. With 100 percent certainty, I believe that both artists are not communist sympathizers, the curator told Artnet News. In addition to being passionate, visionary, and talented artists, they have become good friends of mine. They are compassionate, intellectual, and humanitarian people. All of these attributes, and others, led me to the decision to request their support by being a part of Illuminate Coral Gables.'

See the original post:
Plans for a Public Art Show in Florida Have Been Derailed After the Mayor Accused Two of the Artists of Being Communists - artnet News

Anton spent most of his life in Cuba before political oppression pushed him to immigrate to America in 2013.

It was not a lack of love and respect for his country that caused Anton to leave. On the contrary, Cuba was his beloved home. He never dreamed he would have to leave his life behind, but without the freedom to own property and earn a living free from government coercion, he and his wife felt they had no choice but to come to America.

PLF had the great honor of speaking with Antonnot his real nameabout the circumstances that led him to flee his own country because his individual liberty, specifically his right to economic liberty and property, and thus, his ability to pursue happiness, were threatened.

Speaking of his feelings upon making this difficult decision, he quotes a Cuban poet he has always admired: To immigrate from the country that youre born to another country is like to take a tree, a big tree, and transplant the whole tree with the root in another land.

He added, It takes time, but at the end of the day, he knew it was the right decision.

Some immigrants speak of the material opportunity that led them to America, but for Anton it was the Cuban governments quest to squash the individual that led to his exodus.

Anton and his family had committed what he describes as the three cardinal sins under communism: They were religious, they owned property (a few acres of land), and they had a history of distrust for the communist government. This painted a target on their backs and earned them a reputation as being capitalist sympathizersthe worst trespass of them all.

Antons family owned a small farm where they planted fruit and raised livestock which they would then sell to their local community. Community was important to his family. They also built churches for communities around the country.

Anton embraced the individualist mindset and used his skills to improve himself, his family, and his broader communities.

Owning property was bad enough on its own, but having the nerve to privately sell goods was a direct violation of communist principles.

His familys reputation followed Anton everywhere he went, from grade school to his first job. Communist governments make the claim that everyone is equal under their system, but Anton and his family were not treated as such.

Their beliefs were contrary to the post-1959 revolution Cuban way of life, and the family was discriminated against accordingly.

But Anton was brave beyond measure. Despite the great danger he and his family faced, they continued to build churches and feed the community.

Building an enterprise of any scale was not the communist way. Any form of entrepreneurship not sponsored by the government needed to be squashed in the name of the collective good.

As a young boy in school, Anton was taught to follow the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. He and his classmates were told that they would one day have one society where money would be useless. Under this ideal system, the Cuban people would work in factories, they were promised. When they finished their nine-hour shifts, the government would provide them with everything they needed. If they needed clothes, they would be given clothes. If they needed food, they would be given food.

This was the utopia the Cuban socialists strived to create. But such a system can never exist unless the individual is sacrificed to the masses.

Human nature dictates that individuals each have different wants and needs. It was of little importance to communist supporters that some may not want to work in a factory. Others may prefer goods and services not provided to them by the government. And some may not be willing to sacrifice the freedom to own property and keep the income they earn for whatever is deemed in the interest of the public good.

This ideal society does not and cannot exist.

As Anton expressed, We are not in a perfect world. And, what happened in Cuba in 1959 when the revolution took power, they took everything from the rich people. They made everybody equal. So, everybody in the end was very poor. There was no incentive for people to work, no incentive for the farmers to grow food. There was no incentive for people to go to factories to work because, again, in a perfect world, this idea that they are talking about is nice, but like I say, were not in perfect world.

Communist regimes make grandiose promises of free stuff and equality, but there is no such thing as a free lunch, and equality of outcome is a perverse distortion of equality of opportunity. As Anton explained:

In my opinion, nothing in life is free, because yeah, its like that you are try to kill me and give my stuff away for free. Really?

He continued: People have good intentions, I understand this, but I will have to say that the way to the hell is good intentions.

The sanctity of the individual is undermined by collectivists ideologies, both in our own country and abroad. By placing the collective good before the sanctity of the individual, socialism and its more extreme form, communism, jeopardize our ability to live freely, peacefully, and productively without interference by government.

While our free-market, democratic system has helped keep full-fledged socialism and communism at bay, other countries have not fared so well absent these economic principles, as Antons story shows. We should use his story to be vigilant in protecting our capitalist system from the threat of socialism.

Anton laments that, thanks to American filmmaker Michael Moore, westerners have developed a false perception of socialism, especially when it comes to Cuban healthcare.

Michael Moore never went to our hometown hospital. He went to the best government hospitals. When he came back, he said that Cuba is a paradise.

He does not deny that the doctors in his country are talented, but they are underpaid. Doctors are expected to work without incentives. They bring home $40 to $50 per month, according to Anton.

The concept is free, he says, but in the reality it is very expensive, and as a Cuban, we are paying for this. Instead of bringing home an income and deciding for yourself if you would like to spend the money on a doctor, you are left with no choice.

And the education in Cuba is often not sufficient to train doctors; they have to go to other countries, like Brazil or Venezuela.

When we say free things, personally, we dont believe it. They are not free. This is a lie.

It was with a heavy heart that he and his wife eventually had to make the painful decision to leave their children, grandchildren, and friends behind in Cuba. It wasnt just their own lives they feared forthey also feared for those involved in the organizations they were active in.

If we dont leave the country, he thought, We will have serious problems, especially the part of the organization that we work over there in Cuba. The motive that I had to leave Cuba was more for safety and security, not just for me and my wife, but also for what was being done in Cuba.

So they left their old life behind and came to America.

The textbook definition of socialism is when the collective, or the government, controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Communism takes this further, giving the government total control over economic and even social issues.

Anton explains that each self-described socialist and communist country has adopted its own version of what this economic system means, despite what the actual definition may be. When asked the difference between socialism and communism, Anton explained that there is very little difference between the two.

In America today, many people push for socialism as a means of getting to equality. Anton would like to give advocates of such a system, like Senator Bernie Sanders, the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they arent talking about the same kind of socialism that destroyed his own country. But having seen the horrors of collectivism first-hand, he knows to be wary of such ideologies.

Anton has adapted to his new life in America. The freedom to hold and express ones own opinion is among his favorite aspects of American way of life. Unlike Cuba, in America, he loves talking to people with a host of different beliefs. He may not always agree, but he treasures the freedom they are allowed to exercise.

Our American government was instituted to keep each individual sovereign, possessing an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of our own happiness, something Anton did not have in Cuba.

One core concept all our Pacific Legal Foundation cases have in common is the principle of individualism. Whether we are fighting for equality before the law, property rights, economic liberty, free speech, or separation of powers, protecting the individual stands at the center of all we do.

When organizations like PLF fight for the dignity of the individual here in America, we are doing it to protect our countrys founding principles that have helped us maintain our freedom while other countries have crumbled.

PLFs main focus is law. But Antons story gives an example of how law and economics go hand in hand. Without the freedom to pursue his own happiness and earn his own living, there was no individual liberty. Socialism cant work on a foundation of individual liberty.And under such an oppressive government, there was no one to fight for him.

We should remember Antons powerful words: Cuba was heaven before 1959; when he left, he says, it was hell.

See more here:
One Cuban immigrant's story reminds us of the importance of fighting for individual liberty - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)