Leaderboard 728 X 90

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Alabama cop Eric Parker, who badly injured man from India, is set to return to force -- and that should help fuel outrage behind Colin Kaepernick protest


Officer Eric Parker
(From whnt.com)
Less than two weeks ago, we completed a six-part series about the role judicial corruption played in the dismissal of criminal charges against an Alabama police officer whose brutal take-down left a grandfather from India partially paralyzed. Yesterday we learned the officer, Eric Parker, is returning from administrative leave and is set to rejoin the force in the Huntsville suburb of Madison.

Does a rogue judiciary have repercussions? It sure does. In this instance, it makes Alabama look like a slimy backwater -- the kind of place where a cop can use a leg sweep on a man with dark skin, whose "crime" apparently was walking down the sidewalk while not bothering a soul, and get away with it. Where two juries can deadlock along race and gender lines. leading U.S. District Judge Madeline Haikala to conclude that protecting Sureshbhai Patel's civil rights, and holding Officer Parker criminally accountable, was not worth the trouble.

Gee, and some people wonder why San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick might feel the need to take a stand against the kind of police brutality that has become a front-page staple over the past two years or so? With Parker returning to the force, and Patel's roots in India making this an international embarrassment for the United States, far more people -- not just NFL football players -- should be joining Kaepernick in protest.

In a final insult to the public, acting Madison police chief Jim Cooke cited Haikala's 92-page opinion as grounds for finding that Parker did not violate departmental policy. If you actually read Haikala's ruling and educate yourself about the relevant law -- and Cooke obviously did neither -- here's part of what you find:

(1) A recent study found that 97 percent of police officers in violence cases never face criminal charges -- and it's little wonder given Haikala's butchery of the Parker case;

(2) For the few cops who do face charges, judges like Haikala are likely to cut them favors;

(3) Haikala threw out the charges against Parker based on a case that does not come close to supporting her finding. That's the kind of thing judges get away with when the public isn't paying attention;

(4) Documents show that Parker lied about three key issues in the Patel case -- and still Haikala threw out the charges;

(5) A third jury would have had ample grounds to find Parker guilty;

(6) Alabama surely is a more enlightened place than it was 50 years ago, but it's hard to tell that from the Parker case. It makes the state smell of judicial corruption, juror racism, and flaming injustice for which "Bull" Connor once stood.

Of course, those characteristics hardly are limited to Alabama. Perhaps that's why a second-string quarterback in San Francisco felt the need to do something, even if certain "patriots" took offense at his decision not to stand for the national anthem.

Colin Kaepernick
(From theguardian,com)
For those who are paying attention, Colin Kaepernick has taught an invaluable lesson. He has shown that concerns about law enforcement should go way beyond issues of brutality. My wife and I both have been the targets of rogue cops in the past 2-3 years, so we have some first-hand experience with these issues.

Once cops have committed violence against a citizen, they tend to immediately go into cover-up mode. This usually takes the form of piling one lie on top of another. We've seen cops do it in Birmingham, Alabama, and Springfield, Missouri. Court records show that Eric Parker did it in Huntsville, Alabama. And now, we have the police union in Santa Clara, California, sending a letter stating that cops are threatening to bail out on their security positions at 49ers football games unless the team takes action to silence Kaepernick.

How many of these cops have stood up to admit that a frightening number of citizens have been the victims of unjustified police violence? I don't recall any officers showing such courage. How many cops spoke out and admitted that Eric Parker's actions against Sureshbhai Patel, caught on video, violated general police policy and likely constituted criminal behavior? The silence has been overwhelming. (See video at the end of this post.)

Eric Parker's return to police duty should help create a groundswell of outrage against a tin-eared police community that . . . well, has just been asking for major blow back. With the kind of arrogance cops have shown, no one should be surprised that assassins in Dallas and Baton Rouge took matters into their own hands.

I would love to be president of the San Francisco 49ers right now. I would tell the police union to take their letter and jam it up their asses, and I would tell them they do not need to bother resigning from their paid, on-the-side security jobs. They are fired, and they should not let the door -- the one with the 49ers insignia on it -- hit them on the butt on their way out.

Why is the Eric Parker case so disturbing? It's not just about rogue cops or corrupt judges; it's about both -- and it shows that our "justice system" is rotten at every level. Its members do a fine job of protecting each other, but they sure do not protect the public.




13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can't believe this thug is back on the job. Sickening. Makes me embarrassed to be from Alabama, to be from the United States.

Anonymous said...

This case had to have been cooked. My God, you had the criminal actions right there on tape. Sad, sad, sad.

Tort Feasor said...

In the Don Siegelman case, I seem to recall that Judge Mark Fuller gave the jury a "dynamite charge," essentially saying, "We will stay here until hell freezes over, or until you reach a verdict, whichever comes first." I wonder how Judge Haikala handled the deadlock in this case, if she really pushed for a verdict or shrugged her shoulders and said, "Let's all go home."

legalschnauzer said...

That's a great question, TF, and my guess is that Haikala didn't try all that hard to get a verdict from either jury. I would not be surprised if the juries were compromised in some way to ensure that the decision would wind up back in the judge's hands. Something strange had to be going on when the whole incident was captured on video. If you can't reach a guilty verdict in this case, you might as well give up on trying to hold cops accountable.

Anonymous said...

So you support Kaepernick's disrespectful stance toward our national anthem?

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, I do support Kaepernick, @1:07, and I wish I could be right there on the sidelines with him. BTW, I don't think he's being disrespectful toward the national anthem -- even though the anthem consists of a dreadful tune, set to racist lyrics. If the anthem is going to stand for a country that tolerates police brutality -- and allows corrupt judges to return officers like Eric Parker to duty -- it doesn't deserve respect.

Anonymous said...

Has any other news outlet reported on what you call the judge's "corrupt" rulings in this case? If not, how are you sure you're analysis is correct? Why should the public trust your view over the actions of a judge?

legalschnauzer said...

No, I'm not aware of any other news outlet even attempting the sort of analysis I've done on Judge Haikala's ruling? (In fact, this is a major area where the mainstream media lets down the public; the MSM just takes what the courts give them and regurgitates it to the public. Why? My guess is that real analysis is too hard and takes too much time, plus they kind of want the public to believe judges uphold the law. That myth makes their jobs easier.) I know my analysis is correct because I've put in the time and effort to understand the law and facts surrounding the case; plus, I can read. You seem to be suggesting that I should engage in some sort of "pack journalism," where we all agree to report the same thing. I'm not into that now, and I never will be. I will let the people who read Legal Schnauzer come to their own conclusions about who to trust. If they blindly believe judges get it right, they probably have no business reading this blog in the first place.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Don't use my service to bash Kaepernick. I just found my father's draft card from 1964 when he went to Montgomery for his physical. While he was at MEPS, he tried to get something to eat & the cook told him, "You son of bitch, you know I can't serve you!" I served so my father could eat with White People & so Kaepernick could sit down. The military arrested me on false charges & the State Bar denied my bar application based on false charges which were never proven in court. Blacks, Native Americans & Half Breeds have been denied the same rights as Lilly White Americans for far too long. Jeremiah Wright was correct when he said Goddamn America. Goddamn America for not treating all of its citizens equally. I know people in Madison. It's a beautiful town at first sight, but it has a dark side fueled by racial tensions. Did anybody see the Guvnah on the evening news? His face was red as a beet. Must be difficult carrying on business with grand juries meeting.

Shaheed AbdulAzeez said...

Mr. Shuler's reading comprehension is beyond reproach! If there were more journalists like him, the world would be a better place. The MSM is a part of the corruption. Nothing can be put over on the public without their perception being managed. There is no doubt the judicial system is corrupted and anyone that thinks otherwise is misinformed or fooling themselves. Moreover, IMO, the main reason for the corruption is secrecy. Most judges, lawyers,and police officers are member of the blue lodge. Therefore, they are sworn to the death, to protect their brethren. This is way, IMO, the police officers are subject to acquittal. Furthermore, sometimes the jury is tainted with blue blood. If the court is on the level, the defendant will get a square deal. They always have mercy on the widow's son.

e.a.f. said...

It really boggles the mind that this officer is being permitted to rtw. Even if he has not been found guilty of a crime, In my opinion, he certainly violated his code of ethics and procedures on how to do his job. Oh, well we can expect more people not willing to stand for the national anthem.

wonder if the officer would be returning to work if he had done this to a white wealthy American male?

The U.S.A. is becoming a more and more dangerous country and its not the usual criminal element I'm concerned about.

legalschnauzer said...

Great point, e.a.f. Americans are terrified of the "street criminal," the guy with dark skin who they think will point a gun at them and steal their money. That certainly does happen at times, but in my experience, it's been cops, lawyers, and judges that have heaped abuse on us.

In Alabama, I'm convinced many people reflexively vote GOP in judicial races because they think Dem judges will go easy on black "criminals." Never mind that jails and prisons contain an awful lot of white faces. I know because I've been there.

Anonymous said...

The "common law" ignores the common man allowing judges appointed not elected to control the legal system.The federal judges are appointed for life just like a king even though the Constitution did not authorize it. The common law system of western legal systems makes the words of liberty in Constitutions meaningless. Bribe the non elected judges that control the law and you control the government. The opinions of Supreme Court control the outcome of this country. Judges appointed for life under common law can not be civilly prosecuted for corruption. See US supreme Court case Stump v. Sparkman .Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349
The fish rots from the head and the head is the Supreme Court justices that can take bribes without risk of civil prosecution or even discovery in civil court. Ginsberg is worth at least 25 million. Get the idea. The Supreme Court of USA even protected slavery in case Dred Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , So the US Supreme Court declared Africans were just 3/5 a human . Yet the African Americans support the legal system control by same Supreme Court. Common law convinces the slaves to support slavery because the Supreme Court will determine their freedom not the laws or Constitution. The English common law system is oligarchy disguised as democracy .Its like the Talmudist Sanhedrin council. Common law rejects the approach of Karaites .Technically the oath of office only requires that a judge obey the laws and Constitution but the appeals courts will control local judges through the"common law system". Common law systems always profess justice but never provide it .....just like religious hypocrites.Common law means common injustice by a judge above the people influenced only by other judges .Ironically the common law system was never approved by Congress, statutory law, or the Constitution. It was brought in the back door by crooks.