SUPPORT POLICE, OR ELSE

Police One ^

[Stew Padasso]

SUPPORT POLICE, OR ELSE

Capital Times (Madison, WI)

August 30, 2003 Saturday, ALL Editions

It's a novel idea to simplify the investigation of police shootings: Prosecute citizen eyewitnesses unless they support the police version of what happened. It might not do a lot to improve police-community relations. But it sure will make everybody's job easier by reducing conflicting accounts to one neat and tidy official version.

When a city has to investigate as many police shootings as Milwaukee does, it is always looking for ways to cut down on the enormous number of man hours involved.

Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann's decision to prosecute a witness who saw things differently from the police arose after the latest Milwaukee police shooting. As in a long line of previous police shootings, McCann found the shooting justifiable after an official investigation. Unusual this time, it was the shooting victim himself, Timothy Nabors, who exonerated Police Officer Michael Lutz. In a hearing in his hospital room barely able to speak from gunshot wounds, Nabors said he brought on the shooting by briefly picking up a gun a companion had thrown in his direction.

Nabors' statement, in exchange for a misdemeanor charge, prompted public attacks on a number of eyewitnesses who said they saw Lutz shoot Nabors when he was unarmed and raising his hands.

The executive director of the Milwaukee Police Association called the citizens "pathetic liars" who should be prosecuted for obstructing justice. Right-wing talk radio took up the cry. And now McCann has climbed on board.

It will be interesting to see how McCann can prove what a number of witnesses thought they saw. Prosecuting witnesses is not a very good way to encourage citizens to come forward to help piece together the truth in an important investigation.

More than 50 years ago, Japanese director Akira Kurosawa made a classic film called "Rashomon" about this case. OK, not this case exactly. But about how difficult it is for any of us to know the truth when we see it.

The film is about a shocking rape and murder told from the perspective of four different characters. In each account, many details are the same, but others wildly diverge.

The dirty, little secret about eyewitness accounts police know very well is they are notoriously unreliable. Many of the innocent people recently freed from death row by DNA evidence were convicted as a result of eyewitness testimony.

The assumption that the citizens who challenged police accounts were intentionally lying appears to be based on several deep-seated prejudices.

Among these are that black citizens in crime-ridden neighborhoods are less truthful, less supportive of legitimate actions by the police and more supportive of black criminals. There is no evidence any of that is true.

Residents of high-crime areas are among the most supportive of heavy policing of their neighborhoods because that is literally the only help we offer them. And they have no love for gang-bangers shooting up their streets.

But they also know that police bullets flying around the neighborhood are just as lethal as any other kind. And when they witness a shooting of someone with his hands in the air, they have as much right to be outraged as any other citizen would be.

Nabors himself offered an explanation for what witnesses said they saw. He said he'd only grabbed the gun by the barrel. When the first shot hit him, he said, he let go of it and his hands flew in the air.

Of course, there could be another "Rashomon" layer of truth here. Nabors' statement was part of a plea bargain that resulted in a misdemeanor charge. If Nabors had been charged with a felony for threatening the life of a police officer, or even attempted murder, a conviction could have sent him to prison for a long time.

In our plea bargain system of justice, the truth is whatever both sides agree it is. The prosecution's motivation is to avoid the expense and uncertainty of a trial -- and in this particular case, to clear a police officer. The motivation of the defendant is to avoid years of incarceration.

But those darn conflicting statements by eyewitnesses continue to breed mistrust. The police officer in this case had a reputation in the neighborhood. He was known as "Green Eyes." You have to get into the faces of a whole lot of people before everybody knows the color of your eyes.

* W e all know police officers would never, ever fabricate a cover story to justify excessive use of force. Now a witness who saw things differently from the police is facing a longer jail sentence than the man police say was so threatening he had to be riddled with bullets.

That's not very likely to restore the community's faith that investigations into police shootings aren't stacked in favor of the police.

[Lazamataz]

It's very important to exonerate the police, even if they are guilty. After all, you are either with us or against us. What, are you some kinda terrorist?

[Abe Froman]

Certainly an efficient way of keeping the serfs from shedding light on the misdeeds of the lords.

[jim35]

"...Residents of high-crime areas are among the most supportive of heavy policing of their neighborhoods because that is literally the only help we offer them. And they have no love for gang-bangers shooting up their streets..."

What a load of crap. These are the same people who loudly protest the police every time a "young black man" is locked up for a felony. The people in these high crime neighborhoods are not the way you would expect them to be, that being, strongly in favor of heavy policing... they despise the police, and it comes as no surprise that they would lie to protect "one of their own." Get a grip on reality. It's not the way you want it to be, it just is.

[Imal]

Thanks for posting this. I hope you'll understand that I had to report you for doing it, though. Sorry! They said they'd arrest me if I didn't...

[jim35]

Oh, that's so droll. Imagine the day when the police can no longer enforce the law, because the population no longer believes them when they shoot a gunman who's about to shoot them. The perp confessed, but that's not good enough for you? These witnesses lied, and did so just to stick it to the cops. It's proven fact, not nonsense fantasy, like the stuff you're indulging in.

[LouD]

In this case, the cops were right, Laz.

The "usual suspects" of local race-baiting politics came out full-bore against a cop doing his job - and I do believe that witnesses lied intentionally.

[Modernman]

The perp confessed, but that's not good enough for you? These witnesses lied, and did so just to stick it to the cops.

The perp may have "confessed" in order to cut a deal that lets him off with a misdemeanor. If the cops did a bad shoot, giving a perp a really good deal in order for him to say their version of events is the correct one is not outside the bounds of reality. .

I don't know who's telling the truth here- but for the DA to threaten witnesses with charges smacks of an attempt to intimidate future witnesses in police shootings.

[Wilhelm Tell]

If this is the case, why bother with witnesses at all? Why bother with trial by jury -- people will just be confused by different views of what happened. Juries are so inefficient and old-fashioned. We all know we can trust the government to give us a fair, objective view of things. Anyone who thinks we need juries is probably up to no good and has something to hide. /sarcasm

[LouD]

here's a column about the case from local conservative talk show host Mark Belling:

Black and white
Lutz-Nabors case backlash example of black racism


August 20, 2003


Imagine if Timothy Nabors had died.
Milwaukee Police Officer Michael Lutz would have been the victim of the media/black activist lynch mob that was determined to believe Lutz shot and killed an unarmed man. If Nabors had died, he wouldn’t have been able to acknowledge repeatedly that he indeed was holding a gun when Lutz shot him. Demagogues like Milwaukee Common Council President Marvin Pratt would have been relentless in their insistence that Lutz be fired and criminally charged. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which originally reported as fact that Nabors was unarmed, would have fanned the flames.

Lutz wouldn’t have stood a chance.

***

The wrongful initial reaction to the Nabors shooting is a blatant example of black racism. Liberals can’t even bring themselves to use the term. Their ideological mind-set can only process the notions of blacks being victims of racism, not perpetrators. But actual instances of white racism are rare in today’s society. The ostracism it provokes deters white bigots from openly saying or acting on their hateful beliefs. There is no such sanction on black racism.

Numerous Milwaukee black residents automatically believed the worst of Lutz solely because he is white. Pratt, the council president, was willing to call for the head of the white officer but made no pre-judgment of Nabors, a black man with a lengthy criminal and arrest record. Residents of the inner city neighborhood where the shooting occurred demanded that only black cops patrol the area. The black police chief acceded to their bigoted request.

None of this would have or could have happened in the reverse. If residents of Waukesha or West Bend demanded that a black officer on their community’s police force not patrol the city they would properly be labeled as racist. Of course, that doesn’t happen. Black racism wouldn’t be as common as it is if it faced a similar stigma.

***

The Journal Sentinel has outdone itself. The paper reported as fact that Nabors was unarmed in its screaming page one story the day after the shooting. Now that Lutz has been cleared, the Journal has run an editorial blasting Pratt and the others who made up their minds before the facts were in. This from the paper that printed the lies that Pratt and his cohorts acted upon.

The entire Nabors shooting provoked racial tensions precisely because of the inaccurate initial reporting of the Journal Sentinel. For the paper to condemn others for doing exactly what it did itself is an astonishing example of the paper’s evidently eternal hypocrisy.

***

The Lutz-Nabors incident brings to mind a shooting involving another cop named Lutz. Waukesha police Capt. James Lutz was killed in the shootout with James and Ted Oswald nearly a decade ago. If Officer Michael Lutz (no relation) had hesitated because of the accurate fear that he would be wrongly judged if he fired, he could well have been another dead cop.

[Lazamataz]

In this case, the cops were right, Laz. The "usual suspects" of local race-baiting politics came out full-bore against a cop doing his job - and I do believe that witnesses lied intentionally.

That's as may be. However, threatening a witness with obstruction is unprecedented.

Charging a witness who lies with perjury -- now, *that* is *not* unprecedented.

[Imal]

"It's proven fact, not nonsense fantasy, like the stuff you're indulging in."

Trust me, you can't even begin to imagine the fantasy I indulge in.

[LouD]

Were the witnesses under oath? Probably not, therefore they did not commit perjury. However, their testimony did hinder the investigation, making an obstruction of justice charge reasonable.

Moreover, had this spiraled out of control, like the aftermath of many other police shootings nationwide where race was perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as a factor - I would hope those witnesses would be found legally culpable for whatever riot damage, injuries, or deaths occurred.

[Lazamataz]

Were the witnesses under oath? Probably not, therefore they did not commit perjury. However, their testimony did hinder the investigation, making an obstruction of justice charge reasonable. Moreover, had this spiraled out of control, like the aftermath of many other police shootings nationwide where race was perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as a factor - I would hope those witnesses would be found legally culpable for whatever riot damage, injuries, or deaths occurred.

Oy vey. You are guarenteeing that "no one seen nuthin'" for time immemorial.

[blackdog]

FYI

[Porterville]

On a simillar note they increased the fines X2 near the local school districts today "for the children" I wonder how much money is gonna go towards schools??? That is correct sir, none, it is to pad the city admins joy of spending.

[Itzlzha]

Were the witnesses under oath? Probably not, therefore they did not commit perjury. However, their testimony did hinder the investigation, making an obstruction of justice charge reasonable.

And the Plea Bargain with the perp for a MISDEMEANOR vs. a FELONY charge had NO BEARING on the story?!?!

Where you have witnesses being THREATENED because their version is inconvenient, and the perp needsd a break and POSSIBLY is backing the Police version under duress?!?!

Wow...what color is the sky in your world?

[LouD]

              www.jsonline.com               Return to regular view

Original URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/aug03/163468.asp

Man in police shooting says he didn't touch trigger

Nabors says he never intended to fire gun friend tossed his way

By JESSICA MCBRIDE
jmcbride@journalsentinel.com

Last Updated: Aug. 19, 2003

Whispering from his hospital bed, Timothy Nabors described Tuesday how he wound up in the middle of a police shooting.

Police Shooting

Photo/File

Timothy Nabors was shot by a Milwaukee police officer.

Photo/File

Milwaukee police officer Michael Lutz shot Timothy Nabors.

Quotable

No one made me say anything. I said what I said. And that's what happened. It don't matter what everyone else thinks or says. It matters what I know.

- Timothy Nabors

Recent Coverage

Nabors: Says he didn't touch trigger (8/20/03)
Editorial: Clearing a police officer (8/18/03)
Kane: Hospital hearing can't halt skepticism (8/18/03)
Lutz: Officer cleared in shooting (8/16/03)
NAACP: Wants state in probe of shooting (8/9/03)
Case: DA unsure if shooting was justified (8/8/03)
Complaint: Victim admitted he picked up gun (/87/03)
Pratt: Wants officer off police force (8/7/03)
Shooting: Police say victim pointed gun at one of them (8/5/03)
Incident: With tracking system out, another shooting (8/4/03)
Editorial: Police tales in Wonderland (8/4/03)
System: Police officers' use of force not tracked (8/3/03)
Video: TMJ4 Report

He said he grabbed the barrel of a gun that a friend had thrown his way during a struggle with a police officer, with the intention of ditching it in a sewer.

"I never intended to shoot it. I didn't touch the trigger. Lutz was like, 'Drop the gun!' and then I heard 'boom boom boom boom' and felt my body get real numb."

Milwaukee police Officer Michael Lutz said he feared for his and his partner's lives when he shot Nabors Aug. 4. The incident ignited controversy after witnesses insisted Nabors, who couldn't communicate in the first days after the shooting, was unarmed.

Nabors, 26, has now offered his own theory on why some witnesses insist he had his hands in the air, without a gun, when he was shot. He believes they turned to look after hearing the first shot, which forced him to drop the gun and fling up his arms.

On Saturday, Nabors used mostly nods and gestures at an arraignment in his hospital room on a misdemeanor charge after he admitted to prosecutors that he in fact held the gun briefly. That led District Attorney E. Michael McCann to rule that Lutz was justified in shooting Nabors.

On Tuesday, Nabors agreed to talk further, in his own words, about the incident that nearly killed him. His face was animated as his body lay motionless in a hospital bed with a stuffed toy dog perched on his chest. He can't move his limbs or speak loudly but was lucid and articulate during a 20-minute interview.

He steadfastly discounted concerns raised by some - including members of his own family - that he may have admitted he picked up the gun only to get the opportunity to plead guilty to the misdemeanor, disorderly conduct while armed.

"No one made me say anything," Nabors said. "I said what I said. And that's what happened. It don't matter what everyone else thinks or says."

McCann said Tuesday that his staff is going to re-interview all witnesses to determine whether to issue any charges against them. Some are sticking to their stories that they saw Nabors with his hands in the air unarmed, despite his admission that he picked up the gun.

Lutz's attorney, Jon Cermele, has called for McCann to charge witnesses who told authorities that.

Lutz, a 12-year department veteran, has declined requests to talk about the incident.

Nabors watched reports of the shooting on television Tuesday morning and was only beginning to realize how big a story it has been.

"It was on six times," he said, managing a weak smile.

His mother said Nabors suffered injuries to his spine, kidney, liver and groin and underwent multiple surgeries. He has since been removed from the intensive care unit to a regular hospital room and is no longer under police guard.

When he recovers, Nabors said, he wants his life to be more positive.

"Why was I chosen to go through this? There is a purpose for everything," he said. "Maybe it's a sign."

He said that before the shooting, "I had no regard for life. . . . I have a son now. All I can do is try to make my way. I want to enroll back in school."

Nabors said he wanted to tell his story because, "I'm not some bad guy. I really don't feel I did anything wrong. I wanted to clarify things, all I did."

He said he is angry at Lutz, who is well-known around the Metcalfe Park neighborhood.

"He could've took me from my family and all the things I like to do. But my friend, Dwight (Barnes), should've never tossed the gun my way."

Nabors said he knew of Lutz because Lutz had been involved in investigating the deaths of three men in Nabors' neighborhood and "was looking for me and wanting to talk with me and question me. I had nothing to do with it."

Nabors was arrested in May on suspicion of conspiracy to commit attempted murder but was never formally charged and was released. Dennis Gall, Nabors' criminal attorney, said he was told by police that Nabors had been cleared of involvement.

Nabors was convicted of a 1997 armed robbery attempt in which he shot a man in the leg and was sentenced to 100 months in prison. He left a halfway house in September 2002 and remains on parole.

Gall made no preconditions on Tuesday's interview, although he objected to a question about whether Nabors was connected to the Murda Mobb gang, members of which Lutz and his partner were looking for when they encountered Nabors that night of the shooting. Gall explained later that he has never asked Nabors that question and has no reason to believe he has any such affiliation. Gall said it was the sort of question any lawyer would not allow.

"My client and I agreed to the interview and felt it was important for the sake of my client and, he felt, for the sake of the community that everyone know the truth - which he never wavered from," Gall said.

From the Aug. 20, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel