Category: Uncategorized

Note: the following article is true to the headline, because we (um, that’s just me mainly) contributed to the misdirection.  As it turns out, the Statesman reporter was dead correct.  The Austin Chief of Police did find fault with the officer’s use of force, ruling that if she had time to reposition herself before shooting Rocha, then she had time to check his hands to see if in fact he was holding a tazer.  See the full report in our downloads section.  And apologies to the Statesman.  Sometimes I should be a little more careful (as if you need to be told!)–gm

IndyMedia Austin

By Greg Moses

I wish the Austin American-Statesman would be a little more careful.

In today’s top story, an internal affairs
report from the Austin Police Department is said to have cleared the
officer who shot Daniel Rocha this past June. Says the Statesman,
the internal police review concluded that, "officer Julie Schroeder had
reason to think she was protecting herself and a sergeant when she shot
Rocha during a struggle June 9 in Southeast Austin." Yet, says
the paper, "Their conclusions contrast with those of Knee, the police
monitor and a citizens review panel, all of whom found that Schroeder
didn’t have to shoot Rocha. Knee fired Schroeder on Friday."

The problem with the paper’s intro is that it assumes the Chief and the
internal review panel are considering the very same issue, but that is
not likely to be the case. For the Chief to fire officer Schroeder on the basis of her use of
force, he would have to find something not found by the Travis County
Grand Jury who exonerated Schroeder from criminal charges earlier this
year. While it is possible that the Chief is taking this bold
route, I don’t think it’s very likely.

What’s more probable is that Knee’s decision is based on other issues of internal policy, besides use-of-force guidelines.

For instance, the Statesman in an earlier report on the recommendations
made by a ‘citizens panel’ to fire officer Schroeder, said:

It’s unclear what evidence the citizens panel reviewed
before making its decision or which policies they think the officers
violated. However, police officials said shortly after the shooting
that Schroeder and Doyle violated policy by not operating their patrol
car cameras during the incident. Doyle did not have a tape in his
camera; Schroeder has said she thought hers was functioning when it was
not.

These remarks suggest, as if the reporter doesn’t know for sure, that
violations of videotape policy might be the first place to look for
viable reasons to fire officer Schroeder and to discipline officer
Doyle.

If we follow this line of inquiry, then we would look to officer
Schroeder’s overall behavior as a police professional. The
so-called traffic stop on June 9 was an action completely under officer
Schroeder’s command and control, because it was in the context of an
undercover surveillance operation that officer Schroeder made the stop;
but a careful reading of affidavits about that night’s activities
suggest that officer Schroeder acted precipitously when she ordered the
traffic stop at that time and location.

Consider, for example the following statement by officer Doyle:

I had the mic in my hand and was preparing to advise over
the radio that the vehicle was turning right onto Pleasant Valley and
that I did not have a traffic violation yet. Before I could get out on
the radio I saw Officer Shroeder and officer Borton turning from south
bound Pleasant Valley to west bound Quick Silver. They pulled sort of
diagonally and to the front of the White SUV, but did not block the
vehicle. I believe officer Schroeder was driving and I noticed that the
Red and Blue emergency lights were activated. I knew we were on our
channel and that I need to switch to Frank radio to advise we were
making a traffic stop. I was also trying to get my emergency lights
activated.

In Doyle’s account of the traffic stop, we find him placed in a
position where he must now react to an impulsive traffic-stop maneuver
on the part of officer Schroeder. And from a police procedure point of
view, this was officer Schroeder’s grave mistake. She placed her
cohorts in the totally unnecessary position of having to scramble in
reaction to HER leadership during a surveillance operation that she was
directing. Here’s how Schroeder’s car partner officer Borton describes the setup:

I believe Officer Shroeder put our unit into reverse, onto
S. Pleasant Valley and decided to initiate a stop on the vehicle as it
stopped at the stop sign. Our emergency lights were activated and I
believe I advised Sgt. Doyle on channel 6B.

Quite consistent with officer Doyle’s account, Schroeder threw her
partners into a reactive operation when she impulsively called the
stop. As the plain reading of both affidavits suggests, the first
sign that officer Schroeder gave to her partners of an impending stop
was to throw her own car into reverse. If this is the picture
that chief Knee put together for himself, then he would have reason to
question officer Schroeder’s judgment as a police professional.
In other words, the question for Knee would not be ‘was officer
Schroeder justified in pulling the trigger’ but ‘did officer Schroeder
need to get herself in that position in the first place’.

In other words, if officer Schroeder did not have to shoot Daniel Rocha
on the night of June 9, 2005, it was because she did not have to put
herself in that position in the first place.

All I know is what I read, but to me the concern over officer
Schroeder’s professionalism seems a more likely concern on the part of
the Chief. If indeed this is the way things are going, we shall want to
ask some serious questions about the response of the police union to
Knee’s decision in this case. But at this point, from a citizen’s point
of view, we are only so far dealing with hypothetical logic.

NOTES:

—-Statesman Nov. 22, 2005

Austin police internal affairs detectives investigating the fatal
shooting of Daniel Rocha found that the officer who shot him did not
violate department policy on using lethal force, according to documents
released Monday.

In a 39-page summary sent to Police Chief Stan Knee in September,
investigators said officer Julie Schroeder had reason to think she was
protecting herself and a sergeant when she shot Rocha during a struggle
June 9 in Southeast Austin.

Their conclusions contrast with those of Knee, the police monitor and a
citizens review panel, all of whom found that Schroeder didn’t have to
shoot Rocha. Knee fired Schroeder on Friday.

–source:

Internal review: Rocha shooting broke no rules
Officer had reason to believe she and sergeant were in danger during struggle, report says. Tuesday, November 22, 2005

—————

—-Statesman Nov. 16, 2005

It’s unclear what evidence the citizens panel reviewed before making
its decision or which policies they think the officers violated.
However, police officials said shortly after the shooting that
Schroeder and Doyle violated policy by not operating their patrol car
cameras during the incident. Doyle did not have a tape in his camera;
Schroeder has said she thought hers was functioning when it was not.

–source:

Sources: Citizens group wants officer in Rocha shooting fired
Police union demands that city manager investigate who leaked panel’s decision.
By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

————

If we had a flag, we’d lower it half way for a month.  Dear
Rosa,  please don’t let us rest in peace until we are worthy.–gm

By Greg Moses

First you make their pregnancies more likely, then you dismantle
services that would support their children, finally you talk them out
of
abortion. This is the new "pro-life" regime of public policy, thanks to the
Texas Legislature.

In a personal account of being turned away
from her annual exam, an Austin Indymedia
reporter writes about the morning she and 25 other
women ("women of color of course!") were advised by Planned Parenthood
staff of the new state order. A story at the Planned Parenthood
website explains that funding was shifted by the legislature "from
family planning clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, that provide
health services and contraception for low-income women, to so-called
‘pregnancy counseling clinics’ that devote their resources to
convincing women who have unintended pregnancies not to have abortions".

Similar stories have been written in Amarillo, Waco, and Pharr. The Brownsville
Herald reports that "1,500 women in Brownsville may lose access to the
services the clinics in town provide, such as: diabetes and
hypertension screenings, women’s health exams, cervical and breast
cancer screenings and birth control."

In an AP story archived at North Texas
Planned Parenthood, researchers find that over the past decade an
increasing percent of births are not wanted by mothers. The AP
report trades quotes between anti-abortion activists who say the trend
shows a "pro-life" shift and reproductive rights activists who say the
numbers reflect decreased access to "abortion providers."

Strangely missing from the AP report is consideration of the logical
possibility that the increasing number of unwanted births might also
reflect how the attack on "abortion providers" has resulted in
decreased availability of birth control services, as reported by Austin
Indymedia.

Also missing from the analysis is consideration of the effect of
worsening conditions for parenthood over the past decade, exemplified
in Texas by attacks on children’s health insurance. Poor family
services might also account for why mothers increasingly report
unwanted births.

The problem with the so-called anti-abortion agenda is that it focuses
too narrowly on a single, isolated moment of choice. The effective
result is a war on rights to reproduction and parenthood.

To reduce the
number of abortions requires attention to an expanded range of
choices, not only in terms of whether to have an abortion or not, but
in terms of birth control and support for parenthood services,
too. But since the broader agenda would involve empowerment and
solidarity, the so-called anti-abortion movement is not
interested. What they prefer is a hypocritical agenda of judgment and
constraint that reminds us of the Right Rev. Dimsdale in Hawthorne’s
"Scarlett Letter". What they really mean by "pro-life" is
pro-patriarchal control.

A
true agenda of liberation would make the choice of abortion less likely
by increasing the percentage of planned and wanted pregnancies in an
environment that welcomes children through robust services for health
and education. Try telling that to the legislature in Texas.

Here is the bottom line paragraph from today’s judgment from the Texas Supreme Court:

We now hold, as did the district court, that local ad
valorem taxes have become a state property tax in violation of article
VIII, section 1-e, as we warned ten years ago they inevitably would,
absent a change in course, which has not happened. Although the
districts have offered evidence of deficiencies in the public school
finance system, we conclude that those deficiencies do not amount to a
violation of article VII, section 1. We remain convinced, however, as
we were sixteen years ago, that defects in the structure of the public
school finance system expose the system to constitutional
challenge. Pouring more money into the system may forestall those
challenges, but
only for a time. They will repeat until the system is overhauled.

This means that the lawsuit initiated by ‘rich districts’ (the West
Orange Cove plaintiffs) has succeeded. They can tax and spend at higher
rates.

In the short run, the court is ruling against further claims
by intervenors from ‘poor districts’ (Edgewood and Alvarado plaintiffs)
that the funding of Texas schools is otherwise unconstitutional because
of alleged inequality and poor overall performance. But the court warns
that this short term ruling may be quite short term indeed if state
policy makers read this ruling as a vote of confidence.  Oooh.  Bet that’ll scare them into action!–gm