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

————

The Censorship in Texas Petition,
written by prison Blogger William Bryan Sorens,
recently freed and deported to Oklahoma

To: TEXAS LEGISLATURE

WHEREAS, the First Amendment gives to all Americans the guarantee of
free speech and to all publishers the guarantee of a free press, and,

WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has decided
to implement new prisoner mail censorship rules, under Board Policy
(BP) 03.91; and,

WHEREAS, the new rules violate the Supreme Court’s four-prong test
for prison censorship as set forth in TURNER v. SAFLEY, and, WHEREAS, new rules include opening and reading prisoner mail to media
and government officials; and,

WHEREAS, this mail has been protected from government oversight in
this manner for 25 years; and,

WHEREAS, TDCJ is virtually unregulated and has been the subject of
constant federal litigation, corruption, abuse and exists as a
political spoils system for Texas politicians and bureaucrats; and,

WHEREAS, prisoner correspondence to media and government officials is
often the only way the public becomes aware of corruption and abuse,
and,

WHEREAS, TDCJ has already limited prisoner stamp purchase and
possession, has ended Saturday mail service including mail to and
from attorneys, courts, media and government, has banned
prisoner-to-prisoner mail, has punished prisoner-writer William Bryan
Sorens by effectually sentencing him to another year in prison for
the stated offense of “writing articles for publication,” and has
outlawed prisoner art or messages drawn on outgoing envelopes; and,

WHEREAS, the new mail rules ban publications containing nudity; and,

WHEREAS, the Texas media and most mass media refuse to cover such
subjects as corruption and abuses inside Texas prisons; and,

WHEREAS, only such “edgy” publications as PLAYBOY and PENTHOUSE
have dared publish investigative reports about Texas prisons; and,

WHEREAS, publications containing nudity have been permitted in Texas
prisons for a quarter-century, with no security-related problems; and,

WHEREAS, sufficient rules already exist in TDCJ for punishing sex
offenders who harass staff and which protect staff from coming into
unwanted contact with “offensive” material; and,

WHEREAS, it appears TDCJ’s ban on nudity is a moral ruse and pretense
for egregious censorship; and,

WHEREAS, TDCJ’S censorship of both outgoing and incoming media mail
appears to be retaliatory and punitive in nature and design, aimed at
silencing voices from inside and harming the subscriber bases of
media most critical of TDCJ; and,

WHEREAS, the only deterrent to government censorship is a free press,
including publications we may not like nor agree with, and including
prisoner writers we may not like nor agree with; and,

WHEREAS, conservatives and liberals and everyone-in-between should
agree that under the Constitution criminals are sent to prison AS
punishment and not FOR punishment; and,

WHEREAS, government censorship begins in obscure public institutions,
as a matter of public policy, and tends to grow to include other
disfavored persons or publishers; and,

WHEREAS, this wave of public censorship is already evident in current
affairs, including U.S. marshal confiscation of reporters’ tapes
after a public speech by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, and
including theft and destruction of campus newspapers, and including a
“decency war” on popular radio personalities, and so much more;

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE insist that the Texas Legislature compel the
Texas Board of Criminal Justice and TDCJ to reinstitute TDCJ
Correspondence Rules 3.0 as they existed in policy and practice for
25 years, and to rescind Board Policy (BP) 03.91 establishing the
above censorship of prisoner mail.
William Bryan Sorens

Alex Jones is usually up to something interesting and usually (as he
says) he has a good nose for standing on the side of civil liberties
(and sometimes civil rights). But on Saturday he spent his day
protesting the Diez y Seis de Septiembre march and rally in
Austin. Alex Jones is never without his reasons, but this time
(as with his sometime characterization of civil rights orgs as racist)
his instinct for confronting unjust power has wavered somewhat.

Now Mr. Jones finds himself policing the observance of the Mexican
equivalent of the Fourth of July, telling folks just how revolutionary
they should or should not be. Just to be clear, I’d like to pose a
question to Mr. Jones. If anyone had been arrested for their speech
Saturday, would you be defending their right to speak or the state’s
right to bust them? Mr. Jones takes special exception to t-shirts that commemorated the
Plan of San Diego, a 90-year-old scheme to rid the land of
Gringos–just as Father Hidalgo, in his legendary Grito de Dolores of
Sept. 16, 1810, once called for the arrest or removal of all Spaniards
from Mexico. Mr. Jones is horrified that the Plan of San Diego actually
motivated some killing 90 years ago. And that’s fine. I’m a pacifist
myself. No killing please. But what’s really interesting is how from
all the history available to him, Mr. Jones would be most scandalized
by the Plan of San Diego. As if, in the killing fields of Tejas, the
Plan of San Diego were the bloodiest exercise of power ever seen to
erupt from the barrel of a gun.

We recommend Mr. Jones revisit the Autobiography of Malcolm X
in
order to help him keep his balance when faced with outrageous claims
that white folks should some day suffer the very forms of power that
white folks have wielded these past forty three presidents and
counting. Which reminds me, the sooner Mr. Jones returns to his
valuable work on the trail of Bush 43rd and cronies, the better.–gm

Note: the Doyle affidavit begins with the drug surveilance
activities, the suspect’s [X’s] house, and an attempt on the part of
police to determine a supplier for the "middleman" [X]. In
Doyle’s affadvit a suburban [Doyle says a white one, Shroeder says a
brown one] is identified and Doyle follows it to the stop sign where
Schroeder initates the take down.

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. As I was doing this I observed a
Hispanic male exit the passenger side of the SUV and jump a
fence. I saw Officer Borton coming to the driver side of the SUV
I heard her say "Sarge help Julie she has Rocha." I don’t recall
seeing whether Officer Borton had her weapon or not. I
immediately exited my vehicle and ran to the passenger side of the
SUV. I was wearing my police raid vest and noticed that Officer
Schroeder was wearing her police raid vest also. I did not see
Officer Schroeder with her weapon drawn and I didn’t see the suspect
with a weapon. I saw a Hispanic male trying to run away from
Officer Schroeder and Officer Schroeder was trying to grab him to
prevent him from escaping. The Hispanic male was bent over and
pulling away from Officer Schroeder. I believe Officer Schroeder
was behind or beside the Hispanic male. I approached and I was
trying to grab the guy. I recall Officer Schroeder yelling
police. I was focused on getting the guy to the ground. It
was happening quick. Very quick. The guy was a little
shorter than me and weighed less than me. His size did not
concern me. I grabbed the guy’s shirt and he was struggling and
and trying to pull away. The guy never punched or kicked me and I
never saw him punch or kick Officer Schroeder. He was
aggressively trying to pull away from us. It was like we were
going in a circle with the guy. At some point I believe I had the
guys wrist, but I really don’t recall seeing his hands during the
struggle. Somehow during the struggle I ended up on the
ground. I believe I was on the ground and was on my butt.
During the struggle I lost site of Officer Schroeder and I was focused
on the guy. I knew she was there, but like I said I was focused
on him and was trying to grab a hold of him. I remember when I
was on the ground I was able to grab one of his legs around the ankle
area and I [in original] he was still on his feet and struggling.
I was hoping we could get him to the ground. At that time I heard
a pop….

The affadavit goes on to describe Rocha falling on his back in his
white t-shirt.  Only when Doyle rolls him over does he see the
blood.

Signed and notarized June 10, 2005