Friday, December 26, 2014

Was officer Duncan's conduct objectivley reasonable dealing with Euri Stamps?

 After reading the entire court decision, I'm convinced even more now, that the internal investigation by DA Loen after the killing of Mr. Stamps, was inadequate.

We know now that Officer Duncan, drew down on Mr. Stamps with an assault riffle, as he complied with the officer and with hands on his head, even though the officer was told that Mr. Stamps posed no threat by the commanders and offered no resistance. The officer's finger was on the trigger, knowing full well, the safety was off. While the judge has ruled officer Duncan will not be liable to pay damages, the Town and it's insurers appear to be on the hook. 

Questions that I still have are:
Who decided to call in SWAT for this young thug?
Who decided to send the cops in, even after the suspect was in handcuffs?
Did officer Duncan get drug tested after the shooting?
How many hours that day did the officer work before the deployment of the SWAT Team?
Does officer Duncan's per-employment psych exam indicate any racial bias?
Should we feel safe with an officer in Town that has violated department policy relating to gun safety?
Was there ANY discipline of Officer Duncan by the BOS or the Police Administration??

We won't know until Town Meeting what the financial damages to the Town are, but I surmise it will be 1 million at least for the wrongful death part. But if the jury finds Officer Duncan violated Mr. Stamps constitutional rights, the award may be much much more. While Town Counsel has brushed this off as "we are insured for such cases" and that his firm will not be involved, I believe any award over what the insurance company will pay, will be born by the Town's coffers, in legal fee's paid to big shot attorneys defending the town in federal court. Can you spell SMOC

While Chief Carl read the tea leaves and disbanded the SWAT Team, before he left town, as a result of the killing, I still wonder how the Town leadership can sit on their thrones and not take a stand. An innocent black man was unlawfully killed by our cops, in the name of the war on drugs. The very same cops we rely on for our safety. The very same cops who went to the wrong address and held a mother of her kids at gun point. All to serve a warrant on a drug dealer. Where does it end? How many innocent people will have to die before we DE-escalte? 

I have faith in our Police Chief that he will do the right thing and he should not be judged for the actions of his predecessor, but I for one would like to see Officer Duncan plying his craft somewhere else, along with any of the sworn force that believe black lives don't matter.


At December 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey you don't stand over a man with a gun pointed at his head if you are not planning to shoot. They cop was wrong. How can we deny that?

At December 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the new chief even have the ability to reopen and investigation or is it already a done deal?

At December 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This just means another lawsuit the taxpayers in Framingham will have to pay for us losing. Seems we make an awful lot of these mistakes here. I think the conversation should be about the poor decsion making process in Framingham on all of these type of lawsuits. The officer obviously screwed up, but the town backed him up anyway. We should be talking about why that is.

At December 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Done deal. Only think left is the familys civil suit so nothing for the town to do except pay the bill. Why are we still talking about this?

At December 27, 2014 at 5:24 PM , Blogger jim Pillsbury said...

Not sure what the chief can do with the unions.. to re-open a case... but morally I believe he understands the weight of distrust of his department. Perhaps he can't say anything until after the trial..

And I'm still trying to undertsnad what the Town is still asking for:

"The town also argued Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident".

I don't get this at all.
Is the Town saying Duncan's rights are being violated?
How ironic would that be...

At December 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure how you can anyone's conduct is reasonable when it results in the death of an innocent man

At January 1, 2015 at 2:00 AM , Blogger Joe Rizoli said...

Duncan should have been fired, or retired. Cases where negligence results in an innocent mans death should make it imperative that the person causing the death be looking for another job. For the town of Framingham to look at this death from a distance cheapens humanity.
Just my two cents

At January 1, 2015 at 2:48 AM , Blogger Harold Wolfe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home