Seattle
resident Nathaniel Caylor wears a large, conspicuous metal
appliance on the right side of his face, a souvenir of a May 5, 2009
incident in which Seattle Police Officer Eugene Shubeck tried to
murder him in front of his twenty-month-old son, Wyatt. The police had arrived in response to a third-party report that Caylor, distraught over the death of his wife, was suicidal.
Following
seventeen surgeries – which included bone grafts and the insertion
of metal screws and plates to hold together his shattered face –
Caylor was offered $1.975 million by the City of Seattle to settle
his federal lawsuit. This is believed to be the largest tax
victim-supported settlement arising from police misconduct in the
history of Seattle, and it prompted the predictable, petulant
reaction from the local police union.
“The
settlement by the City of Seattle in this case sends a disturbing
message to the rank and file of the Seattle Police Department,”
pouted
Seattle Police Officers Guild President Ron Smith. For the public
supposedly served by the local police, the more “disturbing”
message is found in the fact that Shubeck remains on the Seattle PD
payroll. His impregnable cloak of “qualified immunity” protects
him from personal liability, and the unqualified support of the
police union provides him with unassailable job security.
As
punishment for being on the receiving end of Shubeck's homicide
attempt, Caylor was charged with “felony harassment.” At the same
time, Caylor was dealing with the seizure of his son by Child
Protective Services on the basis of a perjured report by Detective
Jeffrey Mudd, who falsely claimed that Caylor had used his son as a
“human shield” and had threatened to kill the child.
At
the time he pulled the trigger, Schubeck “had observed Mr. Caylor
and his son on the balcony, and observed that the boy was in no
distress,” wrote
U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones in a May 22, 2013 ruling.
Drawing on the record of stipulated facts, Judge Jones underscored
several other important things that a “reasonable officer” would
have known, among which are the following:
*“At
no point did Mr. Caylor threaten to harm his son,” but he did
express concern “that if the officers forced entry to his
apartment, they would hurt his son”;
* “Mr. Caylor's son exhibited no signs of distress when Ofc. Schubeck observed him on the balcony,” and “officers heard no indications of distress from the boy when he and Mr. Caylor were inside the apartment”;
* “Mr. Caylor did not display a weapon or threaten to use a weapon”;
* “Mr. Caylor did not suggest he was attempting `suicide by cop' – instead, he asked Ofc. Schubeck if he was going to shoot him and justify the shooting as `suicide by cop'.”
In the service of Blue Privilege, the Seattle PD and its allies in the court system held disclosure of the relevant facts in abeyance in order to extort a plea from Caylor on a “cover charge.” With his son being held as a hostage and facing the monolithic dishonesty of a police force willing to protect its privileges through perjury, Caylor took an “Alford plea.” This meant that he acknowledged that there was sufficient evidence (in the form of police testimony) to convict him, but he did not admit guilt. Caylor regained custody of his son in 2011.
* “Mr. Caylor's son exhibited no signs of distress when Ofc. Schubeck observed him on the balcony,” and “officers heard no indications of distress from the boy when he and Mr. Caylor were inside the apartment”;
* “Mr. Caylor did not display a weapon or threaten to use a weapon”;
* “Mr. Caylor did not suggest he was attempting `suicide by cop' – instead, he asked Ofc. Schubeck if he was going to shoot him and justify the shooting as `suicide by cop'.”
In the service of Blue Privilege, the Seattle PD and its allies in the court system held disclosure of the relevant facts in abeyance in order to extort a plea from Caylor on a “cover charge.” With his son being held as a hostage and facing the monolithic dishonesty of a police force willing to protect its privileges through perjury, Caylor took an “Alford plea.” This meant that he acknowledged that there was sufficient evidence (in the form of police testimony) to convict him, but he did not admit guilt. Caylor regained custody of his son in 2011.
During
oral arguments before a panel of the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals in April, Caylor's attorney, Tim Ford,
described how Shubeck had created a “death trap” by ordering him
to leave his house – then preparing to shoot him if he went back
in, without warning him that this would happen.
"If
he comes back on the porch, I’m going to shoot him,” Shubeck told
Leslie, according to subsequent sworn testimony.
"Don't
miss,” Leslie
replied – even though he would later insist that he was
“shocked” by Shubeck's decision, and that he would not have done
likewise.
Evan
Bariault, Shubeck's attorney, argued – in effect – that
everything that happened during the encounter was Caylor's fault
because he had attracted the attention of people who had official
permission to use lethal violence.
"The
threat to the child represented by the circumstances of this
situation –the escalation of this event by Mr. Caylor,” Bariault
insisted during oral arguments in defiance of the well-established
factual record to the contrary. “The entire time this was taking
place that child was in harm’s way because the officers did not
know, one, whether Mr. Caylor was going to harm his child, or number
two, whether Mr. Caylor was going to engage in a confrontation, a
firefight with officers that could also potentially harm that child.”
Bariault's
suggestion that a “firefight” was possible reflects the fact that
an unloaded shotgun was found in a closet after Shubeck's attempt to
kill Caylor, and several officers claimed to have heard him “rack”
the weapon at some point. As recognized by Judge Jones, Caylor was
never seen holding the weapon, and undisputed testimony confirms that
the young child was never in distress, and that Caylor never
expressed an intent to harm his son. At one point, according, once
again, to undisputed testimony, Caylor told the police, “Don't kick
the door in … If you hurt my child, you're going to be in trouble.”
"The
only way they could protect that child was by removing Nathaniel
Caylor from that apartment,” Bariault maintained in the apparent
belief that the child was safer in the hands of the people who had
just tried to kill his father without justification.
The
typically self-contradictory police account treated that expression
of concern as evidence of both Caylor's “neglect” and his
supposedly aggressive disposition toward the uninvited armed
strangers who eventually tried to kill him.
"Where
potential tragedy lies on both sides of an officer’s decision, that
officer is entitled to qualified immunity,” Bariault pontificated
during the oral argument. “The lawfulness of Officer Shubeck’s
decisions [was] beyond debate.” This is because the “lawfulness”
of an officer's actions are based on the calculus of
self-justification called the “reasonable officer” standard and
the officer's assessment of the “totality of circumstances” – a
phrase that casually asserts a cop's situational omniscience.
In
the case of Nathaniel Caylor – as in so many others involving what
can reasonably be described as a murder or attempted murder by a
police officer – the assailant, because of his position, was immune
to scrutiny and above criticism. On the other hand, every syllable,
gesture, or facial expression on the part of the victim was examined
in search of evidence of negligence, culpability, or malice. For
instance, the fact that the child was playing with a screwdriver and
otherwise untroubled was presented as evidence of Caylor’s
supposedly neglectful parenting by people who tried to redirect
attention away from the fact that the grieving father was distracted
at the time by two armed strangers who were prepared to kill him, and
very nearly did so.
Caylor
believes that the scandal-plagued Seattle PD, which
is operating under a federal consent decree, “is really making
positive strides” in reforming itself, even though “it's a little
late in my case.” He told the Seattle Times that Wyatt, who has no
memory of the day his father was nearly killed by Officer Shubeck,
wants to be a police officer himself.
Astonishingly
– if not inexplicably -- Caylor approves of his son's career
aspirations, which will probably be revised once the youngster is old
enough to understand what his would-be professional peers did to his
father.
(This is an expanded version of an essay originally published at The Free Thought Project.)
(This is an expanded version of an essay originally published at The Free Thought Project.)
If you can, please contribute to help keep Pro Libertate online. Thank you so much!
Dum spiro, pugno!
2 comments:
"the 'reasonable officer' standard"... LOL. Reasonable people don't become cops. If one did, he would cease to be reasonable immediately. Just like there are no "good cops" (by definition, there can be none), there can be no "reasonable officers".
I hope Mr. Caylor gets over his Stockholm Syndrome and comes to his senses before his son grows up believing the superstition that "police officer" is an honorable choice, rather than the murderous choice it actually is.
Everyone is currently advised to keep a sock in it when dealing with immature men and women who ate the red pill and are "authorized" to run roughshod over the dramatis personae of Copworld. Be careful.. Be very careful. a no name is
Post a Comment