West Sac Police Deny Allegations of Wrong Doing

According to Lt. Sockman, “While he was being taken into custody, he was resisting and non-compliant and fighting with the officers and so they used a baton to distract him while they got the handcuffs on him.”

He said that they could not get the handcuffs on him so they hit him with the baton.  “Once he complied,” he was handcuffed.

According to a written statement, “The events were out of the field of view of our in-car camera but the audio was recorded. The officer can be heard directing the suspect to stop resisting and that he was under arrest.”

The statement added, “As customary, photographs were taken and the suspect was taken to Woodland memorial to be checked prior to booking at the jail.”

However the defense and apparently a number of the witnesses tell a different story.  Anthony Palik told the Vanguard that there were some youths who were causing problems and harassing the people who lived at the complex.  Some of those people called the police to ask them to help them.

“True to form, the West Sacramento Police Department overreacted, which is their style,” he said. 

He added, “The situation escalated because of the officers.”

Mr. Vasquez according to Mr. Palik, “was essentially defending his home and the police officers didn’t take the opportunity to figure out what was going on.”

Mr. Palik earlier told the Vanguard that Mr. Vasquez’s story is, “They told him to come outside, he came outside.  They told him to lay on the ground.  He laid down on the ground and they started beating him with the batons on his leg.”

“When Mr. Vazquez asked him why he was hitting him with his baton – Mr. Vasquez said he was laying prone on the ground with his hands over his head and was not doing anything to resist – the police officer said, ‘I’m beating you because you’re a Mexican.’ “

“Apparently there were a lot of people who saw this and witnessed it,” Mr. Palik said.  “There were a lot of people around…  There were a lot of bystanders, mainly people who lived at the apartment.”

How Mr. Castro came to be involved is also subject to dispute.

The police’s version claims that while Mr. Vazquez was being arrested, one of the alleged victims claimed Mr. Castro was “making motions across his neck, he’s saying he’s going to cut my throat.”

According to Lt. Sockman one of the officers “sees some kind of a motion” but he was “yelling and trying to incite to keep the fight going.”

When they make contact with him, “He was highly intoxicated and trying to incite this thing.  So he was arrested for being drunk in public.  He wasn’t resistive, but heavily intoxicated.”

The police did not see a video camera, but they assume that he may have been recording using his cell phone.

“When he was booked into the Yolo County jail, the cellphone was booked in with him,” Lt. Sockman told the Vanguard.  He added that it was not confiscated, it was booked with him at the jail. 

“We haven’t attempted to look at or view any video from his phone,” he said, “so if it is on there, it is on there.”

The defense tells a different story, that one of the officers saw Mr. Castro filming this with his phone, according to Anthony Palik, “He walked across the street and down the sidewalk, and apparently at this point there were a lot of cop cars there and it was getting kind of crowded.”

“They arrested Mr. Castro, charged him with being drunk in public,” Mr. Palik continued, “he said he had not been drinking for at least seven hours prior to the incident and then he only had one beer.”

He was arrested and taken into custody at that point. 

Lt. Sockman added in his written statement, “Three other individuals were also arrested for public intoxication. They were yelling back and forth, inciting the situation. It was clear they had to be removed from the situation or the fight would most likely continue after the officers left the scene.”

Lt. Sockman said that he reviewed the video and did not see any evidence or hint of police brutality or excessive force.

“Our preliminary review indicates that the officers acted appropriately. As will all uses of force a formal administrative review will take place,” he said.

However, at least some of the incident took place out of the view of the in-car camera.

The statement from Lt. Sockman indicated, “The audio was recorded.”  He stated, “The officer can be heard directing the suspect to stop resisting and that he was under arrest.”

Anthony Palik strongly disputes this account.  “If you take a look at his legs, they are so badly beaten that such force would have been unnecessary in order to restrain a person with handcuffs on him,” he said and added, “It’s clearly excessive force.”

“A person against whom excessive force is used is entitled to resist.  That’s the law,” he said.

The Vanguard asked Lt. Sockman why the officers did not deploy a Taser in this situation.  “Every situation is different,” he responded.  “A Taser is available as a less lethal option but with the officer at close quarters with the subject they were attempting to arrest and with the crowd around the officers it may not have been the most effective.”

Mr. Palik did not know why they did not use the Taser and also found it odd that Mr. Castro and Mr. Vasquez are being arraigned so far apart in time.

Mr. Castro is scheduled to be arraigned this afternoon (Wednesday, July 20).  Mr. Vazquez is scheduled to be arraigned on September 13.  There will be a 6 pm demonstration and press conference at West Sacramento’s City Hall this evening.

—David M. Greenwald reporting