John Bakhit, who represents Lt. John Pike and the Federated University Police Officers Association, suddenly broke his silence and indicated the Reynosos report was “going to surprise a lot of people,” in an article in the local newspaper that will be published today.
The question we are now left to ponder in the hours before the actual report is released is whether Mr. Bakhit is giving us a sneak preview of what is in the report, or his preemptive strike trying to diffuse what many believe will be a very critical assessment of what occurred on November 18.
In his interview with the paper, we can see evidence of both.
He tells the reporter: “The impression out there in the public was that (the police union was) trying to hold back facts that were very negative toward police officers… That’s not necessarily the case. It was a matter of adherence to the law. When you look at the report as a whole, we actually believe it’s going to help the officers.”
We cannot discount that there might be an element of truth to this and, in fact, we will not know for sure until noon today when the report is posted.
We know that initially the suit was filed prior to the release of the report. On the other hand, the police union probably had a reasonable idea of what the interviewed officers told the Kroll investigators.
We fail to see what was gained by this exercise other than the redaction of the officers names, which would only really matter if they had something to hide. So while there may be some truth to this, we do not see anything compelling in the law itself, and in fact, they allowed the legal issue of the disputed material to drop in exchange for the redaction of names.
Mr. Bakhit then went on to argue that their concern was for the officers’ safety. We don’t dispute that, although most of the material in dispute had little to do with officer safety and more to do with the legal issue of what constituted a personnel record.
He told the paper: “We accomplished that goal… Based on that, there’s really no need to take a chance by moving forward with an appeal. The other side also agreed not to appeal the redacting of the officers’ names, so we’re content with where we are right now.”
That is a sugar-coated assessment. They probably could have had that issue a month ago. Instead, what most legal observers believe is that they realize they would lose and they realized that holding up the release of the report made it look like they had something to hide.
This marks a change of strategy, where they allow the release and argue that the report aids them.
He continues: “It’s not a one-way road attacking police officers’ actions… It is a review of the entire course of events from the top down.”
This part rings true, as a good report should critically analyze the mistakes that the students and officers made.
Mr. Bakhit told the paper that Lt. Pike and others may give their story publicly, but only after the DA’s office determines whether it will file criminal charges against the officers.
He told the paper: “Realistically, I don’t see anything happening with the criminal investigation, but until we have something in writing I won’t even allow (Pike) to consider (speaking publicly).”
We agree with this. We do not believe there will be criminal charges filed, although as we have argued previously, we think assault charges are warranted here.
Mr. Bakhit said that the officers are eager to come back to work and that Lt. Pike wants to return to campus. We do not believe this will be possible, given the anger toward him.
“The use of force really boils down to the state of mind of the person who used the force,” he said. “Based on that, and based on everything that occurred that day, we feel (Pike) did not do anything wrong.
“However, let’s take it a step further, for the sake of argument: Even if it were deemed that his actions were wrong it does not rise to the level of a termination or anything that severe.”
Again, that appears to be spin. First, he’s saying that the report exonerates Lt. Pike or at least suggests as much. Then he argues that “we,” meaning the attorneys for the police union, do not feel Lt. Pike did anything wrong. But then he says, even if it were deemed his actions were wrong, he should not be fired for it. Which is it? Either you know the contents of the report and they exonerate him, or they don’t.
That leads me to believe that this is the spin offered by the attorney for the accused. That is certainly his job to do. It would have been nice to have seen the report press him on that seeming inconsistency, but we will all know for ourselves in a few hours.
A final point that needs to be made here is that the least illuminating part of this report will be the critical analysis of events leading up to the pepper-spray incident itself. The reason for that is that, for the most part, we watched the incident unfold on video and while clearly differing views are reached, for the most part we know what happened at the scene.
The most valuable parts of this report will be to find out what calls the upper administration made, to determine what recommendations should be made. I think that is one of the most important points, to help develop a consistent policy response for civil disobedience, which quite obviously is a persistent problem for UC Davis in particular, but law enforcement in general.
Finally, we need some sort of determination as to whether the use of force was reasonable in this case. However, I think it is going to be difficult to convince people that Lt. Pike and others acted appropriately.
That I don’t see. That should not be read to suggest that the protesters are blameless and that their actions did not contribute to the ultimate outcome – they certainly did.
However, in this case, the use of pepper spray on seated protesters who are resisting passively goes too far and it will take a lot to convince most people in this community otherwise.
As such, we tend to see this as spin, with the attorney attempting to minimize culpability for his client(s). We’ll find out finally in a few hours.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think everyone needs to put a sock in it until the report is released, and let the report speak for itself. The police are going to spin it one way, the vanguard another. I’m sick of these preemptive strikes – just release the report in full and let it speak for itself – without analysis – I can think for myself just fine, thank you.
I think it shows that the public is not trusted by media to read it for themselves and analyze it for themselves.
“The use of force really boils down to the state of mind of the person who used the force,”
That’s simply not true, although it may be in the category of “wishful thinking.”
Justification for use of force by law enforcement “boils down” to the application of statute and case law interpretation. The officer’s declared state of mind has little if any relevance to a claim of justification. It may well help with mitigation, but not justification.
My take on the pre-emptive strike by counsel is that there is going to an attempt by him to kick this “sticky wicket” upstairs and lay the blame somewhere outside the realm of the UCD Police Department.
91 Octane
Are you advocating for no media commentary ? Just the facts ma’am . ( Apologies to anyone not old enough to remember Detective Friday)This would seem to imply that reports issued by government entities or by commissions should be accepted at face value. If that is the case, then why read the Vanguard, or follow any media source at all ? And following this a little further, should we not have the ultimate in spin, political ads ? I would certainly favor that, but I am not sure our Supreme Court would agree.
[quote]Mr. Bakhit:[quote]When you look at the report as a whole, we actually believe it’s going to help the officers.”[/quote][/quote]
WTF?
I hate lawyers. If this is the case, the delay was just a colossal waste of time and money – purely to generate increased billings for Mr. Bakhit.
Octane: You don’t have to read it, but there will be analysis of the report. We will also link the report so you can read it for yourself. Frankly, I don’t think you’re in any danger of being told what to think, however, I do think it’s helpful to read other people’s perspectives as it gives you additional insights and thoughts that you might not have had otherwise.
” I do think it’s helpful to read other people’s perspectives as it gives you additional insights and thoughts that you might not have had otherwise.
This, of course, is based on one’s willingness to consider the point of view of someone else rather than dismissing it based on the perceived political bais of the author. Unfortunately, this form of objectivity seems to be lacking on both ends of the political spectrum based on posts from both sides generalizing the oppositions positions and pre judging by source rather than content of the ideas expressed.
Medwoman: I learn a lot from reading the comments on here even when I disagree with someone, they often raise points I hadn’t focused on that make me at least consider different perspectives. Sometimes it shifts my thinking, other times I start changing my mind.
Phil Coleman
“”The use of force really boils down to the state of mind of the person who used the force,”
I agree with your comment and would add a secondary thought. Not only is this statement not true, but is a very dangerous position to support.
Applied for example to situations such as the “Stand Your Ground” laws, the implication would be that whatever the survivor claims was his “state of mind” would be the only judgement criteria for an action leading to the physical harm or death of another. Do we really want to grant any one, police, military, or any citizen the right to exemption from responsibility for use of force based only on the perpetrators ” state of mind” ?
“Then he argues that “we,” meaning the attorneys for the police union, do not feel Lt. Pike did anything wrong. But then he says, even if it were deemed his actions were wrong, he should not be fired for it.”
Its pretty simple they are putting up the best defense and trying to get in front of the story arguing in advance that he shouldn’t get fired and saying they will defend him against calls for his termination. Short of that they will probably settle for him being demoted or otherwise penalized. They are going to try to save his career. My guess from this is that the report will show that the act of using pepper was on Pike’s authority. At the end of the judicial process, be it a trial or a decision by the DA, Pike will take responsibility and apologize.
Mr.Toad
“They are going to try to save his career”
This takes me back to Elaine’s previous comment “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander “. It would seem to me far more productive, rather than destroying Lt.Pike’s career ( assuming that use of excessive force is not a repetitive pattern refractory to previous attempts at correction) it would be much more beneficial to have him also perform some sort of community service. Interacting positively with students such as tutoring or event planning rather than strictly law enforcement might help him develope a broader perspective on students as individuals and as a group rather than as hostiles to be subdued which is how he apparently saw the seated protesters.
Good point, medwoman. We give police special authorities because we depend on them. We expect them to use this authority, including the right to evaluate any given situation in which they find themselves tot and act with force, based on their oath, laws, training and honor. If we don’t trust them–because of something we’ve read or experienced–it’s difficult to acknowledge that they should be treated differently.
I think most of us do trust them and give them the latitude to be mistaken from time to time. If it’s a decision to use pepper-spray before it was necessary, it’s not that big a mistake. If it’s a mistaken decision that results in unnecessary injury or death, it’s serious, but it isn’t treated the same way as is garden-variety murder or assault. Still, a thorough investigation is conducted to assure this special trust isn’t abused.
Extending this protection to non-police citizens is a big mistake in my mind. If that’s what “stand your ground” does and if that’s what ended the investigation into Zimmerman’s act, that’s even worse.
Phil Coleman:
“My take on the pre-emptive strike by counsel is that there is going to an attempt by him to kick this “sticky wicket” upstairs and lay the blame somewhere outside the realm of the UCD Police Department.”
My take is that much of the blame does actually lie outside the realm of the UCD Police Department, in so much as they take orders from the administration or vet certain policy through the administration.
I believe Counsel is trying to point us in the right direction (UCD Administration) if we truly wish for institutional change on this matter. And of course, pointing us this way also happens to serve his interests as well, which is preserving Pike’s job apparently.
While we may *feel* justice should be served on Pike, that is a little like going after the soldiers and leaving the “deciders” (to quote George Bush) untouched. In my opinion.
I would prefer to wait until the report comes out, read it for myself, before jumping to any conclusions… there is just too much I don’t feel I know…
Thanks for discuss Police Union Attorney. this is very useful article for every person, i will definitely share this great article to my colleagues
colorado springs personal injury attorney ([url]http://www.coloradospersonalinjurylawyer.com/[/url])
Very significant article for us ,I think the representation of this article is actually superb one. This is my first visit to your site. denver injury lawyer ([url]http://www.personalinjuryco.com/[/url])