Young disabled campaigners are to go undercover across the UK to find out whether access to public transport has improved since they carried out a “damning” study six years ago.Members of the Trailblazers network will check out buses, trains and taxis, and will examine access to stations, bus ramps, journey times, staff training and attitudes, and even the behaviour of fellow passengers.Six years ago, another undercover Trailblazers investigation found that disabled people were struggling to use public transport, because of problems with safety, reliability and cost, as well as a lack of basic facilities at stations and on trains, and inflated prices for accessible taxis.It concluded that “many young wheelchair-users and people with mobility difficulties face serious challenges when accessing public transport”, and it called on the government, local authorities, and transport providers, to review their accessibility policies.The 2009 report was the first of Trailblazers’ Inclusion Now series of three investigations into public transport, education and leisure.Now, six years on, Trailblazers will be asking whether transport providers kept their subsequent promises to improve services, particularly in the wake of the London 2012 Paralympics.Sulaiman Khan, a member of Trailblazers who lives in London and uses a wheelchair, said: “I experience problems on a regular basis, just trying to get from A to B on public transport.“A lot of train stations just don’t have the facilities for disabled people and I often find myself having to make my way to another station in the opposite direction of my destination, just so I can physically board the train.“This not only adds to journey time, it also increases the cost of my ticket.“Accessibility isn’t the only issue – poor staff knowledge and public attitudes towards disabled people are still commonplace.”He pointed to the high-profile legal case taken by wheelchair-user Doug Paulley, who was refused access to the accessible space on a First Group bus, after a mother refused to move her pushchair. In February, the Equality and Human Rights Commission decided to support Paulley in his bid to appeal to the Supreme Court, after he lost his case against First Bus in the court of appeal.A spokesman for Muscular Dystrophy UK, which runs Trailblazers, said: “We want to hear from young people across the UK on their experiences using public transport.“We want to find out whether promises from transport providers and local authorities are truly making a difference on the ground.”To take part in the investigation, which will take place over the next three months, visit the Trailblazers website.
Neighbors of a new affordable housing project were adamant at a community meeting on Saturday morning: They oppose a nine-story senior building coming to Shotwell Street near Cesar Chavez Street because its height will create wind tunnels, block sunlight, and “bring downtown to the Mission.”Bernal Heights residents were particularly vocal about the building, which will be the tallest in the area, saying the development would obstruct their skyline views.“I have a beautiful view of the cityscape and the cityscape is going to be gone and I don’t want that,” said Joelle Chartier, a Bernal Heights resident. Chartier called the project “selfish, insane, and out of character” and said the city should consider lowering the number of units and look elsewhere to build up.“Maybe it’s not 96 units. There are so many open spaces in the city, why do we have to raise the Mission?” she said. Tags: Affordable Housing • housing • meda Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0% 0% The view of 1296 Shotwell St. from Bernal Heights. Photo courtesy of the Mission Economic Development Agency and Herman Coliver Locus Architecture.Whitney Jones, the director of housing development with one of the non-profit developers of the project Chinatown Development Community Center, countered by saying there was no such abundance of parcels open for affordable housing citywide.Parking lots and gas stations could host more housing, Jones said, but many such sites are privately owned and parcels that are owned by the city and shovel-ready for new development are rare, he said.“That’s not the universe we’re dealing with,” he said.The project at 1296 Shotwell St. between Cesar Chavez and 26th streets would offer 95 affordable units — plus one unit for an on-site property manager — to seniors making up to 50 percent of area median income, which is $37,700 for a one-person household. Because the parcel is currently capped at 65 feet, project sponsors will be seeking a legislative workaround that would single out the parcel for a height increase to 85 feet.Though there are taller buildings in the Mission District, the Shotwell Street project lies right between the hillside homes of Bernal Heights and their views of the city.“I think you guys have a real height problem,” said Todd Lappin, an 11-year homeowner in Bernal Heights and founder of the neighborhood blog Bernalwood.Lappin — who has dubbed the project the “Great Wall on Shotwell” — said he was not concerned about his views per se but did have problems with the design of the building. A windowless facade faces Bernal Heights, which Lappin said was disrespectful to the project’s neighbors.“I would hope you could consider some options so Bernal Heights neighbors don’t have to stare at an 85-foot slab,” he said. Project sponsors have promised to commission a mural for the side facing Bernal, though that did little to assuage resident concerns.Sponsors also worked hard to convince concerned residents that the loss of height would mean a loss of potential senior residents.Just 28 of the project’s units are studios for singles, and the remaining 67 are one-bedrooms meant for senior couples or those with caretakers. Because each floor can host 12-13 units, each story lost translates to a dozen senior families without a place in the Mission District.That meant little to some opponents.“I want to house seniors, but the Mission is going through a crisis,” said Marie Sorenson, a member of the neighborhood association Calle 24. If the project is allowed to go above its height limit, it would start a rush by private developers to upzone the Mission District, she said, causing the area to “lose its personality” in the face of high-rise development.“We don’t want the Mission to be downtown. We don’t want wind tunnels. We want sunlight in our neighborhoods,” she said.Not all were opposed to the project. Fran Taylor, a transit advocate with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, said she usually agreed with her friends in Calle 24 but could not understand the opposition to a fully affordable housing site.“The height doesn’t bother me. I don’t think this is going to set a precedent and turn us into SoMa,” she said. “I think one person’s slightly impeded view is less important than a building for seniors.”Others voiced non-height concerns, like the lack of parking — the site will create just four street parking spots — and the market-rate development by development giant Lennar Corporation to be built next door. Residents at a community meeting earlier in the year voiced hopes that the Lennar development — dubbed the “Titanic Mess on South Van Ness” — could merge with the affordable one and repeated that stance on Saturday.The Shotwell Street project will be built by a pair of non-profit affordable housing developers: the Mission Economic Development Agency and Chinatown Community Development Center. The legislative height exception for the site would require approval by the Board of Supervisors, said Jones, and may have to go before the Planning Commission.It is one of two affordable projects to be built by the non-profit pair in the Mission District — the other a 101-unit complex at 17th and Folsom — and if successful would be a boon for MEDA, which is a newcomer to the affordable housing game.Construction is scheduled to begin by early 2018, and residents will move in by early 2020.Disclosure: Mission Local is a commercial tenant of the Mission Economic Development Agency at their Plaza Adelante building.Correction: A previous version of this article stated that Todd Lapin was a 25-year homeowner in Bernal Heights. He has owned a home in Bernal Heights for 11 years and was previously a renter in the Mission District for 14 years.
0% Covering the Police is a collaboration with UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism.As the San Francisco Police Commission considers arming the city’s 1,795 full-duty officers with Tasers, no one is clear on where the money will come from to pay for them.“There has been no discussion on funding,” said David Stevenson, director of strategic communications for the San Francisco Police Department.The consideration of Tasers, which the Police Commission could vote on as early as Nov. 3, is one of the 272 recommendations for the SFPD from a 2016 Department of Justice report. One of the cost considerations are the lawsuits that could be filed against the city if the devices are used inappropriately. “The Taser has eight pages of warnings, leaving us open for multiple lawsuits,” District 1 Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer said last month. “We, as the city and county of San Francisco, would be paying for these lawsuits. That’s eight pages Taser says they are not responsible for.”At a Board of Supervisors meeting in late September, Fewer asked SFPD Chief Bill Scott how much it would cost to implement Tasers. He was unsure. “That’s one of the things that, if it goes further, there will be a discussion,” Scott said.It is unclear when that discussion will happen.District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen echoed other concerns. “I would ask that you hold off on that [Tasers],” Ronen said. “We have a long way to go implementing the rest of the Department of Justice recommendations. The introduction of this new weapon would hinder all of the great work you’re doing.”Michael Leonesio, a retired Oakland police officer and owner of the only independent Taser test laboratory in the country, said the SFPD’s technology department will be fighting for any new dollars. “IT people are fighting for exactly the same dollars,” Leonesio said. “There is aging equipment and very old technology, yet they want to spend $10 million to $12 million to deploy this weapon system.”Each Taser comes with a number of costs — $1,103 for the Axon X2 Taser, $337 for cartridges, $341 for insurance and $743 for necessary additional tools — that adds up to $4.4 million for the SFPD’s current force. That sum does not account for training officers how to use Tasers. There’s also the issue of data storage. At present, the SFPD uses Axon’s data storage solution, Evidence.com, to store body-worn camera footage, which costs $79 per user per month. This is estimated to cost $196,000 monthly for the number of body-worn cameras the SFPD now owns.If the Commission approves Tasers, data storage costs will increase, according to Axon spokesman Steve Tuttle. The Axon officer safety plan costs $99 monthly per officer, which includes the costs of the Taser, body-worn camera and unlimited data storage. That brings the SFPD’s storage costs to $219,000 each month. “These weapons are going to be very very expensive to deploy — and deploy safely and effectively,” Leonesio said in a Commission hearing. “For a rollout of something like this, by the time you get all of your equipment, software and hardware, all of your training, you’re looking at between eight and 10 thousand dollars per officer to outfit,” he went on. “It’s not an inexpensive proposition.” Tags: police • SFPD • tasers Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0%
0% But an interview was given — thanks, it would seem, to the publicist’s diligent representation of his client — and it resulted in not one but two stories in which she got to tell “her side.” Now, this is a fairly bizarre M.O.: Kihagi has told “her side” to judge after judge — and they keep ruling in favor of the city and her former tenants, to the tune of millions of dollars. In essence, these recent stories made a he-said she said out of cases that have been adjudicated, and in which Kihagi lost, heavily and repeatedly, due to mountains of bad facts. So, that was odd. What came next was not. This month, that publicist called again. And, guess what? He says Kihagi appropriated many of the suggestions he made — after criticizing them — and then stiffed him some $2,000. Now, this was predictable. One need only peruse Kihagi’s legal dealings to find a trail of workmen whom, Trump-style, she didn’t pay until legal papers were filed, if ever. Here’s a flooring guy. Here’s a surveyor. Here’s a contractor. Here are some attorneys. Here are more attorneys, whom she sued rather than pay. Anne Kihagi, the city’s most infamous landlord, recently launched a charm offensive, hiring a publicist to seed positive stories in local media. That required quite a bit of cheek, considering Kihagi has been found guilty by a succession of San Francisco judges of harassing and/or illegally evicting indigent, rent-controlled tenants — including terminal cancer patients and disabled senior citizens. Her numerous victims were caught up in a calculated scheme to buy up rent-controlled buildings (several of them in the Mission) at relatively low prices, give everyone the heave-ho, and find wealthier new tenants. So, it was a jolt to see an e-mail in my inbox several months ago written by a PR maven offering an “exclusive” interview with Kihagi, who has been — his words — “misunderstood.” This came as a surprise, because your humble narrator wrote this lengthy, fact-checked piece on Kihagi, which was informed by the incredibly detailed judgments against her as well as many hundreds of pages of documents and hours upon hours of interviews with harried tenants. That’s a lot of misunderstanding. I followed up with this article and this one, all of which involved judges making very thorough decisions against Kihagi based upon vast heaps of evidence. When I approached Kihagi in a courthouse hallway after a San Francisco judge found her in contempt, her attorney intervened and spirited her away.You’re not going to believe this, but I wasn’t given the “exclusive” interview with Kihagi. The publicist requested we not use his name — this is embarrassing and he’d rather not get into a shooting war with someone able to spend nearly $30 million in a few short years to amass a San Francisco real estate portfolio over. That sounds reasonable, even if answering an ad from Kihagi on Craigslist — and not Googling her thoroughly — was not. The publicist forwarded us several e-mail exchanges with Kihagi in which he laid out a number of strategies, including recommending she get herself some flattering photos instead of the unflattering ones proliferating on the Internet, and suggesting she say her race — she is black, from Kenya — plays a role in the city’s pursuit of her and negative media coverage. These ideas were received with more than a bit of hostility; “I don’t like using my race as why they are treating me this way,” she responded, instead asking to focus on the “cheating tenants.” (Kihagi accused a group of her renters of “colluding” against her whom she was, not coincidentally, attempting to evict en masse via the Ellis Act). And yet, in the Meet Anne Kihagi stories that ran this month, she does indeed blame her plight on racism and bigotry. These stories were illustrated with excellent, professional photos. This, the publicist says, turned out to be free advice. On March 26, he wrote Kihagi a brief e-mail: “Are you going to pay me or not? If so, when?” No answer, he claims. On March 27: “I began working for you because, despite what many people in the media have been saying about you, I believed that you really weren’t the person that people were saying you are. But now that you haven’t paid my invoice, and are not responding to my emails, it seems that perhaps what people in the media are saying about you may be true.” Well, you never know. He said, she said, after all. Tags: housing Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0%
0% Subscribe to Mission Local’s daily newsletterEmail Address Tags: SFPD Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0% Police say two shots were fired, but the distorted audio on the videos of the incident makes it difficult to tell if there were two, three, or even four shots. Barcenas received emergency care at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, and was released June 15, according to hospital officials. He’s now being held in county jail on charges of delaying an officer, carrying a concealed firearm, exhibiting a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At the SFPD’s town hall meeting last week, police brass showed four videos from the scene: two from the officers’ body cameras and two from nearby businesses security cameras. Since being released online, the videos have collectively garnered nearly 70,000 views. Watching the films at full speed, it is not readily apparent if Barcenas had a gun. But, watching frame by frame, it becomes clear that Barcenas did appear to have a gun, and that he tossed it under a car as Cabillo pursued him. It also becomes clear that Cabillo shot Barcenas around two seconds after he dropped it. Barcenas has a lengthy criminal record — he was described by the SFPD as a “known Norteño” and had actually been shot by police before, in 2012 — but it seems unlikely that Cabillo would have known that when he flagged down the men, pursued Barcenas, and ultimately shot him.Currently on administrative leave as department policy requires, Cabillo has a record of his own. He was cleared in the 2012 death of 15-year-old Derrick Gaines, whom Cabillo, then an officer in South San Francisco’s police department, shot in the neck after the boy allegedly reached for a gun. This was a high-profile shooting, and South City paid Gaines’s family a $250,000 settlement, but admitted no wrongdoing. In 2015, Cabillo, who was subsequently hired by the SFPD, was also one of a group of four officers who was sued by the ACLU on behalf of 25-year-old Travis Ian Hall (one of the other officers sued, Anthony Montoya, and is now the president of the police officers’ union). The case resulted in a $40,000 settlement, also without the city admitting any wrongdoing.After Barcenas was shot, an angry, profane crowd surrounded members of the SFPD. They were angry because they saw, in person, what thousands of viewers of the videos have seen: Cabillo, clearly, shot a fleeing man in the back. That is inarguable. But the particulars of this shooting are more complex than they appear at first blush. So, Mission Local has taken the available footage and broken it down, frame-by-frame, and consulted several experts in policing, law, and use of force to weigh in. (Time codes used are seconds from Cabillo’s body camera and the time the police reported.)12:17:13 a.m.12:17:13 a.m.: Cabillo’s body camera records him exiting the patrol car, no audio.12:17:22 a.m.12:17:22 a.m.: Beer bottle visible in one man’s hand.“You want us to leave, man?” one of the men asks Cabillo.12:17:25 a.m.12:17:25 a.m.: “Nah, I don’t, ha, you guys are detained, I wanna talk to you. What do you guys think this is, man?” asks Cabillo, as he grabs the beer bottle from the guy’s hand.“I don’t know, San Francisco?” retorts another guy.“What?” “What’d we do?”“What do you mean?”“What are we doing wrong?”Cabillo: “You got open containers out here!”12:17:40 a.m.12:17:40 a.m.: Barcenas: “Not me, yo,” as he turns to go. “So we spill it out and that’s it,” offers another guy. “Hold on man, you ain’t goin’ nowhere,” Cabillo says to Barcenas.“Alright, alright. My bad, my bad,” said Barcenas.“We’ll just spill it out and that’s it,” one of the guys repeats.“Haha, yeah, no one’s going anywhere,” Cabillo responds. 12:17:49 a.m.12:17:49 a.m. Almost before Cabillo has finished his sentence, Barcenas makes a run for it.12:17:53 a.m.12:17:53 a.m.: Barcenas removes and discards his jacket. An audible clank is heard, which is likely the beer bottle Cabillo grabbed earlier being dropped.12:17:53 a.m.12:17:53 a.m.: In the circle is the discarded jacket. Cabillo begins radioing in, “Foot pursuit. Adam Thirteen David.” This code would indicate a pair of partners on swing shift from Central Station.12:17:54 a.m.12:17:54 a.m.: Barcenas runs with his hand near his waistband. Potentially, this is the earliest moment Cabillo could have seen Barcenas remove a gun from his waistband. The next several images are fractions of the same second. 12:17:54 a.m.12:17:54 a.m.: Potential object seen in Barcenas’ hand — which Cabillo may have seen a glimpse of, prior to unholstering his own gun.12:17:54 a.m.12:17:54 a.m.: Potential object seen in Barcenas’ hand as he passes a lit storefront. Sound of Cabillo unholstering his gun.12:17:54 a.m.12:17:54 a.m.: Another angle of the potential object seen in Barcenas’ hand from a nearby business security camera.12:17:54 a.m.12:17:54 a.m.: Barcenas’ waistband exposed. 12:17:55 a.m.12:17:55 a.m.: Barcenas in mid-stride, potentially tossing an object into the street. The next several images are fractions of the same second. 12:17:55 a.m.12:17:55 a.m.: Barcenas’ weight shifts as he appears to toss the object.12:17:55 a.m.12:17:55 a.m.: Barcenas potentially tossing object into the street, seen from a different angle from another businesses security camera.12:17:55 a.m.12:17:55 a.m.: Object seen sliding in the street underneath a nearby parked car.12:17:55 a.m.12:17:55 a.m.: Object seen sliding in the street from different angle.12:17:56 a.m.12:17:56 a.m.: With Cabillo’s gun pointed at Barcenas’ back, Cabillo yells “Dude!” 12:17:56 a.m.12:17:56 a.m.: Cabillo fires the first shot while about six feet from Barcenas. The suspect is passing through a crowd of at least three people. This shot is fired seven seconds after the pursuit began — and approximately two seconds after Barcenas dropped the object Cabillo would later identify as a gun. 12:17:57 a.m.12:17:57 a.m.: Second shot fired. Barcenas falls. 12:17:57 a.m.12:17:57 a.m.: Cabillo yells, “Get down!” and possibly fires again. At least one witness claims to have heard three shots. Audio is distorted due to Cabillo’s shouting.12:17:58 a.m.12:17:58 a.m.: Another loud noise — that could be a gunshot, but is distorted, and could be Cabillo shouting, “Get down!” again. The suspect, who has been shot, is down. 12:18:00 a.m.: “Get down!” Cabillo shouts again at the motionless man he’s standing over.12:18:04 a.m.12:18:04 a.m.: Cabillo, to his trailing partner: “Dude, call uh … dude he had a fucking … fucking gun on him!” His voice shakes like someone whose brain is working on overdrive to asses the situation. 12:18:09 a.m.: “Hey, dude?” Cabillo says to Barcenas on the sidewalk. No response. 12:18:10 a.m.: “Call a 408!” Cabillo yells repeatedly to his partner. This is code for an ambulance. 12:18:11 a.m.12:18:11 a.m.: Cabillo seen from his partner’s body camera.12:18:13 a.m.12:18:13 a.m.: Same as above.12:18:15 a.m.: “I can’t! My radio’s broke!” the partner yells back and turns to restrain a group of Barcenas’ friends who were attracted by the shots.12:18:19 a.m.: As if recalling training, Cabillo speaks as calmly as he can into his own functioning radio. “Adam Thirteen David. Shots fired. We’re gonna need medics. Code three.” Again, he’s indicating that a pair of partners are on swing shift from Central Station. Code three means someone is critically injured, so lights and sirens should be used. 12:18:24 a.m.: “That guy just shot at him for no reason!” someone yells from behind Cabillo.12:18:26 AM12:18:26 a.m.: Cabillo stands over Barcenas — a knife is visible nearby. Then, “Dude, dude, are you all right?” he asks the limp man. Still no response. 12:18:28 a.m.12:18:28 a.m.: Cabillo checks Barcenas’ body; a shiny object near his pocket turns out to be keys.12:18:29 a.m.12:18:29 a.m.: Cabillo checks both sides of Barcenas’ body; you can hear people hollering in the background.12:18:33 a.m.12:18:33 a.m.: One of Barcenas’ friends picks up his jacket. “You just shot your fucking weapon for no fucking reason, man!” 12:18:39 a.m.12:18:39 a.m.: Cabillo starts yelling “Get back!” incessantly, but in vain. Warriors fans are descending on him.12:18:43 a.m.: “1025. 406! We need a 406 here,” Cabrillo’s says into the radio. He’s panicked. A 1025 is a request for help to everyone in the district. A 406 is an SOS asking everyone in the city to respond; it’s usually reserved for when an officer’s down or has been shot.Very quickly, an angry crowd starts to form. Some check on Barcenas, but not before hitting record on their phones. The crowd has seen what is also apparent from the officer’s body cam — an officer shooting a man in the back. Seemingly just for running from him. 12:19:17 a.m.12:19:17 a.m.: Cabillo picks up the dropped knife from the ground as an angry crowd of a dozen people converges on him, yelling and jostling among themselves.12:19:25 a.m.12:19:25 a.m.: A man with dreadlocks appears to take the opportunity while Cabillo is alone and vulnerable to take a swing at him. 12:19:29 a.m.: “What the fuck did you do?!” yells one of Barcenas’ friends while another yells, “You shot [him]!” before swinging at the officer as well. 12:19:34 a.m.: Backup arrives. Several officers push the crowd back.12:19:58 a.m.: Cabillo screams, “We need a … we need a 406! Shots fired!” A calm cop comes to Cabillo’s side to reassure him and get the lowdown. “Listen, you don’t need everyone,” he says in response to the 406 call. “You’re all right. It’s all right. You’re all right. We don’t need everyone in the city. What’s goin’ on?” “He’s been … he’s got two … he’s two … shots fired,” Cabillo reports.“By us?”“Yes.”“Okay. All right. All right.”12:20:12 a.m.: Cabillo pleads, “I need a [sic] … He had a firearm and he was … I don’t know where it is! I need to back people up and we need to find that gun! He had like a TEC 9!” A swarm of officers descends on the block and moves quickly to secure the area. Someone shows up to assess Barcenas and Cabillo starts looking for that gun. A TEC 9, incidentally, was the weapon Barcenas was accused of pulling on now-Assistant Chief Toney Chaplin in 2012. Chaplin shot him during that incident, a shooting that sparked angry protests but was ultimately ruled as justified by the District Attorney. Officers this time around would discover a different firearm. 12:20:00 a.m.12:20:00 a.m.: On the other side of the crowd and the row of parked cars, another officer has arrived and stands on what appears to be a gun near where Barcenas threw the object. 12:20:01 a.m.12:20:01 a.m.: “Hey, I got a gun here!” the officer shouts to the radio-less partner. Beneath his boot is presumably the Glock with a fixed laser and an illegal extended magazine that was recovered from the scene. Experts weigh in:The seven seconds of footage between the moment Barcenas made a break for it and hit the pavement with a bullet in his back have been scrutinized by thousands of eyes, and will surely be pored over by many more. We spoke to several interested parties — a former longtime SFPD cop, a retired judge, a police policy lawyer and a city politician. All felt that the officer’s actions were unwarranted. “At no point in this video,” says Carl T, the retired 32-year SFPD veteran, “do I see a justification for deadly force.” This, of course, prompts the inevitable argument that one camera angle doesn’t paint the whole picture.In all angles, the videos reveal that within seconds of potentially seeing a gun — which was immediately discarded — Cabillo un-holstered his weapon and fired. And that’s interesting. Because if Cabillo was able to react to seeing a gun — why then did he fail to react to seeing Barcenas throw it away? There’s also the disturbing fact that, at the moment the officer fired, Barcenas was next to at least three innocent bystanders. Barcenas is literally shoulder to shoulder with them. SFPD policy regulating the use of deadly force allows for it “only as a last resort when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or are not feasible to protect the safety of the public and police officers.” In certain circumstances, deadly force can be used in self-defense, in the defense of others, and to apprehend someone if they’re threatening to kill someone. Officers are supposed to give a verbal warning and exercise reasonable care for the public. Of course, there are caveats and exceptions to all of these rules, which is why it is so rare for cops to face repercussions for not following procedures. According to John Crew, an attorney and a retired police practices expert for the ACLU, “The officer is going to claim he fired the shot in defense of himself or others.” The question for investigators is, “‘Did the officer have reasonable cause to believe that he or another person was ‘in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury?’” Carl T — who legally changed his name from Tennenbaum — hypothesizes: “Let’s say he did see the gun and saw him throw it. At least now one is out of the way. Okay, so maybe he assumed there were more. But that’s not realistic.”“It’s a seven-second pursuit and it looks like the cop’s gaining on him; he’s almost within arm’s reach. When I used to pursue, we were trained in the academy, you know, you can push them and that momentum, that’ll take them down,” he said. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor standardized the reasonableness of a law enforcement officer’s use of force. The pertinent question is whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable based on the what the officer knew at the time. Retired superior court judge LaDoris H. Cordell weighed in on whether this officer should be prosecuted. The investigations, she said, will “determine ‘What did the officer know and see at the time, and did this guy pose a threat at the moment [the officer] fired?’”The second question for investigators, she said, is: Should this officer be disciplined, and did he violate any rules or SFPD use-of-force policies?Cordell adds, “I have a problem saying that the shooting is justified, solely based on video one. There are alternatives — cordon, call other officers. He had I.D., a good photo from his body cam. I don’t see a threat this person posed, once the gun was tossed, to anyone.”Carl T said the actions go back to how officers are being trained. “There’s always the threat of a fatal encounter,” he says. “But they overteach to the worst-case scenario. They don’t teach enough about how to deal with people.”“It’s systemic,” he continues. “They’re trying to reboot to a guardian mentality but they have to undo 100 years of this system, and undo this mentality of, ‘I don’t wanna get my hands dirty.’”“There’s a third mentality called the coward mindset,” says Carl T. “Younger cops are afraid.”“These officers are going 0 to 60 without shifting gears,” T says. “We’ve lost a lot of the human touch and personal touch and these younger cops don’t know how to do verbal persuasion.”In this case, Caballo’s initial approach to the four suspects began with an aggressive tone. Crew says the SFPD generally doesn’t hold officers accountable to its policy standards and that implementing administrative accountability would be a deterrent. That, he said, fails to happen in San Francisco. “That’s the main reason we have an ongoing problem with avoidable police violence.”People, notes Carl T, “are going to their extremes saying ‘Well, he shouldn’t have run,’ and ‘He shouldn’t have overreacted.’ There’s no happy medium.”OIS Case # 180427269 – BWC Footage of Officer #1, OIS Case # 180427269 – BWC Footage of Officer #2, OIS Case # 180427269 – Surveillance Camera Footage #1, and OIS Case # 180427269 – Surveillance Camera Footage #2 from San Francisco Police on Vimeo. In the time it takes to tie a shoelace, a night of Warriors-related revelry was shattered by another officer-involved shooting in San FranciscoAt 12:17 a.m. June 9, San Francisco Police Department Officer Joshua Cabillo stepped out of the passenger side of a patrol car on Grant Avenue and Vallejo Street, a block from Broadway. He’d spotted four heavyset guys drinking beers on the corner after the Waaaaarriorrrrrrrrrs’ sweeping victory. He approached them alone while his partner parked the car. Carrying an open alcohol container is a citable offense. A veteran cop might have written up a ticket, or perhaps let the revelers off with a warning. Either way, according to Carl T, a retired 32-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department, it’s a small infraction. The cop’s goal should have been to get the guys moving to avoid further hassle during a crowded, impromptu party night.Instead, this particular cop decided to be aggressive. What transpired was a 36-second interaction followed by a 7-second pursuit that concluded with Cabillo shooting Oliver Barcenas, 28, in the back as Barcenas ran away.
ENGLAND Youth coach Stuart Barrow has named an 18-man squad to face Wales Youth at The Gnoll, Neath on Saturday April 6 (2.00pm).And three Saints – Jake Campbell, Lewis Fairhurst and Aaron Smith – will feature in the side whilst Morgan Knowles will turn out for Wales.“We had a great win against France yesterday but the job isn’t over just yet,” said Barrow. “It was fantastic to get that win and win the series against them but we have another big challenge ahead of us which is against Wales on Saturday and I’m really looking forward to it.“The lads have today (Wednesday) out of camp and then we come back together as a group on Thursday to prepare for the game. We have two days to re-focus and we’ll be working hard to ensure we’re ready for the contest and that we keep improving and developing as a group.“There were a lot of players who were disappointed not to feature in that win against France but they know they have a chance to put in a big performance against Wales this weekend and hopefully that’s what we will get from them.”Saints would like to wish all four of its representatives the best of luck.England Youth squad to play Wales1. Jack Rush (Wigan Warriors, Rochdale Mayfield)2. Jake Campbell (St Helens, Blackbrook)3. Daniel Douglas (Leeds Rhinos, Drighlington)4. Jordan Lane (Hull FC, West Hull)5. Brad Harrison (Hull FC, Skirlaugh Bulls)6. Will Gledhill (Huddersfield Giants, Wakefield Westgate)7. Jack Wells (Wigan Warriors, Folly Lane)8. Jacob Ware (Leeds Rhinos, Westgate Wolves)9. Ryan Houghton (Wigan Warriors, Blackbrook)10. James Brown (Castleford Tigers, Castleford Lock Lane)11. Lewis Fairhurst (St Helens, Hindley)12. Jack Etchells (Wigan Warriors, Oldham St Annes)13. Roshane Johnson (London Broncos, Medway Dragons)14. Charlie Pythian (Warrington Wolves, Latchford Albion)15. Issac Noi (Wigan Warriors, Ince Rose Bridge)16. Kameron Pearce Paul (London Broncos, Croydon Hurricanes)17. Aaron Smith (St Helens, Blackbrook)18. Reece Brunt (Warrington Wolves, Latchford Albion)
AFTER last year’s success, First Utility has once again teamed up with the Super League to offer fans a free replica shirt when they switch their energy to them.As well as receiving a free replica shirt, fans could save an average of £334* on their energy bills by switching to First Utility.Once signed up, customers are also eligible for a host of exclusive offers such as winning the First Utility Super League trophy for the day, receiving free match day programmes at key events like Magic Weekend and a range of other monthly prize draws.Saints’ Jordan Turner said: “I switched to First Utility last year. Tt was so easy and I saved a load of money too.The amount you can save now is even more than when I switched, plus you get a free shirt, so it is definitely worth looking into.”To take advantage of this offer, click here and get a quote to see how much you could save.Once you’ve switched to First Utility and passed your cooling off period, you’ll be able to select a team shirt of your choice**.*Customers who registered at first-utility.com to one of our 1, 2, or 3 year fixed term and everyday tariffs between 01 January 2016 and 31 March 2016 saved an average of £334 per year.**Terms and conditions apply
School Supply Giveaway (Photo: Jenna Kurzyna/WWAY) BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NC (WWAY) — Brunswick County lottery winner Marie Holmes held another back to school giveaway today at West Brunswick high school.The Marie Holmes Foundation and Kids Connect provided free school supplies and food for students.- Advertisement – Kids grades kindergarten through 12th could come and get a back pack filled with items like notebooks, pens and pencils.There were 900 book bags to give out.One of the organizers said she is thankful to be a part of something like this.Related Article: Mandatory evacuation issued for unincorporated areas in Brunswick County“It’s actually, I feel great. Marie Holmes is a great woman and this is something she plans on doing every year and she loves helping people and if she can do it she will,” Tasheka King said.Along with giving away school supplies, there was a free throw contest.
WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Wilmington’s biggest event is getting some regional recognition.The Southeast Tourism Society has named the North Carolina Azalea Festival one of the STS Top 20 Events in the Southeast for April 2018.- Advertisement – This year’s Azalea Festival is April 11-15 in and around Wilmington.Travel industry experts select 20 events per month, and STS publicizes them throughout the United States. You can see the full list here.“The Southeast is home to unique and memorable events throughout the year. In spotlighting the Top 20 festivals and events each month, STS is not only giving these events the recognition they deserve but we’re also creating a quick reference guide to some of the best festivals in the Southeast,” said Bill Hardman, president, and CEO of the Southeast Tourism Society. “These events are important to the economic vitality of our communities and this is a way for us to acknowledge the time and resources organizers have tirelessly spent to create memories for their attendees.”Related Article: 2019 Azalea Festival did not disappoint The Azalea Festival has an annual impact of more than $50 million on the local economy, according to a study by UNCW in 2011.Events considered for the STS Top 20 recognition must be at least three years old and have an attendance of at least 1,000.
Wilmington Police are looking for the man captured on surveillance video who they say broke into several cars in Echo Farms on May 24, 2018. (Photo: WPD) WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Wilmington Police are asking for help identifying and finding a man they say broke into several cars and a home early this morning.Police say the man broke into five cars and a house between 3 and 6 a.m. Echo Farms near Newcastleton and Terrington Drive.- Advertisement – Police received video from one of the homes and was able to capture some images of the thief.Anyone with information on the identity of this suspect are asked to call the Wilmington Police Department at (910) 343-3609 or use Text-a-Tip.