What will police reform look like in Palo Alto?

City appears to fall short in some areas

Demonstrators march down El Camino Real near California Avenue to protest police brutality in Palo Alto on June 6. Photo by Lloyd Lee.

News

What will police reform look like in Palo Alto?

City appears to fall short in some areas

Demonstrators march down El Camino Real near California Avenue to protest police brutality in Palo Alto on June 6. Photo by Lloyd Lee.

As the Palo Alto City Council pivots from offering symbolic support for the Black Lives Matter movement to debating real reforms on Monday night, one question that the city has yet to grapple with is: "What should change look like?"

Council members offered little guidance on that point during their June 8 meeting, when they passed a resolution in support of Black Lives Matter and heard from dozens of residents calling for reforms to the Palo Alto Police Department. Some speakers criticized the department for recent incidents involving use of force, called for Police Chief Robert Jonsen to resign and asked the council to "defund the police."

Jonsen countered that the city's police department is already "very progressive" and that its existing policies already align well with those proposed in reform campaigns such as "8 Can't Wait," which was launched by the police-reform nonprofit Campaign Zero.

Council members generally agreed with Councilman Eric Filseth, who called the present moment a good time for "self-reflection" and to consider ways to improve police operations. Mayor Adrian Fine cited "8 Can't Wait" and former President Barack Obama's "Mayor's Pledge" (which asks mayors to review police use-of-force policies, engage communities to solicit diverse input, report findings to the community and reform police policies) as good places to start.

Many residents, including Rev. Kaloma Smith, who chairs the city's Human Relations Commission, and Greer Stone, who serves as vice chair of the Santa Clara County Human Rights Commission, also support "8 Can't Wait." Citing Campaign Zero, Stone told the council on June 8 that cities that have adopted all eight of these policies have had 72% fewer police-involved killings than cities that have adopted none.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

"These are common-sense reforms that have been proven to dramatically reduce the amount of deaths caused by police," Stone said.

Robert Jonsen served as Menlo Park's top cop for four years before he was appointed Palo Alto police chief in 2017. Embarcadero Media file photo.

What would adoption of "8 Can't Wait" policies mean to Palo Alto?

Jonsen said Monday that the city's department is already "really closely aligned" with "8 Can't Wait," in at least seven of the eight areas.

A review of the department's policies and recent incidents offers a more mixed picture, suggesting some significant gaps between the department's practices and the policies recommended by the "8 Can't Wait" campaign. On three of the eight policies, the city appears well aligned. For another one, which pertains to chokeholds and "sleeper holds," the department's policy has been at odds with the campaign's recommendation.

On the remaining four, the department has policies that are largely consistent with "8 Can't Wait," though recent cases and police audits suggest that these policies have not been consistently followed by local officers.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

The Palo Alto Police Department appears to be following the guidelines that "ban shooting at moving vehicles," "require warning before shooting" and require officers to "exhaust all alternatives before shooting."

The department's policy manual explicitly states that shots fired at a moving vehicle are "rarely effective" and directs officers to "move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants."

The policy also bars officers from shooting at any part of the vehicle in an attempt to disable it. The only time an officer is allowed to fire at a moving vehicle is when an officer "reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others."

That, apparently, is a rare occurrence. According to the department, no officer has fired at a moving vehicle in at least 25 years.

Similarly, the two "8 Can't Wait" policies that require warnings — and exhaustion of other alternatives — before shooting are captured in the department's policy manual, which allows an officer to use deadly force only in cases where there is "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" to themselves or someone else. It also allows deadly force when an officer is trying to stop a fleeing subject and believes there is "imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death to any other person if the subject is not immediately apprehended."

"Under such circumstances, a verbal warning should precede the use of deadly force, where feasible," the policy states.

While the department has been the subject of several complaints about excessive force, deadly shootings have been very rare in Palo Alto. The department reports only one such incident in the past 18 years, the 2015 shooting of William Raff outside of a group home in downtown Palo Alto by an officer. Footage of that incident, which was reviewed and released by the Santa Clara District Attorney's Office, showed Raff charging at the police officer while holding a kitchen knife and ignoring repeated admonitions by officers to drop the knife before the officer fired his gun.

Chokeholds in Palo Alto

The one area in which the department's policies have deviated from the recommendations of "8 Can't Wait," the Obama Task Force and other police departments is "carotid control," a grappling technique in which one person bends their arm around another person's neck, cutting off the flow of blood to the brain through the carotid arteries on either side of the windpipe.

In the aftermath of George Floyd's death several police departments, including those in Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix, have declared that they will suspend use of the carotid control hold. California Gov. Gavin Newsom also said that state police will no longer be trained to use this technique.

The "8 Can't Wait" campaign lists "Ban chokeholds and strangleholds" as the very first of its eight proposals for police departments. Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians, the campaign's website states, "results in the unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians." Such restraints "must be banned in all cases."

Marchers hold signs that seek reformed police practices during a peaceful protest in Palo Alto on June 6. Photo by Lloyd Lee.

Until this week, Palo Alto's policy on carotid control holds (or "sleeper holds") didn't go nearly that far. The department's policy manual states that proper use of carotid control hold "may be effective in restraining a violent or combative individual," though it restricts use of the tactic to officers who successfully complete training.

It also advises officers to limit carotid control only to those situations in which a subject is "violent or physically resisting" or in which they have "demonstrated an intention to be violent and reasonably appear to have potential to harm officers, him/herself or others."

The department further restricts use of carotid control hold when an incident involves a woman who is known to be pregnant, an elderly individual or an "obvious juvenile." But even in these cases, the tactic is not prohibited. The policy manual states that its use in these cases "should generally be avoided unless the totality of the circumstances indicates that other available options reasonably appear ineffective, or would present a greater danger to the officer, the subject or others, and the officer reasonably believes that the need to control the individual outweighs the risk of applying a carotid control hold."

On Thursday evening, City Manager Ed Shikada released a report that stated that the department revised the policy earlier this week so that carotid holds are no longer allowed.

According to the Palo Alto Police Department, there has only been one case in the past decade in which an officer employed the tactic — in 2016, when an officer tried to arrest an individual on suspicion of driving under the influence.

According to a report from the city's independent police auditor, the officer took the keys out of the ignition to keep the man from leaving and tried unsuccessfully to pull the driver out of his vehicle. Ultimately, the man got out of his car and began to approach the officer, who fired a Taser.

When the man kept approaching, the officer tackled the man and engaged in a "lengthy wrestling-style struggle" with him on the ground. According to the audit, the officer used a carotid hold in an effort to overcome the driver's resistance and got him into handcuffs just as backup officers arrived.

The auditor concluded that the carotid control hold "appeared to give (the officer) the final advantage that he needed to handcuff the suspect."

When officers don't follow the policy

On the other four "8 Can't Wait" policies, Palo Alto's record is mixed. While the department has policies that are largely consistent with the campaign, recent incidents suggest that officers don't always follow these policies.

Two of these pertain to use of force. "8 Can't Wait" calls for departments to "require use of force continuum," which restricts the most severe force to the "most extreme situations" and creates "clear policy restrictions on the use of each police weapon and tactic."

The reform campaign also asks departments to "require de-escalation" and, where possible, to communicate with subjects, maintain distance and eliminate the need to use force.

But video footage from the arrests of Gustavo Alvarez in February 2018 and of Julio Arevalo in July 2019 shows officers making little effort to "de-escalate" the situation or to avoid using force. In the Alvarez arrest, which was captured by his home surveillance system, officers broke the door to his residence at the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. One pointed his gun at Alvarez, who was unarmed.

Then four officers pinned him to the hood of a car and handcuffed him. He was already restrained when the arresting officer, Sgt. Wayne Benitez, slammed him into the car's windshield. When Alvarez said he was bleeding, Benitez responded, "You're going to be bleeding a whole lot more."

The video from the Arevalo arrest similarly showed an officer using force with little apparent provocation. The surveillance footage, which was obtained by Arevalo's attorney, Cody Salfen, shows Sgt. Thomas DeStefano arresting Arevalo near the entrance to Happy Donuts on El Camino Real. After pinning him to the railing in front of the donut shop, DeStefano appears to flip Arevalo to the ground. The 23-year-old Arevalo reportedly suffered a concussion and a shattered orbital bone and didn't face any charges.

DeStefano was also involved in the 2013 arrest of Los Altos Hills resident Tyler Harney, who reportedly suffered convulsions during a traffic stop. Harney later alleged in a suit that an officer put his knee against Harney's back and neck, while another one pulled and twisted back his arm, injuring his arm and shoulder (the city approved a $250,000 settlement with Harney in 2016).

Consistent with the "8 Can't Wait" campaign, Palo Alto Police Department already has a "duty to intervene" policy that requires any officer who observes another officer using force beyond that which is objectively reasonable shall "intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force."

In the Alvarez arrest, however, none of the officers intervened. Furthermore, the use of force was not mentioned in Benitez's arrest report, despite department policy that states, "Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented promptly, completely and accurately in an appropriate report."

Thus, while the department's policy is consistent with "8 Can't Wait" proposal to "require comprehensive reporting," both Alvarez's arrest and the council's recent actions on police audits raise questions about the city's commitment to transparency and accountability.

During the June 8 meeting, Jonsen highlighted the city's use of body cameras and argued that no other department has a more comprehensive video-capturing system. The department takes pride, he said, in having an independent auditor to ensure increased accountability.

Yet the department's actions haven't always followed the spirit of the "8 Can't Wait" policy on comprehensive reporting. The department has regularly fought requests for the release of video footage from police vehicles and body cameras. Police audits, which had traditionally been released twice a year, are becoming both more rare and more narrow in scope.

In March, the city released the first police audit since October 2018. And last December, the City Council agreed to change the city's contract with the auditing firm, OIR Group, to shield from review incidents that involve internal conflicts within the department. That move followed reports of a 2014 incident in which an officer used a racial epithet toward another officer, who is black. After OIR Group reviewed the incident in early 2019, city leaders reportedly asked the firm not to publicize that report as they began to change the rules to exclude internal conflicts from the auditor's scope.

Jonsen told the council on June 8 that hearing residents criticize the department was "rough." But even as he defended the department from public accusations, he said he believes that the police profession "can do better and must do better."

"Are we capable of improving? Absolutely. Are we willing to improve? Always. That is what we strive for each and every day," Jonsen said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What will police reform look like in Palo Alto?

City appears to fall short in some areas

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:54 am

As the Palo Alto City Council pivots from offering symbolic support for the Black Lives Matter movement to debating real reforms on Monday night, one question that the city has yet to grapple with is: "What should change look like?"

Council members offered little guidance on that point during their June 8 meeting, when they passed a resolution in support of Black Lives Matter and heard from dozens of residents calling for reforms to the Palo Alto Police Department. Some speakers criticized the department for recent incidents involving use of force, called for Police Chief Robert Jonsen to resign and asked the council to "defund the police."

Jonsen countered that the city's police department is already "very progressive" and that its existing policies already align well with those proposed in reform campaigns such as "8 Can't Wait," which was launched by the police-reform nonprofit Campaign Zero.

Council members generally agreed with Councilman Eric Filseth, who called the present moment a good time for "self-reflection" and to consider ways to improve police operations. Mayor Adrian Fine cited "8 Can't Wait" and former President Barack Obama's "Mayor's Pledge" (which asks mayors to review police use-of-force policies, engage communities to solicit diverse input, report findings to the community and reform police policies) as good places to start.

Many residents, including Rev. Kaloma Smith, who chairs the city's Human Relations Commission, and Greer Stone, who serves as vice chair of the Santa Clara County Human Rights Commission, also support "8 Can't Wait." Citing Campaign Zero, Stone told the council on June 8 that cities that have adopted all eight of these policies have had 72% fewer police-involved killings than cities that have adopted none.

"These are common-sense reforms that have been proven to dramatically reduce the amount of deaths caused by police," Stone said.

What would adoption of "8 Can't Wait" policies mean to Palo Alto?

Jonsen said Monday that the city's department is already "really closely aligned" with "8 Can't Wait," in at least seven of the eight areas.

A review of the department's policies and recent incidents offers a more mixed picture, suggesting some significant gaps between the department's practices and the policies recommended by the "8 Can't Wait" campaign. On three of the eight policies, the city appears well aligned. For another one, which pertains to chokeholds and "sleeper holds," the department's policy has been at odds with the campaign's recommendation.

On the remaining four, the department has policies that are largely consistent with "8 Can't Wait," though recent cases and police audits suggest that these policies have not been consistently followed by local officers.

The Palo Alto Police Department appears to be following the guidelines that "ban shooting at moving vehicles," "require warning before shooting" and require officers to "exhaust all alternatives before shooting."

The department's policy manual explicitly states that shots fired at a moving vehicle are "rarely effective" and directs officers to "move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants."

The policy also bars officers from shooting at any part of the vehicle in an attempt to disable it. The only time an officer is allowed to fire at a moving vehicle is when an officer "reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others."

That, apparently, is a rare occurrence. According to the department, no officer has fired at a moving vehicle in at least 25 years.

Similarly, the two "8 Can't Wait" policies that require warnings — and exhaustion of other alternatives — before shooting are captured in the department's policy manual, which allows an officer to use deadly force only in cases where there is "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" to themselves or someone else. It also allows deadly force when an officer is trying to stop a fleeing subject and believes there is "imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death to any other person if the subject is not immediately apprehended."

"Under such circumstances, a verbal warning should precede the use of deadly force, where feasible," the policy states.

While the department has been the subject of several complaints about excessive force, deadly shootings have been very rare in Palo Alto. The department reports only one such incident in the past 18 years, the 2015 shooting of William Raff outside of a group home in downtown Palo Alto by an officer. Footage of that incident, which was reviewed and released by the Santa Clara District Attorney's Office, showed Raff charging at the police officer while holding a kitchen knife and ignoring repeated admonitions by officers to drop the knife before the officer fired his gun.

The one area in which the department's policies have deviated from the recommendations of "8 Can't Wait," the Obama Task Force and other police departments is "carotid control," a grappling technique in which one person bends their arm around another person's neck, cutting off the flow of blood to the brain through the carotid arteries on either side of the windpipe.

In the aftermath of George Floyd's death several police departments, including those in Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix, have declared that they will suspend use of the carotid control hold. California Gov. Gavin Newsom also said that state police will no longer be trained to use this technique.

The "8 Can't Wait" campaign lists "Ban chokeholds and strangleholds" as the very first of its eight proposals for police departments. Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians, the campaign's website states, "results in the unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians." Such restraints "must be banned in all cases."

Until this week, Palo Alto's policy on carotid control holds (or "sleeper holds") didn't go nearly that far. The department's policy manual states that proper use of carotid control hold "may be effective in restraining a violent or combative individual," though it restricts use of the tactic to officers who successfully complete training.

It also advises officers to limit carotid control only to those situations in which a subject is "violent or physically resisting" or in which they have "demonstrated an intention to be violent and reasonably appear to have potential to harm officers, him/herself or others."

The department further restricts use of carotid control hold when an incident involves a woman who is known to be pregnant, an elderly individual or an "obvious juvenile." But even in these cases, the tactic is not prohibited. The policy manual states that its use in these cases "should generally be avoided unless the totality of the circumstances indicates that other available options reasonably appear ineffective, or would present a greater danger to the officer, the subject or others, and the officer reasonably believes that the need to control the individual outweighs the risk of applying a carotid control hold."

On Thursday evening, City Manager Ed Shikada released a report that stated that the department revised the policy earlier this week so that carotid holds are no longer allowed.

According to the Palo Alto Police Department, there has only been one case in the past decade in which an officer employed the tactic — in 2016, when an officer tried to arrest an individual on suspicion of driving under the influence.

According to a report from the city's independent police auditor, the officer took the keys out of the ignition to keep the man from leaving and tried unsuccessfully to pull the driver out of his vehicle. Ultimately, the man got out of his car and began to approach the officer, who fired a Taser.

When the man kept approaching, the officer tackled the man and engaged in a "lengthy wrestling-style struggle" with him on the ground. According to the audit, the officer used a carotid hold in an effort to overcome the driver's resistance and got him into handcuffs just as backup officers arrived.

The auditor concluded that the carotid control hold "appeared to give (the officer) the final advantage that he needed to handcuff the suspect."

On the other four "8 Can't Wait" policies, Palo Alto's record is mixed. While the department has policies that are largely consistent with the campaign, recent incidents suggest that officers don't always follow these policies.

Two of these pertain to use of force. "8 Can't Wait" calls for departments to "require use of force continuum," which restricts the most severe force to the "most extreme situations" and creates "clear policy restrictions on the use of each police weapon and tactic."

The reform campaign also asks departments to "require de-escalation" and, where possible, to communicate with subjects, maintain distance and eliminate the need to use force.

But video footage from the arrests of Gustavo Alvarez in February 2018 and of Julio Arevalo in July 2019 shows officers making little effort to "de-escalate" the situation or to avoid using force. In the Alvarez arrest, which was captured by his home surveillance system, officers broke the door to his residence at the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. One pointed his gun at Alvarez, who was unarmed.

Then four officers pinned him to the hood of a car and handcuffed him. He was already restrained when the arresting officer, Sgt. Wayne Benitez, slammed him into the car's windshield. When Alvarez said he was bleeding, Benitez responded, "You're going to be bleeding a whole lot more."

The video from the Arevalo arrest similarly showed an officer using force with little apparent provocation. The surveillance footage, which was obtained by Arevalo's attorney, Cody Salfen, shows Sgt. Thomas DeStefano arresting Arevalo near the entrance to Happy Donuts on El Camino Real. After pinning him to the railing in front of the donut shop, DeStefano appears to flip Arevalo to the ground. The 23-year-old Arevalo reportedly suffered a concussion and a shattered orbital bone and didn't face any charges.

DeStefano was also involved in the 2013 arrest of Los Altos Hills resident Tyler Harney, who reportedly suffered convulsions during a traffic stop. Harney later alleged in a suit that an officer put his knee against Harney's back and neck, while another one pulled and twisted back his arm, injuring his arm and shoulder (the city approved a $250,000 settlement with Harney in 2016).

Consistent with the "8 Can't Wait" campaign, Palo Alto Police Department already has a "duty to intervene" policy that requires any officer who observes another officer using force beyond that which is objectively reasonable shall "intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force."

In the Alvarez arrest, however, none of the officers intervened. Furthermore, the use of force was not mentioned in Benitez's arrest report, despite department policy that states, "Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented promptly, completely and accurately in an appropriate report."

Thus, while the department's policy is consistent with "8 Can't Wait" proposal to "require comprehensive reporting," both Alvarez's arrest and the council's recent actions on police audits raise questions about the city's commitment to transparency and accountability.

During the June 8 meeting, Jonsen highlighted the city's use of body cameras and argued that no other department has a more comprehensive video-capturing system. The department takes pride, he said, in having an independent auditor to ensure increased accountability.

Yet the department's actions haven't always followed the spirit of the "8 Can't Wait" policy on comprehensive reporting. The department has regularly fought requests for the release of video footage from police vehicles and body cameras. Police audits, which had traditionally been released twice a year, are becoming both more rare and more narrow in scope.

In March, the city released the first police audit since October 2018. And last December, the City Council agreed to change the city's contract with the auditing firm, OIR Group, to shield from review incidents that involve internal conflicts within the department. That move followed reports of a 2014 incident in which an officer used a racial epithet toward another officer, who is black. After OIR Group reviewed the incident in early 2019, city leaders reportedly asked the firm not to publicize that report as they began to change the rules to exclude internal conflicts from the auditor's scope.

Jonsen told the council on June 8 that hearing residents criticize the department was "rough." But even as he defended the department from public accusations, he said he believes that the police profession "can do better and must do better."

"Are we capable of improving? Absolutely. Are we willing to improve? Always. That is what we strive for each and every day," Jonsen said.

Comments

Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 12, 2020 at 10:22 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 12, 2020 at 10:22 am
13 people like this

It's being widely reported that the Minneapolis cop who killed Floyd will retire with a pension of between $1 million and $1.5 million even if he's convicted of murder as required by the police union contract.

What's PA doing to limit these payouts to PA cops who "retire" with much more lucrative payouts even while we the taxpayers pay the legal settlements to their victims? Penalizing bad cops for their actions ,might encourage good cops to rein them in.


Joe
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2020 at 10:47 am
Joe, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2020 at 10:47 am
17 people like this

The following are the Part I crimes that have occurred in Palo Alto
the past few years. The PAPD has responded to all of these crimes.

It's doubtful that anyone in the small group "protesting" the PAPD
have any idea that these crimes happened here--or give a care about
the victims of these crimes.

Crimes.....2010..2011..2012..2013..2014..2015..2016..2017...2018..2019
Homicide.....0.....0.....0.....0.....1.....1.....1.....0......0.......1
Rape.........4.....3.....5.....4.....4....13....10....11......6......10
Robbery*....39....25....26....30....26....26....28....39.....30......46
Assault**...70....35....23....21....24....27....35....40.....38......29
Burglary....21....287...332..242...273...212...221...215.....234....179
Larceny/
Theft....1,083....937.1,048.1,179..975.1,407.1,161.1,477...1,197..1,724
Stolen
Vehicles....49....38....48....69....68....87....65....92.....83......83
Arson*......23....13....12....10.....3.....5.....8.....6......9.......8
Totals...1,485.1,338.1,494.1,555.1,374.1,778.1,529.1,880..1,597...2,080

Notice that the Part I crimes have been fairly constant until 2019. It's
a shame that the Council seems unaware of the level of crime in the PA,
or never discusses it at council meetings. The PAPD chief certainly
should have been more proactive in his defense of his department--
particularly since many of those arrested for these crimes are not
Palo Alto residents.

It would pay for the PAPD to produce more data about the department's
activities--but that information would be of no value to this mob screaming
for blood.

Would be interesting to know how many of those in this throng have been
arrested in the past for crimes here in Palo Alto, or elsewhere.


FBI Invistigating PAPD
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 am
FBI Invistigating PAPD, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 am
11 people like this

NBC announced today, 6-11, that the FBI has opened an investigation of the PAPD.
See article here:
Web Link

If the PAPD cannot be held accountable, then all the reforms in 8 Can't Wait won't matter.

Not only do the PAPD Use of Force guidelines instruct all Officers present to intervene when an Officer is using inappropriate force such as Sgt. Benitz did when he brutalized Gustavo Alvarez, they also are to immediately report it to a PAPD Supervisor. Yet none did after the Alvarez incident. Not one Officer filed a report or contacted a Supervisor, intentionally ignoring all guidlines.

Then there was Julio Arevalo whom Agent DeStefano alone injured, seemingly needlessly. We see this incident in gory detail, not from PAPD video, which nearly a year later has not been released, but from Happy Donuts video. Other police arriving on the scene clearly saw Arevalo injured, yet he was not taken prompty to the hospital but to the police station, counter to guidlines. Only later was he taken to Stanford hospital.

Somehow accountability must be addressed not only for Officers but up the chain of command where Benitz was a Sgt, Perrez a Lieutenant, now a Capt. And the Chief.


ResidentX
South of Midtown
on Jun 12, 2020 at 2:17 pm
ResidentX, South of Midtown
on Jun 12, 2020 at 2:17 pm
14 people like this

Is logic and sanity completely gone from Palo Alto?
Every action has consequences. If you convert police into someone who will talk to a guy braking into YOUR car, a guy holding a knife to YOUR throat, someone braking into YOUR home: "I am sorry, sir, can you please take this person's money, car, house, and go?"
I really hope that every person writing comments and articles asking for moving Palo Alto closer to anarchy will experience it 1st person on the victim receiving end (and only them hopefully).


Carl Jones
Palo Verde
on Jun 12, 2020 at 2:27 pm
Carl Jones, Palo Verde
on Jun 12, 2020 at 2:27 pm
5 people like this

Let's put our money where our mouth is. [quote from the article above: Jonsen said Monday that the city's department is already "really closely aligned" with "8 Can't Wait," in at least seven of the eight areas.]

If our current policies are "well aligned" or "consistent with" 8 Can't Wait, then let's formally adopt them and join other cities and police departments across the country who are publicly committing to following these rules. I support this not in any way to punish our police department. I have attended the Palo Alto Citizens' Police Academy and recommend it highly to anyone who wants to know more about the department, the men and women who work there, and what their job entails. I support it because I believe that it is the right thing to do.

If there is a 'downside' to doing so, then let's have the Chief document and present the particulars to the City in a public session.


Resident
Downtown North
on Jun 12, 2020 at 2:44 pm
Resident, Downtown North
on Jun 12, 2020 at 2:44 pm
8 people like this

PAPD is being sued for police brutality
Web Link

Between PAPD Chief Jonson, City Manager Ed Shakida and City Mayor Adrian Fine, we have quite the trio in Palo Alto that led to the perfect storm of a ridiculous Palo Alto Curfew of 10 days.

Any single one of them could have stopped the curfew from happening but the 3 came together and thought it was a great idea, leading to ALCU threatening to sue our city.

Then you had Liz Kniss backing Mayor Adrian Fine at the last city council meeting for his incompetence. Not only do the current council members never take responsibility for their mistakes (ex. Mayor Adrian Fine and 10 day city wide curfew) but then you have a system where they have developed relationships so Liz Kniss then backs up Adrian Fine's actions, no matter how outrageous it is (and vice versa).

LIz Kniss is being termed out. Here is to hoping she doesn't pull the strings of Adrian Fine from behind the scenes after she is no on City Council.


Nice Reporting
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 12, 2020 at 3:29 pm
Nice Reporting, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 12, 2020 at 3:29 pm
4 people like this

Gennady,

Nice reporting and article!


Resident
Midtown
on Jun 12, 2020 at 3:41 pm
Resident, Midtown
on Jun 12, 2020 at 3:41 pm
9 people like this

Other than the Buena Vista incident, has there ever been a problem with Palo Alto police officers? What is this sudden fabrication that we need to reform the Palo Alto police, of all forces.

And based on what you see on their CNN screens, Palo Alto residents suddenly think its time to turn on their own police, the same entity that has kept your town safe and squeaky-clean for decades?

Show some respect!
Show some appreciation!



Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 12, 2020 at 4:00 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 12, 2020 at 4:00 pm
6 people like this

Yes, there have been other problems. Just read the Diana Diamond piece from a few days ago about whether or not it can -- or did -- happen here.

Web Link


Bay
East Palo Alto
on Jun 12, 2020 at 9:20 pm
Bay, East Palo Alto
on Jun 12, 2020 at 9:20 pm
7 people like this

I didn't even bother reading the article for Gennady Sheyner white washed all of Chief Jonsen's violations in Gennady's story, "Q&A with the top cop," Web Link

The article cites Chief Jonsen admiting that he is withholding videos in violation of the law; and that he refuses to explain why an officer's recordings are missing even though he knows why.

He claims that all of the incident was recorded but the second officer who did record the incident separated from the sergeant when she illegally entered and searched the woman's house. There is no video when the sergeant was by herself with the woman suffering from a brain tumor.


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 14, 2020 at 8:30 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 14, 2020 at 8:30 am
5 people like this

Maybe you could get comments on the FBI civil rights investigation into PA police reported just this week and that in addition to the Benitez incident "The TV station said the FBI might also be investigating other incidents or possibly the entire Palo Alto Police Department." (June 11)

Web Link

" FBI Probes Civil Rights Complaints Against Palo Alto Police Department
Court records show the FBI is investigating the violent arrest of a Palo Alto man in 2018. Video and audio from the incident shows a Palo Alto police officer slam the handcuffed man's head into a car windshield, and later, appear to mock him for being gay. "


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.