Posted on Jul 17, 2015
Should this be considered a "Civil Rights Violation?"
5.93K
27
29
4
4
0
Police dashboard cameras, on June 2nd 2013, capture two officers shooting Ricardo Diaz-Zeferino (who was drunk) that ended with his death. What it doesn't show is how Ricardo was not armed. According to witnesses, he was trying to plead to the police officers how they had the wrong men. The "stolen bike" actually had belonged to his brother and Ricardo and his friends were looking for it.
The bike had been stolen from a CVS parking lot. The police "erroneously reported it as a robbery and made it a high-priority call raising the specter of armed suspects." The policemen say that from one angle, it looked like he was reaching into his pocket and they thought that he was reaching for a weapon; therefore, fearing for their lives.
The city of Gardena settled a lawsuit that the Zeferino family filed, as well as the man who was injured by the shooting, by paying 4.7 million.
NOW, the family attorney Samuel Paz wants the federal prosecutors to investigate whether this shooting was a "Civil Rights" violation.
Do you think Samuel Paz's argument holds water? Is this a civil rights violation or just another horrible accident and incident were two cops were just a little too "trigger happy?"
http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2015/Video-of-police-shooting-released-after-AP-wins-court-decision
The bike had been stolen from a CVS parking lot. The police "erroneously reported it as a robbery and made it a high-priority call raising the specter of armed suspects." The policemen say that from one angle, it looked like he was reaching into his pocket and they thought that he was reaching for a weapon; therefore, fearing for their lives.
The city of Gardena settled a lawsuit that the Zeferino family filed, as well as the man who was injured by the shooting, by paying 4.7 million.
NOW, the family attorney Samuel Paz wants the federal prosecutors to investigate whether this shooting was a "Civil Rights" violation.
Do you think Samuel Paz's argument holds water? Is this a civil rights violation or just another horrible accident and incident were two cops were just a little too "trigger happy?"
http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2015/Video-of-police-shooting-released-after-AP-wins-court-decision
Posted in these groups: 
Police
Human Rights
Police Human Rights
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
Is it a civil rights violation? Who knows? It would need to have been because he was hispanic. That said, police have to be held to a high standard. "Oops" should never be good enough and it's a fair question to ask why they showed no restraint in this particular situation, especially when dealing with a drunk person. "I was scared" has become something of a get out of jail free card and that's not okay.
And before anyone chimes in with the usual stuff - I support police. I have close family who are police. It is completely acceptable to support those who have the authority to use deadly force but hold them to a higher standard and expect there to be real consequences when poor judgement resulting in death happens.
And before anyone chimes in with the usual stuff - I support police. I have close family who are police. It is completely acceptable to support those who have the authority to use deadly force but hold them to a higher standard and expect there to be real consequences when poor judgement resulting in death happens.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Oh no SGT Jeremiah B. I totally support what you have said. They are becoming trigger happy. No restraint. No patience. I don't even know if they were relieved of duty. I need to find out. But if this is to be considered a civil rights violation, wouldn't they have to be saying something.... derogatory?
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT (Join to see) - No. It "simply" has to be established that those same police would have acted differently had the victim been a different race. That's really hard to establish unless they have patterns in their arrest records that defy demographic expectations and even then, not exactly easy.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT (Join to see) - MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca makes a fair point in his comment about race not necessarily being required for a civil rights violation.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT (Join to see)
Those who know me know that I am the first person who believe that badges don't grant extra rights, cops should be held to a higher standard, etc.
But at the same time I watched this video and it clearly shows Diaz-Zeferino lowering his hands and apparently reaching toward his pocket.
I don't possibly see how that could be a civil rights violation. But as I mentioned to SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", some people will make that claim anyway because Diaz-Zeferino is Hispanic and the cops who shot him appear to be Caucasian. They will attempt to make it all about race and civil rights, ignoring what the video reveals.
Those who know me know that I am the first person who believe that badges don't grant extra rights, cops should be held to a higher standard, etc.
But at the same time I watched this video and it clearly shows Diaz-Zeferino lowering his hands and apparently reaching toward his pocket.
I don't possibly see how that could be a civil rights violation. But as I mentioned to SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", some people will make that claim anyway because Diaz-Zeferino is Hispanic and the cops who shot him appear to be Caucasian. They will attempt to make it all about race and civil rights, ignoring what the video reveals.
(2)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
PO1 (Join to see) it was dark and he moved his hands toward his pocket after the cops told him to keep his hands up.
As you read above, I believe that cops should be held accountable for their actions and am in no way a "cop lover." With that said if a cop has their gun pointed at me I am not going to do anything but follow their instructions. I guarantee you they can pull the trigger faster than I can reach for a weapon (assuming I'm carrying one), aim, and fire it.
As you read above, I believe that cops should be held accountable for their actions and am in no way a "cop lover." With that said if a cop has their gun pointed at me I am not going to do anything but follow their instructions. I guarantee you they can pull the trigger faster than I can reach for a weapon (assuming I'm carrying one), aim, and fire it.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Cops have a hard job. I almost went into Police force, I am glad I didn't. These guys are constantly being challenged for no other reason than they are the police.
In this scenario what failed here? I think their training failed them. Personally, more intensive training possibly would have resulted in a better outcome. Maybe? I don't know, just trying to come up with a solution.
In this scenario what failed here? I think their training failed them. Personally, more intensive training possibly would have resulted in a better outcome. Maybe? I don't know, just trying to come up with a solution.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Essentially, unduly depriving any citizen of their life without justifiable cause regardless of race or ethnic background is a violation of their civil rights. Only a thorough investigation will dispel the he said/she said and he saw/she saw contradictions that will arise and get to the heart of the matter - was there a legitimate reason for the officers to shoot and kill the victim?
Involving race as a factor would distinguish as to whether or not this was a hate crime or undue racial profiling.
Involving race as a factor would distinguish as to whether or not this was a hate crime or undue racial profiling.
(2)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
Interesting take. It never occurs to me that "White on White" can be a deprivation of civil rights since we usually frame it in racial or ethnic terms. Do you think that would fly in court or would the police saying it wasn't motivated by bias get them out of that particular charge?
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Like you, I try to respect law enforcement and the decisions they have to make SGT Jeremiah B.. This is all premised on the theft of a bicycle, for all intensive purposes, a non-violent crime, like so many of the others that have triggered (pun intended) forceful and violent reactions by police. I think it has a good chance of being argued as a CR case. There would have to be some hefty evidence against the victim to justify the shooting and the police are going to have to show at what point their lives were in imminent danger to even draw their side arms for these guys to get off.
Used to be police even drawing their side arms was a major event. Today it seems to be an all too common occurrence. Whether its so many criminals carrying or being protective of themselves, I'm not going to second guess why it's being done. I will question why it escalates so fast from stopping a suspect to drawing especially when these people are unarmed.
Used to be police even drawing their side arms was a major event. Today it seems to be an all too common occurrence. Whether its so many criminals carrying or being protective of themselves, I'm not going to second guess why it's being done. I will question why it escalates so fast from stopping a suspect to drawing especially when these people are unarmed.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I don't recall which Justice said it but taking a life is the ultimate "Seizure" that can happen, SGT Jeremiah B.. A police shooting, falls in line with that reasoning. It's just a case of whether or not it becomes a defense of self or others at that point.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Apparently there was no reason... Since they received 4.7 million. This could go so many ways. What if someone thought they saw a Hispanic steal the bike, would they be profiling then? I know it is a silly question. I totally agree with your take and how SO MANY are just jumping the gun now-a-days. I wonder if it has to do with past people testing the police officers now. But this did happen two years ago. Just so confused. But I am also tired. BLEH
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To me I can see no reason at all that they should have fired. They could have tased the shit outta him. To me that was uncalled for!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SGT (Join to see) The officers actions likely fall under the statute, It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. it just depends on if the DOJ wants to pursue or not.
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | US Law | LII / Legal Information...
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed...
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
"The FBI routinely monitors situations in which an officer’s conduct is alleged to have been in excess of the permissible use of force, and in some instances, provide support to police departments in an effort to ensure a thorough review was done."
I read this part LTC John Shaw and realized that I just answered my own question. I had no idea. This has been a great learning lesson for me.
I read this part LTC John Shaw and realized that I just answered my own question. I had no idea. This has been a great learning lesson for me.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think calling it a CR violation is really pushing it. From the story here, there is no mention of race, denial of civil liberties, no infringement on liberty or the pursuit of happiness. But leave it to the spin doctors, I am sure they will come up with a way... "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, didn't you?" --- Monty Python
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
PO1 Brian Schletty, why did you skip "Life" in your "Liberty or the pursuit of happiness" list?
(0)
(0)
PO1 Brian Schletty
Usually in the case of CR violations, life has not been lost. When there is a loss of life, it crosses over into the category of hate crime... also, any loss of life could be a CR issue, so pursuing on such an avenue could get messy.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
"From the story here, there is no mention of race, denial of civil liberties"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life< Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence
"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " -- Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
You were saying?
We've got a dead man here, and he's dead because agents of the state killed him without due process of law. That's the grossest possible civil rights violation, kiddo. Race doesn't enter into it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life< Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence
"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " -- Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
You were saying?
We've got a dead man here, and he's dead because agents of the state killed him without due process of law. That's the grossest possible civil rights violation, kiddo. Race doesn't enter into it.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Brian Schletty
So by this definition, Murder in the First is also a CR violation; but that is not how it is handled. There are separate criterion, perceptions of the incidents, etc. At the end of the day, it is all in the spin from the lawyers. If it were that simple, the ACLU would be the busiest organization in the US....We all are aware of what the Constitution says. Sadly, it is a living document, subject to interpretation based on the whims of the reader.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I don't like jumping the gun on anything. News and limited public recording. Limited public recording. meaning they only recorded a certain amount of the situation. News will go off that to make their own determination or hypothesis of what might have happened. Unless we get the full story we will not know what actually happened. At such an early point no one should make a conclusion of what happened.. That is just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
This happened 2 years ago, so all the info is out. It is a story now because the judge finally released the ban on the video and is just now open to the public...
(1)
(0)
SrA Christopher Gatzka
O-O wow. I must have missed this one or completely forgotten about it.... Chances are. I completely forgot about it. Just my luck lol!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It happens to the best of us. Honestly I never heard of it. Probably cuz he WAS Hispanic. That is the hard truth.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google