New articles on an old story

[KD5NRH]

I don't know if this was discussed here when it happened, but my quick search didn't turn anything up.
(I'm linking the printer version due to language in the comments of the regular version)

http://reason.com/blog/printer/130642.html

Another Isolated Incident

Radley Balko | December 18, 2008, 3:00pm

But not a drug raid. A prostitution raid.

It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn's home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.

As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.

All this is according to a lawsuit filed in Galveston federal court by Milburn against the officers. The lawsuit alleges that the officers thought Dymond, an African-American, was a hooker due to the "tight shorts" she was wearing, despite not fitting the racial description of any of the female suspects. The police went to the wrong house, two blocks away from the area of the reported illegal activity...

So you'd think that after the police figured out they had the wrong house, they'd apologize, and possibly even compensate the girl and her family. According to the lawsuit, you'd be wrong:

After the incident, Dymond was hospitalized and suffered black eyes as well as throat and ear drum injuries.

Three weeks later, according to the lawsuit, police went to Dymond's school, where she was an honor student, and arrested her for assaulting a public servant. Griffin says the allegations stem from when Dymond fought back against the three men who were trying to take her from her home. The case went to trial, but the judge declared it a mistrial on the first day, says Griffin. The new trial is set for February.

I have a call into the Galveston district attorney and with Dymond Milburn's lawyer. We're going on a press account of one side of a lawsuit, here. So it's possible—and I would hope—that there are some important details missing.

Otherwise, a police mistake leads to an innocent 12-year-old getting violently snatched up and roughed up by a group of plainclothes cops jumping out of a van . . . and they charge her for resisting?

(I can't find a comment-free option on this one, so don't scroll past the end of the story unless you're old enough.)
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs ... arrest.php

Police Get The Wrong House In Galveston, Allegedly Assault 12-Year-Old Girl
Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:37:01 PM
It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn's home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.

As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.


All this is according to a lawsuit filed in Galveston federal court by Milburn against the officers. The lawsuit alleges that the officers thought Dymond, an African-American, was a hooker due to the "tight shorts" she was wearing, despite not fitting the racial description of any of the female suspects. The police went to the wrong house, two blocks away from the area of the reported illegal activity, Milburn's attorney, Anthony Griffin, tells Hair Balls.

After the incident, Dymond was hospitalized and suffered black eyes as well as throat and ear drum injuries.

Three weeks later, according to the lawsuit, police went to Dymond's school, where she was an honor student, and arrested her for assaulting a public servant. Griffin says the allegations stem from when Dymond fought back against the three men who were trying to take her from her home. The case went to trial, but the judge declared it a mistrial on the first day, says Griffin. The new trial is set for February.

"I think we'll be okay," says Griffin. "I don't think a jury will find a 12-year-old girl guilty who's just sitting outside her house. Any 12-year-old attacked by three men and told that she's a prostitute is going to scream and yell for Daddy and hit back and do whatever she can. She's scared to death."

Since the incident more than two years ago, Dymond regularly suffers nightmares in which police officers are raping and beating her and cutting off her fingers, according to the lawsuit.
Griffin says he expects to enter mediation with the officers in early 2009 to resolve the lawsuit.

We've got calls in to the officers' lawyer; we'll let you know if we hear something.

Update: This is from the officers' lawyer, William Helfand:

Both the daughter and the father were arrested for assaulting a peace officer. "The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off."

Also, "The city has investigated the matter and found that the conduct of the police officers was appropriate under the circumstances," Helfand says. "It's unfortunate that sometimes police officers have to use force against people who are using force against them. And the evidence will show that both these folks violated the law and forcefully resisted arrest."

[seamusTX]

Wow, I was asleep at the switch on this issue. Thanks for posting it.

The incident took place a brisk 10-minute walk from my home. The area is indeed frequented by prostitutes, drug dealers, and other people that you would not bring home to introduce to your mother.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Dymond+Milburn+galveston" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a link to the complaint, with names and allegations: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/08/2 ... onCops.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The attorney filing this case, Anthony Griffin, is not an ambulance chaser. He knows his way around federal court.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

The second jury trial of Dymond Milburn ended in a mistrial yesterday, when the jury announced that they were deadlocked after 8 hours of deliberation.

Ms. Milburn was accused of assaulting officers who arrested her in August 2006, when she was 12 years old. District Attorney Kirk Sistrunk stated that he will not pursue the case further.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... 26167aab1c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[wheelgun1958]

"The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off."

Fight? Somebody would be dead if it was my child. This kind of nonsense needs to stop, and it need to stop NOW!

Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
PC 99.31. SELF-DEFENSE.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force
than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's
(or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than
necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter
except as provided in Sections 9.32,9.33, and 9.34.

PC 99.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.

[seamusTX]

I agree that there is way too much of plainclothes officers in unmarked cars doing things that could result in terrible outcomes.

You never know all the facts about a case unless you sit through it. The testimony that she said, "I hate the police," is bizarre. However, I can't see an unarmed 12-year-old girl putting up enough of a fight to be guilty of felony assault against three adult men.

- Jim

[mr.72]

I have a 12 year old daughter and a 15 year old daughter. I can tell you flatly that if this happened at my house, I would have had zero hesitation shooting the so-called "plainclothes police officers".

This is infuriating. They should charge the jurors who deadlocked this case. Where are the felony assault charges against the officers? Where are the charges against the police department?

As long as police officers look and act like criminals, then you had better bet they are going to wind up being treated like criminals by law-abiding people. I can't see how there is any difference. Three armed men jump out of a van and assault a 12 year old girl are a group of thugs whether they have a badge in their pocket or not. Certainly between three police officers, they could have identified themselves, displayed a badge, and said "I am officer so-and-so. You are being arrested for suspicion of prostitution. Do you understand?" and then the girl would have screamed for her dad who would have shown up and they could settle this easily.

[seamusTX]

There is a high level of presumption that the police are justified in their actions. If they do something like raid the wrong house, it's called a mistake. That's how the system works.

I have aroused the ire of a few people in this forum by saying that you had better cooperate with the police even if they are wrong.

This was just an unarmed 12-year-old girl who was minding her business in her own yard. She needed treatment in a hospital after her arrest, and she was charged with felony assault and tried twice. I don't know if her lawyer is working pro bono. I hope so, or this family will be in hock for the rest of their lives.

Now, imagine what would happen to an armed adult man (CHL holder) who gives a cop attitude.

- Jim

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

My daughter + my house + my yard = dead police officers.

They are in plain clothes in a van. If I see something like that cruising through my neighborhood I take a plate number, just to be safe. They had NO right to do that. She was black, they were looking for white. How can they screw up so bad? It also seems to me that they need to look at their arresting techniques. This crap is getting outta control. Its ridiculous and makes me sick.

[casingpoint]

Cops mirror the general work force population, an exponentially increasing number of incompetent persons.

[mr.72]

My daughter + my house + my yard = dead police officers.

Maybe. But more likely, shot-at or injured police officers, and you would wind up being shot to death. I suspect the moment you draw, you will be fired upon.

I don't like my odds in a shootout with three plainclothes police officers, and I wouldn't like this to have to happen with my daughter in the crossfire. I guess I just really, really hope the police would be a little more professional and competent if the same thing were to happen to me.

[NcongruNt]

One thing that really irritates me about the facts as they have been presented so far...

There seems to be some sort of protocol missing here. Last I was aware, there needed to be some sort of cause to establish that someone was in the commission of or having recently committed a crime to pull someone off the street, especially with the force described. Driving up and seeing someone in a yard doesn't seem to meet what would be ordinarily required to arrest someone on the suspicion of prostitution. Maybe I've seen too many episodes of "Cops", but it appears to be standard procedure to establish intent before moving in with a sting van. Unless this girl walked up and made some sort of deal for services on no uncertain terms with a plain-clothes/undercover officer, I don't see how their actions could be justified. Even more outrageous is that the girl did not (other than being female) match the descriptions of the suspects they were supposedly called out to investigate or apprehend. Something stinks badly here.

[mr.72]

What stinks badly is the rotting corpse of liberty in America.

[Kythas]

If I heard my 12 year old daughter yelling for help and went outside to see 3 men beating her and trying to carry her into an unmarked van, I'd start firing. Period. No question about it.

[mr.72]

If I heard my 12 year old daughter yelling for help and went outside to see 3 men beating her and trying to carry her into an unmarked van, I'd start firing. Period. No question about it.

I think I would too. However, I think if either of us did that and it turned out to be cops, we'd get shot.

This is why the police need to be held to account for this. Their actions endanger normal law-abiding citizens beyond the victim of their own unlawful arrest.

[Sangiovese]

Maybe. But more likely, shot-at or injured police officers, and you would wind up being shot to death. I suspect the moment you draw, you will be fired upon.

I don't like my odds in a shootout with three plainclothes police officers, and I wouldn't like this to have to happen with my daughter in the crossfire. I guess I just really, really hope the police would be a little more professional and competent if the same thing were to happen to me.

I agree with all points.

However, it doesn't matter what my odds of survival are... if it appears to me that I need to take immediate action to save my daughter's life, I'm going to take it, no matter how severe the risk to myself - and do my best to get both of us out of it alive.

As for my daughter being in the crossfire... I would hate to ever have to discharge my weapon with a loved one anywhere near the field of fire. However, when a young girl disappears into an abductor's vehicle, her odds of making it home are very, very small. I would accept the risk of firing at her abductors because in my view she would have a much larger chance of surviving me shooting near her than she would have after that van disappeared around the corner.

I don't know all the facts of the case (I doubt anybody but those directly involved do) but if the news stories above are accurate, I don't know how a reasonable person at the scene would be able to believe that it was anything other than an abduction. Its disgraceful that the girl and her father were charged at all. The fact that it turns out that it was not an abduction doesn't matter... with the situation as described, I don't see how anyone could argue that neither the girl nor her father had a "reasonable belief" that a kidnapping was occurring. And the law clearly states that the use of deadly force is lawful to prevent a kidnapping. The law doesn't say beans about "... unless the apparent abductor happens to have a badge."

In the interest of balance, it would be interesting to hear the officers' account. Why didn't they clearly identify themselves? Why they felt that such force was required? And if force was required, why not take her to the ground and restrain her instead of moving her away from her home and giving the appearance of an abduction?