Protesters Sue San Jose for Police Violence During George Floyd Demonstrations

Local civil rights groups and individuals are suing the city of San Jose and its leaders for injuries and violence by police during 2020 George Floyd protests last May.

On Thursday, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of San Jose-Silicon Valley, the nonprofit San Jose Peace and Justice Center and a dozen individuals injured from the protests filed a class action lawsuit in federal court naming Mayor Sam Liccardo, City Manager David Sykes, former SJPD Chief Eddie Garcia and other officers as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the demonstrators and observers were “brutalized” by San Jose police and met with “racially targeted repression” during the late-May demonstrations.

Their goal for the lawsuit: financial compensation for all those injured and “significant reforms of the way that San Jose police are trained and directed to police protests,” lead attorney Rachel Lederman said.

The case is filed as a class action “on behalf of all those who were subjected to police violence, including the use of tear gas and other chemical weapons, explosive grenades, impact munitions, and batons; and all those who were arrested for violating the curfew,” according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

One of the plaintiffs is San Jose resident Michael Acosta, who said he lost his left eye from a rubber bullet fired by police on May 29. At the time, he was photographing the protest, which was a block from his home.

“I never could have imagined that I would be shot in the face and end up losing my eye,” Acosta said. “Over nine months later on, I’m still trying to adapt, to acclimate ... the world seems darker, sometimes narrower, harder to focus.”

Acosta suffered one of the more serious injuries at the protest, but many others, including unhoused advocate Shaun Cartwright, San Jose State University alumna Cindy Cuellar and others had serious bruises, burns and injuries as a result of projectiles shot by police, according to the lawsuit.

California Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-San Jose) is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit because of the injuries and difficulty breathing he suffered because police deployed a chemical agent believed to be tear gas, lawyers said.

“This display of force was an egregious disregard of San Jose residents’ rights to freely express their disapproval of violent and discriminatory policing,” said Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Fellow at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “The city must reconcile with the harm its police have caused, interrupt its culture of white supremacy, and end the legacy of violence.”

Lederman said at least two people were shot in the eye, four in the groin and several others on their body, but it’s very difficult to know how many in total were injured.

She said she has talked to 20 people who were injured and there is another lawsuit against the city with eight different plaintiffs who were also injured.

“I’m sure numerous other people sustained minor injuries, who we haven’t even heard from,” Lederman said. “It’s clear that the city of San Jose’s estimate in which they state that only a very small number of protesters were hurt ... is completely inaccurate.”

She said she believes it is inaccurate because the number of injuries reported by the city is based off of emergency medical response, but she said most people didn’t receive any medical assistance.

Even Acosta, who was shot in front of “a huge line” of police did not receive assistance from officers and had his friend drive him to the hospital, Lederman noted.

“Every one of our plaintiffs was aided by other demonstrators and not by the police,” Lederman said.

Following the protests, the City Council discussed various reforms, most notably a ban on rubber bullets that failed 11-1. The only vote in favor of banning projectiles was San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.

The council voted to publicly post police body-camera footage and voted to put Measure G, which was passed by voters in November to give the city's independent police auditor more authority, on the ballot.

But plaintiffs in this case said the city’s response was inadequate and “embarrassing.”

“It’s been a travesty for the leadership of this city, not to step out and do more for those who were injured or those who were arrested wrongly for running or for defending themselves from the aggressiveness of the police,” said the Rev. Jethroe Moore II, president of the NAACP of San Jose/Silicon Valley.

Moore seemingly fought back tears at the Thursday virtual news conference when he discussed his experiences at the protest.

He said he saw many young children and adults be “dragged across the ground” and pushed by officers, even when they tried to listen to police orders.

“I started trying to direct and help [protesters],” he recounted. “I said no, let’s kneel, let’s pray. Let’s sit let’s not show any resistance to him. And [police] just got more aggressive and aggressive toward us in the crowd. We couldn’t get up, we couldn’t move back, we couldn’t step back quicker than they were pushing us.”

The San Jose Police Officers’ Association, which represents SJPD’s 1,100-plus sworn staff, released a statement following the announcement of the lawsuit.

“San Jose Police officers did the absolute best job they could under volatile and dangerous conditions,” it read. “While many were there to protest peacefully, that certainly was not the case for everyone. Many of our officers were physically attacked during the protests, we had over 100 officers injured in a 24-hour period, the most in our department's history.”

It continued: “Our officers were put in harm's way day after day without adequate staffing support. The San Jose Police Officers’ Association supports the rights of everyone to protest peacefully and we have submitted proposals to the city to increase police staffing so we can better manage these events.”

38 Comments

  1. Next time there are riots masquerading as protests, I hope the Police will use “live” ammunition.
    David S. Wall

  2. What a load of B.S. I’m sorry people were hurt, but they we’re ordered to disperse several times. It’s their own fault they failed to follow that lawful order. I wish the price some of them paid were not so high, but if they were acting in a morally responsible way they would have followed the law and not have been injured. I understand their anger and empathize with them, but it was their own actions that led to their injuries.

  3. DAVID S. WALL you wrote:

    “Next time there are riots masquerading as protests, I hope the Police will use “live” ammunition.”

    First, great you want another KENT STATE incident? Second “LIVE AMMUNITION” would be a criminal act if the conduct is not able to be demonstrated as “LIFE THREATENING”, and so if a cop shot anyone, and the video can demonstrate there was not “threat” to the officer, that officer would wind up being arrested. Work90 you wrote:

    “What a load of B.S. I’m sorry people were hurt, but they we’re ordered to disperse several times. It’s their own fault they failed to follow that lawful order. I wish the price some of them paid were not so high, but if they were acting in a morally responsible way they would have followed the law and not have been injured. I understand their anger and empathize with them, but it was their own actions that led to their injuries.”

    OK, what crimes did they do, what prosecutions are ongoing, or have no charges been filed at all? Infact isn’t this the correct problem that makes the ARRESTS illegal?

    “Three months after protesters took to the streets over the police killing of George Floyd, San Jose officials have decided not to prosecute those arrested on allegations of violating curfew or ignoring orders to disperse during the summer demonstrations.

    In a confidential memo sent to city leaders on Thursday, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY NORA FRIMANN SAID A 1993 COURT CASE REGARDING A CURFEW ORDER ISSUED DURING THE RODNEY KING RIOTS IN LOS ANGELES PUT THE LEGALITY OF SOME OF THE DOZENS OF ARRESTS MADE FOR SAN JOSE CURFEW VIOLATIONS INTO QUESTION AND SERVED AS ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS IN THE CITY’S DECISION.

    The case, People v. Continola, overturned three test cases involving people arrested for merely walking on the streets or being in their cars after curfew. THE JUDGES AT THE TIME RULED THAT POLICE SHOULD HAVE LIMITED THEIR CRACKDOWN ON THE CURFEW ORDER TO INDIVIDUALS WHOSE ACTIONS THREATENED TO “IMPERIL LIVES OR PROPERTY OR PREVENT, HINDER OR DELAY” POLICE OR FIRE PERSONNEL — NONE OF WHICH THE THREE INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTED IN THE CASE WERE INVOLVED IN.

    San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia — frustrated by the city’s decision — said this was the first he had heard of the case.”

    The fact was the POLICE instead of deescalating the situation, WHICH MOST COMPETENT LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE TRAINED TO DO, they PROVOKED AND CREATED MORE OF A PROBLEM. No more excuses for poor law enforcement conduct. I hope they prevail in court.

  4. BY the way George Floydd’s family just got $27Million for the wrongful death of him.

    Now if you all want to continue this path of illegal behavior regarding police killings, so be it.

    My hopes are that the smart phone cameras are going to keep these actions being recorded, and thus people are going to have to be accountable.

  5. Who TF is this Goldstein drooler on every article playing the progressive card? What about justice for all the people who were threatened, business damaged and assaulted by the thugs who were protesting a fentanyl loaded felon. Hey Goldstein this stink hole of a Bay Area just gets better and better for you.. Good job you have succeeded.

  6. THERELIABLEINFORMER you wrote:

    “Who TF is this Goldstein drooler on every article playing the progressive card?”

    I am not a “progressive”, I am a moderate, but continue just NAME CALLING anyone that doesn’t agree with you. You wrote:

    “What about justice for all the people who were threatened, business damaged and assaulted by the thugs who were protesting a fentanyl loaded felon.”

    He may be a felon, but he was KILLED by the STATE with no DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That is why I support BLM, because this is happening all over. This is NOT a “Progressive” argument, it is a “CONSERTVATIVE” one. You wrote:

    “Hey Goldstein this stink hole of a Bay Area just gets better and better for you.. Good job you have succeeded.”

    Well, maybe if it is such a “stink hole” you do have a choice, right? You do not have to be anywhere you think is a “stink hole”. Reminds me of Donald Trump and his name calling regarding countries, states, counties, and cities. Do you have anything other than this to write?

  7. What about the Highway 85 Shooting of Andrew Robert’s in 2019.
    White lives matter.. All lives Matter..
    He Died..SJPD HUMM. ?

  8. The focus of the lawsuits seems to be just what the community should be focused on: 1) compensating victims of San Jose Police Department (SJPD) violence and; 2) significant reforms in SJPD training and practices. Like police unions nationwide, the SJPD has been allowed to set its own operating rules despite what the Police Officers Association (POA) contracts with the City and their own Duty Manual say about their roles, rights and responsibilities in our community (https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-city-council-police-use-of-force-hiring-new-chief/#comment-21706). Because the POA is one of the larger and more active donors for Council member campaigns and constantly lobbies those members, they have been able to maintain a choke hold on City policing policy, despite the infinitesimally small reforms last year.

    If the ultimate authority over the actions and policy of the City police force is not the elected City government, then residents have to start asking some basic and serious questions: 1) What is required to ensure public safety and the enforcement of law in our city of 1,000,000?; 2) What are ways of achieving public safety and law enforcement that are consistent with basic human and civil rights regardless of race, gender, class, faith tradition, sexual preference, etc.?; 3) What kind of policing force is consistent with the answers to 1) and 2)?

    Properly understood, “defunding” the police means reducing the size of the force consistent with San Jose’s real policing needs, using the released resources to address community problems that police cannot solve but are routinely involved in (e.g. houselessness, mental health crises, drug addiction, domestic disputes, poverty). This would reduce the 30% share of the City’s operating budget currently absorbed by the SJPD (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument? id=66457 (see page 125)). “Defunding” the police actually means allocating city resources in a way that more effectively improves the safety, welfare and well-being of city residents.

  9. “He may be a felon, but he was KILLED by the STATE with no DUE PROCESS OF LAW. That is why I support BLM, because this is happening all over. This is NOT a “Progressive” argument, it is a “CONSERTVATIVE” one.” — Steven Goldstein

    The claim that Floyd was “killed by the state” can only be made by someone who has no respect for the truth. Camera footage alone revealed that Floyd, having just committed a crime and fearing consequences he knew well, was highly-agitated, intoxicated, and having or feigning a health crisis. These obvious observations were subsequently explained, at autopsy, as due to his ingestion of dangerous, perhaps fatal doses of street drugs, and preexisting, serious health issues (no internal or external injuries to neck). The police at the scene, their sworn duty to take him into custody, first had to overcome the resistance of this physically formidable man, something they attempted to accomplish a number of ways, none of them working to satisfaction due to Floyd’s successful opposition to their efforts.

    The allegation “killed by the state” means that the state, in this case the police officers, were the agents of his death. But the police had no agency in Floyd’s death, they played no part in Floyd’s intoxication, poor health, and decision to resist arrest. The man was a self-destructive bane on society and self-destruct he did. Any notion that Floyd was deprived “due process” by the behavior of anyone but himself is absurd.

    Anti-police jackals, as expected, want to prosecute the police for having been at the scene and trying to restrain a man who, besides suspected of the crimes alleged, was behind the wheel of a vehicle and, as such, represented a danger to the whole of Minneapolis. What would the jackals have wanted of the police? To walk away and let fate decide if Floyd would kill someone other than himself that day? (Conserving the public safety is conservative, Mr. Goldstein.)

    As for the commonly-repeated claims about police killing unarmed black men, I have to assume that Mr. Goldstein’s belief in this bit of politicized horse manure has something to do with his dearth of math degrees. Police killings of citizens of all types are statistically rare, and in a nation populated by almost 50 million African-Americans, a dozen or so such killings per year qualifies Goldstein’s support of BLM as grossly ignorant.

  10. A March 1 article in Scientific American reviews a recently-released study that concludes: “…[P]laces with Black Lives Matter protests experience a 15% to 20% decrease in police homicides over the ensuing five years [2014-2019], around 300 fewer deaths. The gap in lethal use-of-force between places with and without protests widens over these subsequent years and is most prominent when protests are large or frequent…Protests also influence local police agencies, which may explain the reduction. Agencies with local protests become more likely to obtain body-cameras, expand community policing, receive a larger operating budget, and reduce the number of property crime-related arrests…” (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3767097) Keep in mind, this study excludes the period during and after the unprecedented, massive protests across the U.S. during 2020.

    However, police killings in four of the cities with the some of the most militant activist communities–Minneapolis, Portland, San Francisco and St. Louis–suffered increases in police killings during 2014-2019, prior to the George Floyd protests since May 2020 (See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killings-by-police-declined-after-black-lives-matter-protests1/) Related to the class-action lawsuit against the San Jose Police Department (SJPD) covered in Mr. Alaban’s article, it would be interesting as a local project to review policies and practices of the SJPD before and after 2013, especially after the summer 2020 street confrontations.

    In response to some of the commenters above, it is important to note that there were fewer police killings of Whites as well during the 2014-2019 period, again reminding us that the movement for Black lives has important positive consequences and by-products for White lives and all lives.

    Resistance matters. Activism matters. Black Lives Matter.

  11. There’s the right way…. Then the San Jose way….

    Notice that the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office (Basically showed up to save the day) is not listed in these Lawsuits…. Hmmmmmm….

    The 800-pound Gorilla (The San Jose Police Department) got let out of its cage and started to wreck shop like we are in Russia. Hundreds of videos are out on YOUTUBE that show the violent communication between SJPD and the public… then of course “Target Practice” followed…

    Yet there are no videos like that with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department?? They had hundreds of Deputies on hand to hold the line with the same so called “Non-Lethal” crowd control equipment.

    The SO didn’t start a Rubber Bullet Battle?? They didn’t start giving the public the “Beating Stick”?? They also didn’t start verbally attacking people like some of our favorite “Bad Actors” from SJPD. Those officers talked a lot of “SHAT” see YOUTUBE vids…. Wooooooow…. Tell me how you really feel??

    This could have all been avoided if we had strong leadership at the San Jose Police Department….

    The Community and the San Jose Police Department “Upper Brass” have a horrible relationship thanks to “Fast” Eddie Garcia our previous failure of a Police Chief.

    Eddie, along with the rest of the Muppets in charge, have spent years destroying relationships and stabbing community leaders in the back. Just read in this article how Police Chief Pumpkin Head left Reverend Moore “High and Dry” at the protest?? Not Cool…. Been there done that….

    I was there filming (Legal Observer) and witnessed firsthand Reverend Moore and Derick Sanderlin put themselves in harm’s way to defuse this situation…. These true community leaders needed Chief Eddie Garcia to pull thru with his promises…. Nope… Fast Eddie is all talk…. He jumped ship on everyone….Just a “Big Bull Shatter”….

    I am also not sure if the public understands that hundreds of community leaders where actually at this protest trying to help defuse what was turning into a bad situation fast. Many of them where shoot with Rubber Bullets and Tear Gassed (See Lawsuit and Youtube Vids) Guess how many of these community leaders reached out to Eddie?? Yes folks…. he did them all Dirty….

    All forms of Free Speech in the City of San Jose are under attack. The City has been abusing the ‘Civil Court” channel to file Lawsuits to silence political dissent. It does not matter if you are a protest of 200 or a protest of 1…. The City, the PD, the POA will stick their “Illness Spreading Germ Attorney’s” to shut you down for good…. And I am specifically talking about “Civil and Peaceful” protest… Not Property Damage and Violence…. That’s not cool…

    When you go the so called “Right Route” to put your grievances on the table the democratic way the City will come at you with “Both Barrels” if you hit them where it hurts….if you figure out the SCAM the retaliation starts fast…..

    Try waiting over ten hours at a City Council meeting to have your speaker card thrown out by the Mayor and the meeting adjourned before you can even speak. Or better then that…. Clap at a “Google Land Deal” meeting and get dragged out by SJPD with the “Green Light” from the City Council (They all remain silent) Or go to City Hall to inquire about filing a complaint only to get threatened with trespassing and told to leave the property or be arrested.

    Community justice does not exist in San Jose politics and the system is only designed to protect the City from liability….. Internal Affairs and the IPA are data collectors that are working against the public as far as complaints…. I have done the research and can show exactly how the system works….or should I say “Does not Work” for the public….

    These examples are just the tip of the “San Jose Free Speech Suppression Teams” tactics to shut you up. If you start to gain steam with your activism participating in City Government be prepared for the Lawsuit that’s coming your direction. The City has many of their former employees on the bench and strings will be pulled to honor civil injunctions that are outright harassment. They are Bullies….

    I personally have spent years being sued by the City for a protest of one…. Yes folk….one?? On a sidewalk…. Speaking Truth to Political Power and calling out the Muppet’s for their corruption at the PD…

    This same process is abused in Criminal Court thru Municipal Codes that are un constitutional to begin with…. The city is making up the Law without public participation….

    The City is spending millions to stop the public from having a voice about the future of our community.

    It is only getting worse folks…. The City is grooming Eddie Garcia 2.0 as we speak to follow in the footsteps of the previous Regime…. The people in power want things to remain the same…. Do you??

  12. This Video footage below is pretty much the start of the George Floyd civil unrest in the City of San Jose.

    I was leaving a COVID19 drive thru testing location at VMC on Santa Clara Street and drove up on the “Civil and Peaceful” march heading to HWY101.

    I do understand that there where so called “Bad Apples” on the Freeway but that was not what this group was about….

    Just like local sporting events in San Jose…. The “Bad Apples” that mix in with “Normal Folk” are arrested by SJPD and removed for causing problems (Breaking the Law) Done deal…. Game continues…..

    Videos don’t lie…. you be the judge….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08TBL7vl654

  13. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “The claim that Floyd was “killed by the state” can only be made by someone who has no respect for the truth. Camera footage alone revealed that Floyd, having just committed a crime and fearing consequences he knew well, was highly-agitated, intoxicated, and having or feigning a health crisis.”

    Actually, what most trained people have said is that Floyd didn’t do ANYTHING to warrant being physically attacked with an officers knee on hi neck for almost 10 minutes. It was right there in the videos from multiple sources. You are just trying to rationalize the irrational. You wrote:

    “These obvious observations were subsequently explained, at autopsy, as due to his ingestion of dangerous, perhaps fatal doses of street drugs, and preexisting, serious health issues (no internal or external injuries to neck).”

    BUT the autopsy does also say he was a victim of HOMICIDE, no mater what you try to distrct from it, the information stated:

    “The autopsy report from Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office concludes the cause of death was “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” That conclusion, death due to heart failure, differs from the one reached by an independent examiner hired by the Floyd family; that report listed the cause of death as “asphyxiation from sustained pressure.”

    That is MURDER because if the officer had not “complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” he would NOT have died. There is simply no explanation to justfy the ABUSE he got from the officers. When you said this:

    “The police at the scene, their sworn duty to take him into custody, first had to overcome the resistance of this physically formidable man, something they attempted to accomplish a number of ways, none of them working to satisfaction due to Floyd’s successful opposition to their efforts.”

    The VIDEO shows NO significant resistance from Floyd, the officers escalated a violent assault on him, and they simply enjoyed doing it. You wrote:

    “The allegation “killed by the state” means that the state, in this case the police officers, were the agents of his death. But the police had no agency in Floyd’s death, they played no part in Floyd’s intoxication, poor health, and decision to resist arrest. The man was a self-destructive bane on society and self-destruct he did. Any notion that Floyd was deprived “due process” by the behavior of anyone but himself is absurd.”

    I just pointed out how you are simply trying to ignore reality, the multiple videos indicate that his treatment was not JUSTIFIED, and the physical damage leading to his death was done in a CRIMINAL manner. Stop denying what happened. So when you wrote:

    “Anti-police jackals, as expected, want to prosecute the police for having been at the scene and trying to restrain a man who, besides suspected of the crimes alleged, was behind the wheel of a vehicle and, as such, represented a danger to the whole of Minneapolis. What would the jackals have wanted of the police? To walk away and let fate decide if Floyd would kill someone other than himself that day? (Conserving the public safety is conservative, Mr. Goldstein.)”

    You are “assuming dacts not in evidence” meaning that your “assuming” that somehow Floyd would have either had an accident of committed a crime, IF, the officers did NOT act CONTRADICTORY t common sense. NO, that is not a viable defense because no “incident” occurred because of his MURDER. You wrote:

    “As for the commonly-repeated claims about police killing unarmed black men, I have to assume that Mr. Goldstein’s belief in this bit of politicized horse manure has something to do with his dearth of math degrees. Police killings of citizens of all types are statistically rare, and in a nation populated by almost 50 million African-Americans, a dozen or so such killings per year qualifies Goldstein’s support of BLM as grossly ignorant.”

    That is your typical NAME CALLING defense again. I just disproved your claims and thus your ranting in this paragraph just shows how poorly interpreted objective video proof and medical evidence.

  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qCBuULM4yA

    San Jose State College students chassed like dogs away from campus by SJPD??

    What are they doing wrong??

    A protest sign??

    Attending a rally??

    1st Amendment??

    The Police chased “Law Abiding Citizens” throughout downtown like it was a “Call of Duty” video game….

    They also chased and harassed the homeless that had nowhere to go….

    See Video

    Did these “really nice” young men deserve to be treated like this??

    You be the Judge….

  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVP0dkmHfp4&t=87s

    Was it right to dump people off at a Mall in another City for exercising their democratic values??

    See the aftermath first hand…. Hundreds of people where arrested, processed at the SAP center, taken to other cities, and dumped in parking lots…. no Bus or Light Rail service….

    Free Speech??

  16. The officer said they were “asking” people to leave, with WEAPONS drawn?

    That is not “asking” that is threatening people with deadly force when they are not “justified” to being under “threat”?

    Even if the weapons are not loaded with “real” ammunition, if one is fired it CAN STILL KILL. THey are NOT proven SAFE to discharge.

    This is just nuts.

  17. SJPD arrested reporters, legal observers, faith leaders, social workers, homeless advocates, and whoever they could chase down like a dog…..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnft0Fqehhk&t=511s

    This calculated attack also focused on several politicians, community organizers, and out spoken faith leaders. They where targeted by SJPD’s Intel Unit and teams where sent in to extract them. No Joke…. super duper shady shat!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbEHU5M5P-4

    Video Games or Real Life…. Shame on you SJPD…..

  18. “Actually, what most trained people have said…” — Steven Goldstein

    Why are you relying on the contrivance of “what most people said” when the video is there to see, allowing you to judge for yourself. Is it because you’re trying to ignore Floyd’s continued refusal to exit the vehicle and submit to arrest, the physical resistance he displayed as officers tried to control him, the fight he put up to avoid being seated (and safely secured) in the police car? Are you so intellectually dishonest or emotionally fragile that you cannot admit what was there to see, that Floyd resisted not from attack but from arrest.

    Does racism run so deeply in your politically polluted veins that you are unwilling to hold a black male to the same standards as every other person given a lawful order to exit a vehicle? Is it that you assume Floyd was too stupid to understand the situation? Are you, Steven Goldstein, holder of numerous business degrees and countless delusions, willing to refuse such an order yourself? If you are so convinced that Floyd did nothing wrong and did not resist the officers, are you willing to do the same and advise your loved ones to follow suit? I doubt it, but for no reason other than the skin color of that repeat criminal you refuse to hold him accountable, much as does a mother when her toddler spills his milk. Do you really equate black adults with children?

    As for the cause of death, let’s see how well the alleged homicide determination stands up to cross-examination, especially when the M.E. cannot cite a single injury to justify his politicized conclusion. That Floyd had a heart attack while in police custody is about as lame a reason for labeling a death a homicide as is possible. I witnessed a heart attack death in a barber chair, caused by what, the paper collar applied by the homicidal barber?

    The case for homicide (or any other charge) against those officers is so devoid of logic, evidence, and common sense that if I didn’t know better I’d have thought you filed them.

  19. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “Why are you relying on the contrivance of “what most people said” when the video is there to see, allowing you to judge for yourself. Is it because you’re trying to ignore Floyd’s continued refusal to exit the vehicle and submit to arrest, the physical resistance he displayed as officers tried to control him, the fight he put up to avoid being seated (and safely secured) in the police car? Are you so intellectually dishonest or emotionally fragile that you cannot admit what was there to see, that Floyd resisted not from attack but from arrest.”

    Here is some education for you. There are things like ILLEGAL orders and actions that police officers DO NOT have the right to ENFORCE in any way. You can try to claim that the officers gave him an order, but was it LEGAL? Given the fact that the officer that KILLED Floyd is being prosecuted clearly indicates that the order he issued were NOT legal, because the courts did not have the opportunity to weigh in. The fact is also that EVERY person has the right to defend themselves against ILLEGAL conduct. And in NO WAY did Floyd ever do conduct warranting the risk of DEATH. What you are trying to do is put the VICTIM on trial, the courts I believe will NOT allow that. You wrote:

    “Does racism run so deeply in your politically polluted veins that you are unwilling to hold a black male to the same standards as every other person given a lawful order to exit a vehicle? Is it that you assume Floyd was too stupid to understand the situation? Are you, Steven Goldstein, holder of numerous business degrees and countless delusions, willing to refuse such an order yourself? If you are so convinced that Floyd did nothing wrong and did not resist the officers, are you willing to do the same and advise your loved ones to follow suit? I doubt it, but for no reason other than the skin color of that repeat criminal you refuse to hold him accountable, much as does a mother when her toddler spills his milk. Do you really equate black adults with children?”

    First, trying to NAME CALL a dead person is like WHIPPING A DEAD HORSE. This is in my opinion the lowest form of trying to justify the unjustifiable. Again, if you fail to follow orders you get taken into custody (WITHOUT ANY ABUSE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT), prosecuted, and if convicted you serve time or pay a fine. YOU DO NOT GET KILLED. AND NO OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO ABUSE A SUSPECT. Which is what clearly is shown on VIDEO. You wrote:

    “As for the cause of death, let’s see how well the alleged homicide determination stands up to cross-examination, especially when the M.E. cannot cite a single injury to justify his politicized conclusion. That Floyd had a heart attack while in police custody is about as lame a reason for labeling a death a homicide as is possible. I witnessed a heart attack death in a barber chair, caused by what, the paper collar applied by the homicidal barber?”

    Actually if you READ the report again is stated “”cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, AND NECK COMPRESSION,” You keep trying to avoid the facts. This means that Floyd stopped breathing and his heart stopped beating (cardiopulmonary arrest) because of the injury caused by his restraint in the custody of law enforcement officers, to include asphyxia from neck compression. Online sources that imply that the medical examiner is covering up George Floyd’s death by calling it a “heart attack” are wrong.” You then wrote:

    “The case for homicide (or any other charge) against those officers is so devoid of logic, evidence, and common sense that if I didn’t know better I’d have thought you filed them.”

    I did not, the proper LAW ENFORCEMENT professionals in Minnesota are. And you can NAME CALL again as much as you want, but unless you have EVIDENCE to disprove guilt, all you are doing is trying to muddy the picture.

    The fact that the City already settled the CIVIL action means that they have information that is strong enough that the officer charged is either going to PLEAD GUILTY on a PLEA DEAL, or will eventually be CONVICTED. You know if he PLEAS GUILTY he is admitting to the crime, and that would eliminate ANY defense regarding civil damages from the Police Department or the City.

    There is in fact a WAVE of this kind of problem all over, and San Jose has let themselves get used to abusing power and this situation is demonstrating that they are about to get a rude awakening and be forced to undergo reform.

  20. “Here is some education for you.” — Steven Goldstein

    It is interesting that in response to being challenged regarding the progression from criminal act to arrest and death in the Floyd case you offer the absurd notion that the undesirable outcome proves the illegality of all things proceeding it. If you are convinced the officers had no right to confront and take control of Floyd, who’d just passed counterfeit currency (at a business) then make your case from the beginning.

    Was the citizen wrong to object to being cheated out of $20 by Floyd, or should he have looked at it as a chance to make reparations for historic wrongs?
    Was the citizen right to call the police or was it an abuse of privilege?
    Were the police right to respond or should they have sent a woke counselor?
    Were the police right to take action in response to the reported crime or should they have instead initiated a neighborhood basketball game?
    Was there a way to deal with the case that did not include confronting Floyd, such as replacing the shopkeeper’s loss with a twenty out of their own pockets?
    Did the police overstep their authority by demanding that Floyd exit the vehicle or should they have simply crossed their fingers and hoped there was no weapon within, and pray the obviously impaired occupant did not race off to escape?
    Did the officers have a right to be concerned for their safety or should they have seized the chance to demonstrate to all gathered their deep trust in black men, even those involved in crime?
    Did the officers have a right to take Floyd into custody or should they have left him be out of concern about black disproportion in crime statistics.

    There it is Mr. Goldstein. Tell me where along the way did the officers conduct morph was lawful to unlawful? And feel free to add in where Mr. Floyd’s conduct was ever lawful (caution, you may have to go back a few years). If you don’t think officers are right to arrest lawbreakers then it’s clear that what you do is react emotionally instead of think rationally.

    Regarding the autopsy report. Your claim is that Floyd stopped breathing due to neck compression, yet in the section quoted neck compression was listed after “subdual and “restraint”. So are we to assume that only one of those three factors, the one you chose, complicated the failure of Floyd’s drug compromised heart, or did they all? Or did none of them? Can we equate subduing a man and holding him fast with murder? Or does this rule only apply to black men? America needs to know the answer to this, because the police use those tactics every day — so do paramedics.

    As to why Minneapolis gifted those millions to the family of a man who’d spent his life proving himself worthless as a wage earner and citizen, the answer is simple: its an offering, one hoped to be substantial enough to assuage the savage impulses of the thugs, vandals, political radicals, and lunatics eager to once again trash their city and terrify its citizens.

  21. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “It is interesting that in response to being challenged regarding the progression from criminal act to arrest and death in the Floyd case you offer the absurd notion that the undesirable outcome proves the illegality of all things proceeding it. If you are convinced the officers had no right to confront and take control of Floyd, who’d just passed counterfeit currency (at a business) then make your case from the beginning.”

    Since there is no EVIDENCE that Floyd even knew that he had “counterfeit” currency, again THAT GIVES NO POLICE OFFICER THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM. Especially when you said:

    “Was the citizen wrong to object to being cheated out of $20 by Floyd, or should he have looked at it as a chance to make reparations for historic wrongs?”

    A person being KILLED for $20. WOW! That is amazing. Such insane rationalization to say a person should DIE because of what could have been that Floyd was ALSO a victim? You have no PROOF that Floyd was in the counterfeiting business, do you? Did his background even include any kind of crime like this? You wrote:

    “Was the citizen right to call the police or was it an abuse of privilege?”

    The CITIZEN did not KILL Floyd, that is an irrelevant question, You wrote:

    “Were the police right to respond or should they have sent a woke counselor?”

    Lets make something clear here, that responding toi a call is a LEGAL act, but KILLING Floyd is NOT LEGAL, and their conduct on VIDEO clearly was not indicating any “undue” response to being attacked by a police officer. And you know that. You wrote:

    “Were the police right to take action in response to the reported crime or should they have instead initiated a neighborhood basketball game?”

    Again an irrelavent question and hardly an excuse for KILLING a person. You wrote:

    “Was there a way to deal with the case that did not include confronting Floyd, such as replacing the shopkeeper’s loss with a twenty out of their own pockets?”

    Again, you say that it was legitimate to KILL a person over $20.? Thati s simply irrational. You wrote:

    “Did the police overstep their authority by demanding that Floyd exit the vehicle or should they have simply crossed their fingers and hoped there was no weapon within, and pray the obviously impaired occupant did not race off to escape?”

    There is other “more professional” methods. For example they should have simply arranged to follow him with either a marked or unmarked police vehicle. Then when finding his “home” arrange a “SEARCH WARRANT” and conduct themselves “PROFESSIONALLY” You really think that attacking a man for a $20. Counterfeit bill is reasonable? This was ESCALATION done INTENTIONALLY. They just wanted to ABUSE their power in FUN. But oin this case the rule did apply, “its all in fun until someone loses an eye”. You wrote:

    “Did the officers have a right to be concerned for their safety or should they have seized the chance to demonstrate to all gathered their deep trust in black men, even those involved in crime?”

    Again, they COSE to intitate VIOENCE when it was not even appropriate. You just said he may have pssed a $20. Counterfeit bill, hardly a violent act and hardly warranting tis kind of IMMEDIATE action. THe reality is that the City and the Prosecutor knows that this was clearly ILLEGAL conduct by the officer. And you know it. You wrote:

    “Did the officers have a right to take Floyd into custody or should they have left him be out of concern about black disproportion in crime statistics.”

    I just pointed out that there was a VERY PROFESSIONAL alternative, surveillance, and controlling the intensity of their conduct, and following proper procedures were not done. You cannot justify this conduct when REAL PROFESSINALS will know better. I am a big fan of Law & Order and clearly the officers in that show demonstrate WISE judgment, MOST of the time. No this was just the police officers again ABUSING THEIR POWER and it ended up KILLING a man for $20. You wrote:

    “There it is Mr. Goldstein. Tell me where along the way did the officers conduct morph was lawful to unlawful? And feel free to add in where Mr. Floyd’s conduct was ever lawful (caution, you may have to go back a few years). If you don’t think officers are right to arrest lawbreakers then it’s clear that what you do is react emotionally instead of think rationally.”

    You cannot defend that this INCOMPETENT policing that has been allowed to occur for TOO LONG. You just are trying again to blame the VICTIM for his own DEATH. I have already just demonstrated how the officers conduct was UNPROFESSIONAL. And before you say I am ANTI-POLICE, just understand my best friends are police officers, U.S> Military, fire fighters, and other “public services”. You wrote:

    “Regarding the autopsy report. Your claim is that Floyd stopped breathing due to neck compression, yet in the section quoted neck compression was listed after “subdual and “restraint”. So are we to assume that only one of those three factors, the one you chose, complicated the failure of Floyd’s drug compromised heart, or did they all? Or did none of them? Can we equate subduing a man and holding him fast with murder? Or does this rule only apply to black men? America needs to know the answer to this, because the police use those tactics every day — so do paramedics.”

    Given you just pointed out Floyd was being accused of passing a $20. and not any immediate risk of harm to anyone, the facts are this UNPROFESSINAL CONDUCT, was the CAUSE of death. You again are just trying to give anyone some kind of EXCUSE to kill a person. I actually state it doesn’t matter whether the person killed was anything, it was MURDER by the STATE. You wrote:

    “As to why Minneapolis gifted those millions to the family of a man who’d spent his life proving himself worthless as a wage earner and citizen, the answer is simple: its an offering, one hoped to be substantial enough to assuage the savage impulses of the thugs, vandals, political radicals, and lunatics eager to once again trash their city and terrify its citizens.”

    Your continual character assassination on a person that cannot even say anything is unbelievable. But go ahead and believe this train of thought, sooner or later you will do something so inappropriate you will wind up in major trouble yourself.

  22. I know people are having a hard time digesting SJPD’s response, but you know what we didn’t have?

    Weeks of uncontrolled rioting, damages to business’s and arson.

    I think no matter how much SJPD’s insurance has to pay out, it would have been dwarfed by allowing the situation to become the next Kenosha. Or Portland, or Seattle.

  23. ROBERT CORTESE you wrote:

    “I know people are having a hard time digesting SJPD’s response, but you know what we didn’t have?

    Weeks of uncontrolled rioting, damages to business’s and arson.”

    You cannot use the “ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS” approach regarding the constitutional rights of people that at least you implicitly admitted, DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS YET!

    You cannot treat people as guilty of a crime when it hasn’t even happened yet. That you “ASSUME” they are guilty where our own constitution clearly states that people are PRESUMED INNOCENT of crimes, especially when they have no occurred. You wrote:

    “I think no matter how much SJPD’s insurance has to pay out, it would have been dwarfed by allowing the situation to become the next Kenosha. Or Portland, or Seattle.”

    That is impossible to even prove out. Your just using hyperbole to justify a “PROACTIVE ATTACK” on civilians not YET guilty of ANYTHING. That is the definition of a POLICE STATE or MARTIAL LAW. Another term is a AUTHORITARIAN state.

    From where I understand is that no one declared a police state in California.

    And thank god these officers didn’t have LIVE ammunition.

  24. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN you wrote:

    I’m not even going to quote you man. You’re high on moral superiority, but I’ll address you.

    San Jose’s had some experience in recent years with the population getting out of hand. 5 years ago at the Trump rally comes to mind, where anyone the mob thought was a Trump supporter was attacked, bludgeoned, bloodied and had their property destroyed.

    So no, it’s not hyperbole. This city gets really charged over issues they perceive as racist, even if it’s not happening to them.

  25. Robert,

    Yes, that did happen, but again, you cannot CONVICT or ARREST anyone that hasn’t done ANYTHING yet. You cannot convict anyone simply by ASSOCIATION either. The reality is that apart from the news reports, I did not see any EVIDENCE to warrant the kind of action regarding the PRESENT protesting.

    And if you think that the Trump victims were justified to get payments the reports from the San Jose Spotlight “San Jose: Lawsuit over violent Donald Trump rally settled ” (https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-lawsuit-over-violent-donald-trump-rally-settled/)
    show:

    “When they were ushered outside a campaign rally, supporters of then-candidate Donald Trump didn’t expect the rally to erupt into violence. They expected THEIR police department to protect them. But they said that’s not what happened.”

    Whose police department? It belongs to all of the citizens of San Jose, AND anyone whether or not they supported Donald Trump, right? It goes on to say:

    “And now four years later, the lawsuit, filed in July 2016, was quietly settled last week. The 20 plaintiffs were not awarded any money, but as part of the March 26 settlement, the police department agreed to provide additional training to its officers on crowd control. It also specified that Mayor Sam Liccardo and Police Chief Eddie Garcia meet privately with plaintiffs to discuss the changes and apologize for how the situation played out.”

    Well that “Training” seems to have resulted in worse practices than it did in the past. Someone is going to have to explain how that could have happened? There are proven methods to “DE-ESCELATE” .and “CONTROL” crowds, but this recent event shows that those “BEST PRACTICES” were not even used. And given that the City “Settled” a case relevant to this situation, the City is really not in any position to argue, is it?

    I think that the City has a more SYSTEMIC failure of Police Administration as a whole, not just in this area. And since it is in the SMARTEST county in the country, this really is not a good picture.

  26. “You cannot use the “ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS” approach regarding the constitutional rights of people…” — Steven Goldstein (Mar 14)

    Interesting that Goldstein would cite this axiom given the crux of his hysterical, irrational analysis of the officers’ conduct in the George Floyd case can accurately be described as ‘the outcome informing the analysis.’ In his desperation to see intentional murder in the officers’ use of department-approved restraint tactics he ignorantly criticized the officers for their mandated conduct (i.e. duty) leading up to the restraint of the obviously intoxicated, clearly uncooperative and dangerous Floyd.

    Goldstein’s reasoning process brings to mind the primitive practice of attributing undesirable outcomes (e.g. the death of a chieftain) to the ill will (implicit bias) of competing neighbors, causing the injured tribe to demand a reparation from a particular neighbor (the allegedly privileged). The factually innocent accused, possessing equally primitive thinking, will typically pay to keep the peace (not $27 million like in the Floyd case, but maybe a couple of chickens). It’s a system that works there, but what remains to be seen is if Black Lives Matter will be successful in its attempts to bring it here. That Goldstein, with his numerous degrees, displays these primitive analytical processes (using capital letters far more often, though) is a testament to the regressive groundwork done by America’s university system.

    As for the SJPD handling of those protesters who’d ignored a lawful order to disperse, the ends (keep downtown buildings standing, not smoldering) was the sole purpose of the police response. Prevention, which by definition implies an awareness of things potential, possible, and undesired, is a fundamental responsibility of law enforcement. Yet what Goldstein asserts, in his unusual way, is that SJPD was wrong to take preventative action because protesters had “DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS YET!”

    Bizarre.

  27. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Interesting that Goldstein would cite this axiom given the crux of his hysterical, irrational analysis of the officers’ conduct in the George Floyd case can accurately be described as ‘the outcome informing the analysis.’ In his desperation to see intentional murder in the officers’ use of department-approved restraint tactics he ignorantly criticized the officers for their mandated conduct (i.e. duty) leading up to the restraint of the obviously intoxicated, clearly uncooperative and dangerous Floyd.”

    An APPROVED technique does not mean it is either WISE or PRUDENT, and in fact it is this PRACTICE that is going to be “REFORMED” because it is too dangerous. The poor judgement in adopting the technique is clear, it assumes that EVERY person is of such GOOD HEALTH that it poses not risk of PERMENANT injury. This is now WELL proven to be wrong. You wrote:

    “Goldstein’s reasoning process brings to mind the primitive practice of attributing undesirable outcomes (e.g. the death of a chieftain) to the ill will (implicit bias) of competing neighbors, causing the injured tribe to demand a reparation from a particular neighbor (the allegedly privileged). The factually innocent accused, possessing equally primitive thinking, will typically pay to keep the peace (not $27 million like in the Floyd case, but maybe a couple of chickens). It’s a system that works there, but what remains to be seen is if Black Lives Matter will be successful in its attempts to bring it here. That Goldstein, with his numerous degrees, displays these primitive analytical processes (using capital letters far more often, though) is a testament to the regressive groundwork done by America’s university system.”

    FACTUALLY INNOCENT people do not have video showing the use of force that killed a person. That is the FACT. IF the officer practiced PROFESSIONAL law enforcement, no death would have occurred, and most likely you could PROVE that Floyd was a criminal. But that is impossible, you cannot arrest, prosecute and convict a DEAD man. You wrote:

    “As for the SJPD handling of those protesters who’d ignored a lawful order to disperse, the ends (keep downtown buildings standing, not smoldering) was the sole purpose of the police response. Prevention, which by definition implies an awareness of things potential, possible, and undesired, is a fundamental responsibility of law enforcement. Yet what Goldstein asserts, in his unusual way, is that SJPD was wrong to take preventative action because protesters had “DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS YET!””

    The news coming out that the PROSECUTORS in San Jose admitted the orders were not lawful, thus dropping most if not ALL the charges stemming from the police action in the story. Too much work trying to rewrite and justify the UNLAWFUL acts done by the SJPD. Again, you cannot declare ANYONE guilty of ANYTHING until they are CONVICTED. You must be a person that is either a friend of a “PEACE OFFICER”? Or you’re acting as a Astroturfer to try to distract from the UNLAWFUL acts.

    The best thing about the current quality of the videos we have is that there is not much “question” regarding interpretation of the actions. NOT like Rodney King, where the video was from such a distance and did not cover the entire event. NO. This is going to be a lot different. Especially for Floyd.

  28. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN >> Yes, that did happen, but again, you cannot CONVICT or ARREST anyone that hasn’t done ANYTHING yet.

    That’s the problem. They did do something. They were climbing on parts of city hall they weren’t supposed to be on, throwing rocks, and disobeying a lawful order to disperse.

    STEVEN GOLDSTEIN >> You cannot convict anyone simply by ASSOCIATION either.

    I think the legal term is “Accessory to a crime” and yes you can. In fact, San Jose just passed some laws that if you’re standing around at one of these car sideshows, you can in fact, get prosecuted.

  29. ROBERT CORTESE you wrote:

    “That’s the problem. They did do something. They were climbing on parts of city hall they weren’t supposed to be on, throwing rocks, and disobeying a lawful order to disperse.”

    Before I can take your word, just at least provide the video evidence of this claim? Again, the reports are indicating that NO ONE is charged with anything, thus was it proper to arrest them? The San Jose Mercury news reported “ ‘Monumental failure’: San Jose won’t charge protesters arrested for curfew violations: The city attorney says a 1993 court case related to the Rodney King riots was a factor.” (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/03/monumental-failure-san-jose-wont-charge-george-floyd-protesters-arrested-for-curfew-violators/)

    The REALITY is that police officers “MAKING UP CHARGES” in order to take people into custody is not LAWFUL.

    If you claim that the people did what you said, PLEASE provide a video that demonstrates it? And be VERY careful, because I do know that Oakland and San Francisco had REAL problems, but we are only discussing San Jose. You wrote:

    “I think the legal term is “Accessory to a crime” and yes you can. In fact, San Jose just passed some laws that if you’re standing around at one of these car sideshows, you can in fact, get prosecuted.”

    That kind of law is going to be declared unconstitutional because to be an ACCESORY of a crime you must:

    “Being an accessory or principle to a crimes elements are below:

    If the defendant helped another person or persons [commit] [attempt to commit] a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be treated as if [he] [she] had done all the things the other person or persons did if:

    1. THE DEFENDANT HAD A CONSCIOUS INTENT THAT THE CRIMINAL ACT BE DONE AND

    2. THE DEFENDANT DID SOME ACT OR SAID SOME WORD WHICH WAS INTENDED TO AND WHICH DID INCITE, CAUSE, ENCOURAGE, ASSIST, OR ADVISE THE OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO ACTUALLY [COMMIT] [ATTEMPT TO COMMIT] THE CRIME.

    To be a principal, the defendant does not have to be present when the crime is [committed] [or] [attempted]. See State v. Dene, 533 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1988).”

    Thus when you stated: “that if you’re standing around at one of these car sideshows, you can in fact, get prosecuted” That is clearly not correct, and thus such law will either be NEVER enforced because it will be disclosed as unconstitutional, or it will be declared unconstitutional, or it will be repealed.

    You are not really making any sense so far, but I am waiting for the video proof of a crime like you claimed.

  30. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN >> You are not really making any sense so far, but I am waiting for the video proof of a crime like you claimed.

    Here’s a news story.

    https://abc7news.com/george-floyd-san-jose-protests-in-highway-101-protest-riots-today/6221954/

    “According to SJPD, one officer was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries and several others received minor injuries due to rocks and bottles being thrown at them.”

    Here’s another one.

    “https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/george-floyd-protest-in-san-jose-shuts-down-highway-101/”

    “What began as a peaceful march through downtown, later spilled back onto city streets after activists had earlier shut down busy US Highway 101 in both directions for an hour, smashing windows of police cars and other vehicles during the angry protest march.”

    Oh same story:

    “In a separate incident, a San Jose police officer was knocked unconscious by a thrown rock before being helped by fellow officers into a police vehicle and taken from the scene. Protesters were also throwing plastic and glass bottles of water.”

    Here they are on the freeway, attacking commuters at random and smashing windows.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_UDZ4a53Bo

    Oh finally, some SJPD bodycam video showing several protesters attacking police.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7lEde4pHVs

    There’s your video for the violence the George Floyd “protesters” commited before SJPD opened fire on them. They already spent most of the day destroying property, and were well on their way to destroying more if SJPD had not quelled this behavior. You happy now?

    As far as the sideshow law:
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/30/san-jose-considering-new-spectator-ordinance-to-crack-down-on-street-racing-and-sideshows/

    “San Jose to punish spectators in effort to crack down on street racing, sideshows”

    And another.

    https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-lawmakers-to-target-promoters-of-illegal-racing-events/

    “In early March, San Jose police arrested 3 people for allegedly having guns at an illegal racing event. Officers also seized five cars, made one arrest for reckless driving and gave more than 40 citations to spectators.”

  31. Robert Cortese you wrote:

    “Here’s a news story.

    “According to SJPD, one officer was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries and several others received minor injuries due to rocks and bottles being thrown at them.””

    That is an allegation, I asked for a VIDEO of the incident. Does the SJPD have cams on them? You are not actually proving anything without footage. You wrote:

    “What began as a peaceful march through downtown, later spilled back onto city streets after activists had earlier shut down busy US Highway 101 in both directions for an hour, smashing windows of police cars and other vehicles during the angry protest march.”

    I agree that this was stupid, but at the same time, it was nondestructive action, which is not what you claimed. It was not a “violent” act, right? Then you went to say:

    ““In a separate incident, a San Jose police officer was knocked unconscious by a thrown rock before being helped by fellow officers into a police vehicle and taken from the scene. Protesters were also throwing plastic and glass bottles of water.”

    Again where is that video? You are only repeating an allegation, until it is not captured on video, it only an allegation. Then there was this:

    “Here they are on the freeway, attacking commuters at random and smashing windows.”

    That was not random, but at the same time I simply say it was wrong. But there was no video of the person breaking the glass. That does leave it that the driver themselves may have broken the glass off camera. So this is not yet proof of “Property Damage”. You wrote:

    “Oh finally, some SJPD bodycam video showing several protesters attacking police.”

    Notice the video started with the statement that THE FIRST VIDEO DOCUMENTED A MAY31 CASE INVOLVING AN OFFICER HITTING A BURGLARY SUSPECT WITH A TRAFFIC MOTORCYCLE ON S 4TH STREET”. That us using deadly force on a person not presenting any lethal threat. So if you think that the people around the event was going to just sit there, that is unreasonable.

    The second video, the police were ALREADY assaulting him, he has the right to disarm anyone using force against him when it was not proven he did any violent act against the officer. All this did is prove he acted in self defense.

    The third part does not show the “water bottle” being thrown at them. It just shows the officers attacking the people. And that video the camera is obstructed by weapon drawn on the protestors.

    So far this is not providing the VIDEO PROOF I asked for. Correct?

    As far as the sideshow law:

    “San Jose to punish spectators in effort to crack down on street racing, sideshows”

    From what I know the “ordinance” was not passed. Correct?

  32. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN> I agree that this was stupid, but at the same time, it was nondestructive action, which is not what you claimed. It was not a “violent” act, right?

    If I’m driving down the freeway with my wife and kids, and I stop for a mob blocking my path, and that mob smashes the windows of my car, guess what? I’m going to look at that as a violent act. I’m going to defend my family. Somebody is going to become a new hood ornament, or a new oil pan depending on which way the body flies.

    Point being though the mob had already proven all day long it was violent.

    STEVEN GOLDSTEIN>From what I know the “ordinance” was not passed. Correct?

    40 spectators were cited at the most recent event. Don’t know if it was for a proposed law or one on the books, but they figured out something to charge them with.

  33. ROBERT CORTESE you wrote:

    “If I’m driving down the freeway with my wife and kids, and I stop for a mob blocking my path, and that mob smashes the windows of my car, guess what?”

    First off, your speaking hypotheticals, as I pointed out, the videos you provided did not show a so-called Black Lives Matter person breaking a window of a car. That person was a so-called Blue Lives Matter person, the vehicle PROUDLY had a “BLUE LIVES MATTER” sticker on it, and thus has a motive to falsify an allegation. So please stop trying to make up fiction. You wrote:

    “I’m going to look at that as a violent act.”

    But you are again talking a hypothetical, not an actual event. You wrote:

    “I’m going to defend my family.”

    Since this is a hypothetical event, your proposed action is not yet been demonstrated as valid. You wrote:

    “Somebody is going to become a new hood ornament, or a new oil pan depending on which way the body flies.”

    THAT is an illegal ACT. You know that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way under vehicle law. I am sorry but you WILL be arrested for using a vehicle as a deadly weapon and or vehicular homicide. You wrote:

    “Point being though the mob had already proven all day long it was violent.”

    NOT YET, you have not shown anything but a person defending themselves from a violent attack from a “PEACE OFFICER” and no video showing proof of such “VIOLENCE” except where the police have acted against the laws. Until “CONVICTION” they are not able to be called VIOLENT. You wrote:

    “STEVEN GOLDSTEIN>From what I know the “ordinance” was not passed. Correct?

    40 spectators were cited at the most recent event. Don’t know if it was for a proposed law or one on the books, but they figured out something to charge them with.”

    You claim they were CITED but you don’t know for what? That does not make any sense at all. IDK if any of the citations will hold up in court. And if they all wind up being tossed, this will in effect be grounds for another law suit against the city for unlawful citations and seizures of property.

    I remember being “cited” for having 2 tiny blue LEDS on my car windshield washer sprayers. A dumb police Lieutenant issued me a “fix it” citation without even checking if it was a violation of the vehicle code 25950. It turned out NOT to be a violation because they light emitted was less than 0.05 CANDELA.

    I got a Federally Certified light testing device and performed a SCIENTIFIC test to determine the LEDS were not violating the vehicle code.

    And the dumb traffic “commissioner” did not event look at my evidence.

    I was forced to go to the Santa Clara Court of Appeals, and when the court asked the prosecutor what evidence the officer had to issue the citation, the prosecutor was stumped. The court OVERTURNED my fix it ticket citing LACK OF EVIDENCE.

    It also made it clear that writing a citation is not evidence, but a mere allegation. That without evidence the citations are not valid.

    In the end that OFFICER resigned from the police department because he was discovered to be falsifying citations. And my case probably forced all of his career actions to be reviewed for the possibility he did more than just tried to make me alone look like I did some kind of violation of law.

  34. Goldstein,

    The only thing hypothetical here is your comments. They’re very long and rantish, not much to the point, and even when you’ve been given the evidence you ask for you move the goalposts.

    I will not be giving you any more responses because it’s pointless. It’s like trying to explain math to a turnip.

  35. ROBERT CORTESE you wrote:

    “The only thing hypothetical here is your comments. They’re very long and rantish, not much to the point, and even when you’ve been given the evidence you ask for you move the goalposts.”

    How about this, look up “

    I am appealing the previous decision by the commissioner James P. Madden in the case of People V Goldstein, Steven Michael, Case: 2-08-TR-172786 for the following reasons:

    A) I was given a citation for alleged illegal lights under California Vehicle Code 25950(a) because of my blue LED windshield washer nozzles. This was because of the California Vehicle Code section 25950(a) which states:

    Color of Lamps and Reflectors

    25950. This section applies to the color of lamps and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination. Unless provided otherwise, the color of lamps and reflectors upon a vehicle shall be as follows:…

    Since the statute requires that the lights involved must emit light above 0.05 candela or per foot candle, one can state that a test must be performed on the items being cited prior to the citation being written, that shows they do emit light beyond the legal threshold. It would be the same as if one was driving while under the influence, where a breathalyzer is used to determine the blood alcohol level of the driver. Since the officer did not perform such a test, he has no grounds to write such a citation.

    I decided to choose to buy an N.I.S.T. certified Sper Scientific 840022 light meter with resolution sensitivity of .001 foot-candle. I then did an experiment by taking an exact copy of my blue LED at night in cover, connected a 12volt battery to it to light it. I then measured 1 ft with a tape rule and arranged the light sensor to measure the intensity. I was surprised to notice that the results came to .042 foot candle. This measurement clearly shows that my products are not within the scope of the law being cited which requires light intensity to be above 0.05 foot-candle.

    I want to point out that any officer must have evidence that the light sources they are citing using the CVC 25950(a) are emitting light above the 0.05 foot candle threshold. Thus I want the court to instruct law enforcement agencies that they must carry N.I.S.T. certified and calibrated light meters, be properly trained to test the intensity of light using them, and not allow any other light sources to cause interference or error in the measurement. It is the burden of law enforcement to provide evidentiary proof that said lights are beyond the 0.05 foot candle threshold. Otherwise, instruct the officers that they cannot write any citations until they are so equipped and trained. There are pictures of the experiment are on the last page of this document.

    This is REAL. This is a REAL case, that I appeared in front of a 3 judge panel with a County prosecutor trying every trick to try to keep me from the appeals hearing and FAILING. And here is some of the transcript of the case:

    “ THE COURT: If I may interrupt you.

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure.

    THE COURT: You seemed to be in an area where you are basically presenting additional evidence which isn’t appropriate in this hearing.

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay.

    THE COURT: HOWEVER, I DON’T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PEOPLE, IF I MAY. COULD YOU POINT TO WHAT TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE BY LIEUTENANT MCCLUSKEY THAT SUPPORTS THE CONVICTION OF THE VEHICLE CODE SECTION 25400?

    MS. AIZPURU-SUTTON: YOUR HONOR, THE BRIEF IS WRITTEN BY MY PREDECESSOR. I BELIEVE HE CITES ONLY TO THE OFFICER SAYING THE LIGHT WAS BRIGHT. THAT’S THE EXTENT OF MY ANSWER, YOUR HONOR.

    THE COURT: AND WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THAT APPEARS TO BE INSUFFICIENT IN LIGHT OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE?

    MS. AIZPURU-SUTTON: I WOULD JUST SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT BRIGHTNESS — BRIGHTNESS WAS THE WORD THAT WAS USED, AND THAT DOESN’T SEEM TO BE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THAT’S PROBABLY AS FAR AS I’LL GO.

    THE COURT: Thank you very much. And I apologize for interrupting. Do you have additional comments?

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, my additional comments is I draw relevant equivalence regarding the possible standard of the — regarding the infringement of law because of the fact that, given the fact that there’s no measuring tool being used — after all, the relationship to speeding and DUI, they all have basically very, very specific measurements regarding how it’s being determined if it’s a violation or not. For example, if you are driving beyond a cited speed limit or beyond the safe speed of the current road condition, that’s pretty easily determinable.

    Also, the same thing regarding DUI. They have a very specific method of dealing with it. You have a Breathalyzer and you have a blood administering test regarding the level of alcohol in the blood. However, again, what I’m seeing is that officers have no measurable or objective process to determine when a light becomes beyond the threshold of intensity under which the law states which is 0.05 candela.

    THE COURT: At least in your situation.

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, in my situation, I asked the officer in the original hearing what evidence does he have to support that my lights were beyond that point. And the commissioner in his wisdom decided to shut it down. He simply said the officer – the objection is overruled and the officer will not answer the question. I point out the fact that under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you have the right to confront and cross-examine a party that’s involved with a situation regarding criminal law. Even though it’s a Motor Vehicle Code, it is in fact still a criminal offense. And, in fact, the burden is on the State to prove its allegations. And in this case, I would basically clearly point out there is none.”

    And here is the decision:

    “This appeal came on regularly for hearing and was heard and submitted on August 14, 2009.

    Appellant Steven Goldstein (Appellant) appeals his traffic conviction for using blue headlights exceeding the legal limit for brightness in violation of Vehicle Code section 25950. Appellant argues that his conviction should be reversed because (1) the blue lights on his car did not exceed the legal limit for brightness; (2) Vehicle Code section 25950 is unconstitutionally vague; (3) Appellant’s lights are LED’s which do not qualify as lamps or reflectors under the statute; (4,) the commissioner had no standing to adjudicate this traffic case; (5) the case was continued without justification; and (6) there were inconsistencies in the documentation that the officer provided to the court.

    The settled statement indicates that Lt. McCloskey, the citing officer, testified that he was on patrol on November 3, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. when he observed a vehicle approach with bright blue lights facing forward on the vehicle. Lt. McCloskey further testified that he made an enforcement stop and found after market bright blue light emitting diodes attached to the washing nozzles of Appellant’s vehicle. Lt. McCloskey issued the Appellant a citation for a violation of California Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a). APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT’S LIGHTS WERE BRIGHT ENOUGH TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE IS WELL TAKEN. Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a) applies to the color of lamps exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination. This section further provides that all emitted light from lamps visible from the front of the vehicle shall be white or yellow unless provided otherwise. Vehicle Code section 25400, subdivision (a) provides that any vehicle may be equipped with a lamp or device on the exterior of the vehicle that emits a diffused non-glaring light of not more than 0.05 candela per square inch of area. Vehicle Code section 25400, subdivision (b) provides that any diffused non-glaring light shall not display red to the front but may display other colors.

    HERE, THE SETTLED STATEMENT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT LT. MCCLOSKEY EVER TESTIFIED THAT APPELLANT’S LIGHTS WERE BRIGHT ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE THRESHOLD OF THE 0.05 PER CANDELA REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN VEHICLE CODE SECTION 25950, SUBDIVISION (A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT APPELLANT’S CONVICTION.

    For this reason, the judgment is REVERSED.”

    You then wrote:

    “I will not be giving you any more responses because it’s pointless. It’s like trying to explain math to a turnip.”

    Actually, what you really are getting disturbed about is that I present an ACTUALL proof that police officers MAKE UP the LAWS on their own in the area all the time. EVEN when they are not really violations or laws.

    You can feel free to ignore the REAL HISTORY here, but I think eventually the courts are going to not be in favor of the SJPD with the evidence you presented versus the other video records.

  36. Gee Mr. Goldberg, cops make up their own laws as they go, they must be Democrats. Cops shot an unarmed woman in the Capitol January 6th which seems to be perfectly fine with the entire news media and every Damn Democrat in the country. Police violence is a terrible thing to waste on mostly peaceful protesters, unless they are mostly peaceful Trump supporters.
    Your blatant double standards suck, but you understanding that hypocrisy would be same miracle as that turnup passing a geometry test.

  37. M.T. GUNN you wrote:

    “Gee Mr. Goldberg, cops make up their own laws as they go, they must be Democrats.”

    Well, that shows already I am not dealing with someone discussing the topic, but doing more NAME CALLING. You wrote:

    “Cops shot an unarmed woman in the Capitol January 6th which seems to be perfectly fine with the entire news media and every Damn Democrat in the country.”

    OK lets “compare and contrast” the events here:

    My case, I was driving legally and safely, thus I was not warranted to be pulled over for unsafe operation of a vehicle. At the same time the officer filed a false police report in the form of the citation. Finally, the officer was “disrespectful” when I pointed out during the stop that my lights were not prohibited given that he had no proof they exceeded the emitting threshold.

    Now lets look at the fact that this “unarmed woman” was part of a mob assault on the Capitol, and in fact was attempting to break down a door to an office, which is a crime in itself. Granted she may have been unarmed, but she was in the act of committing a crime, and that was “VIDEO” captured. I agree there should be a administrative and even a criminal review as to whether the use of the police persons firearm was warranted. If the evidence proves that it was “self defense” per say, then that is the end of that argument. Right? You wrote:

    “Police violence is a terrible thing to waste on mostly peaceful protesters, unless they are mostly peaceful Trump supporters.”

    OK now I think your just joking around now. You are trying to describe the events that occurred on the Capitol as “peaceful”? If you are serious about this writing, I just cannot write anything to respond to it. You wrote:

    “Your blatant double standards suck, but you understanding that hypocrisy would be same miracle as that turnup passing a geometry test.”

    Maybe the writing above does in fact show a clear distinction here. But I know that reasonable readers will understand it. But there will be many that will never simply acknowledge the danger some people choose to get into when doing something like they did at the Capitol. My case clearly didn’t warrant anything of what I had to do to prove my innocence. In fact I was PRESUMED guilty with no evidence, that woman had evidence on camera.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *