“Family Trouble”: The 1975 Killing of Denise Hawkins and the Legacy of Deadly Force in the Rochester, NY Police Department
Abstract: This paper examines the lineages of police violence, family trauma, and police reform through a case study of the Rochester police killing of Denise Hawkins in 1975. Michael Leach, a 22-year-old, white police officer, responded to a “family trouble” call involving a domestic dispute between Hawkins and her husband. When the 18-year-old, 100-pound Black woman emerged from the apartment, she held a kitchen knife. Within five seconds, Leach had shot and killed her, later claiming she endangered his life. Though Hawkins’ name is included in lists of Black women killed by police, little is known about her life and legacy. Using newspapers, police records, and oral history, we examine activists’ attempts to scale the call for justice for Denise Hawkins to the national level, the police department’s defense of Leach as the true victim in the incident, and the city leaders’ compromised efforts to establish a civilian oversight of police. Within the context of Rochester’s robust history of resistance to police violence, we argue that the reform efforts of the late 1970s ultimately failed to redress the police use of deadly force. Furthermore, when Michael Leach killed again in 2012—this time shooting his own son, whom he mistook for an intruder—his defense attorney successfully depicted Leach as the sympathetic figure. In shifting the focus to Denise Hawkins, this work contributes to the Black feminist call to memorialize Black women killed by police and suggests that the policies that protect the officers who use deadly force cause widespread, intergenerational harm to officers and their victims.
1. Introduction
On the evening of 14 November 1975, 1000 people gathered at St. Simon’s Episcopal Church on 6 Oregon St. in Rochester, NY, demanding justice for Denise Hawkins. The church regularly offered its space to civil rights organizations. Three nights prior, Rochester Police Department (RPD) Officer Michael Leach shot and killed an eighteen-year-old mother. Leach, a 22-year-old rookie cop, was responding to a “family trouble” call intending to intervene in an escalating argument between Hawkins and her husband. When he arrived, Hawkins emerged from the apartment, and within five seconds she was dead. Leach said the 5-foot tall, 100-pound woman “lunged” at him with a “dagger”, which made him feel endangered, so he fired his .38 caliber weapon into her chest (McGinnis 1975a). Police Chief Thomas Hastings concluded that Leach acted in accordance with police policy.
Before the large crowd in downtown Rochester, Rev. Raymond Scott, president of FIGHT (Freedom Integration God Honor Today), a major civil rights organization, demanded Leach’s suspension. Scott pointed to eyewitness testimony that contradicted Leach’s account of events. He questioned the RPD’s choice to send an inexperienced officer like Leach to a family trouble call and criticized the three other officers on the scene for failing to intervene. Scott voiced long-standing concerns of the community—that city officials would whitewash the evidence and yet again fail to redress acts of police violence (McGinnis 1975b).
The large turnout at St. Simon’s indicated that Hawkins’ killing in 1975 struck a chord with residents in a way other police killings had not; Scott recognized an opportunity to mobilize their outrage. FIGHT joined the Black Community Coalition to encourage a unified and deliberate response to Hawkins’ death. Signaling intentions to shine a national spotlight on Rochester’s policing problems, the Coalition contacted the US Justice Department to investigate. Rev. Scott introduced Fletcher Graves from the New York City office of the Community Relations Division of the Justice Department to the crowd. Graves promised to work with Black leaders and Rochester city officials to investigate the circumstances of Denise Hawkins’ death. Residents were loud and angry, at times interrupting Scott, and critical of his trust in government agencies. Some young people wearing black ski masks disrupted the meeting and demanded immediate action from the city of Rochester. His voice hoarse from yelling over the crowd, Scott urged the crowd to “control their anger” and “not to act out of emotion but only according to a plan” (McGinnis 1975a).
This paper charts Denise Hawkins’ death in Rochester NY, a city with a powerful police union, a long history of police violence, and nationally recognized models for successful Black economic development. In partnership with Hawkins’ family, the Black Community Coalition threatened to make Rochester a national example of police violence and compelled city lawmakers to address the problem. Though Denise Hawkins’ death fell from public view by 1976, her story resurfaced in 2017 as a rallying cry for Black Lives Matter activists in New York City. Participants in the People’s March carried signs detailing the circumstances around her death, noting “this is not an isolated incident” but a pattern that continues to disproportionately impact Black and brown people (Anonymous Contributor 2015). The inception of the Black Lives Matter Movement in 2014 and a series of high-profile police killings of Black men have energized activism around, as well as scholarly and journalistic attention to, the intersection of racism and policing in the United States (Zuckerman et al. 2019).
National outrage about police killings tends to focus on Black men, and Black women killed by police are often minimized or underreported in the media (Williams 2016). In 2014, the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) launched the #Sayhername campaign to combat the silence around police killings of Black women. Along with Kimberlé Crenshaw, the AAPF contends that to document and highlight Black women’s stories is to refuse “the loss of the loss” of their lives (Crenshaw and African American Policy Forum 2023, p. x). In #Sayhername: Black Women’s Stories of Police Violence and Public Silence (2023), Crenshaw argues that racial justice movements “cannot address a problem we cannot name. And we cannot name it if the stories of these women are not heard” (Crenshaw and African American Policy Forum 2023, p. 13). Historical and contemporary oppression subjects Black women and girls to what Deborah King calls “multiple jeopardy”, wherein exploitation on the bases of race, gender, class, ability, and other factors multiply in impact (King 1988). When histories of anti-Black violence center on men, Black women’s experiences of state-sanctioned violence as well as intra-communal violence are sidelined; an incomplete portrait of the oppression and exploitation of Black women and girls results (Lindsey 2023). Among cases of police violence against women in the US since 1942, 59% involved Black women, despite comprising only 12% of the general population.1 A 2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that police killed Black women at an annual average rate of 1% from 1976 to 1998 compared to white men and women and Black men (Brown and Langan 2001). The low percentage of Black women killed by police represents underreporting of these events by police and state mortality surveillance systems (Loftin et al. 2003). In Rochester, from 1973 to 1979, the RPD killed 8 people, most of whom were young, Black men. Denise Hawkins was the only Black woman among them (Croft 1985). The essence of the #Sayhename campaign is not simply to memorialize Black women killed by police but to “confront, contest, and dismantle the interlocking systems of state power that continue to routinize and normalize those killings” (Crenshaw and African American Policy Forum 2023, p. 16).
Though Denise Hawkins is the first on the #SayHerName list of Black women killed by police in the last fifty years, little is known about her impact (Crenshaw and African American Policy Forum 2023, p. 177). Using oral histories, newspaper accounts, and government records, this article seeks to restore Denise Hawkins to the history of gender and police violence and to contextualize her story within the histories of Black economic development, community activism, and police reform. Denise Hawkins’ life epitomized the aspirations and optimism of the Black middle class unique to Rochester in the 1970s— evidence of the successful efforts of Black economic development that generated pride from Black organizers and Rochester’s corporate giants alike. Her death reinforced the boundaries of progress and acted as a stark reminder of a police policy that trains officers to shoot to kill, protects them in the aftermath, and continues to leave Black residents disproportionately vulnerable to police violence. Policing innovations since the 1970s resulted in community policing, a diversified force, and greater accountability (Mastrofski and Willis 2010). Scholars and activists acknowledge that Michael Brown and the uprising in Ferguson marked a distinct shift in the national conversation about policing (Robinson 2020). Rochester was once again in the national spotlight during the 2020 uprising—a global response to the killing of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis—when the RPD killed Daniel Prude during a mental health crisis and collaborated with city government to cover it up. The city erupted in weeks-long protests calling for justice for Daniel Prude that were met with expired tear gas canisters, rubber bullets, dogs, batons, tanks, and arrests. In 2021, a team of complainants filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Rochester for excessive use of force by the RPD, not only during the 2020 uprising but for decades. Denise Hawkins’ name is included in the suit to demonstrate a long history of racist police abuse (Fanelli 2021).At the time of this writing, the case is ongoing.
In returning to the 1975 case, the continuities between past and present become troublingly clear. In Mirage of Police Reform, Robert E. Worden and Sarah J. McClean argue that reforms, even with wide support and good intentions, hardly result in substantive change (Worden and McClean 2017). Reforms fail for many reasons (Skogan 2008). Public disapproval of police misconduct wanes (Weitzer 2002). Police unions obstruct progress. Some simply “fade away” (S. Walker 2012, p. 60). Samuel Walker contends that reforms will only work if they transform the organizational culture of a police (S. Walker 2012, p. 66). Though the problems of policing are national, departments are locally operated; therefore, resolving the problems requires a keen understanding of the social and political context of each (Monkkonen 1982, p. 576). In many ways, the story of Denise Hawkins and the Rochester Police Department of the 1970s is tragically ordinary–familiar racist tropes that exaggerate Black women’s criminality and police officers who are trained to kill endangered Black women then as now. However, Rochester’s history of rather exceptional radical activism points to ways in which sustained public pressure and national scrutiny served organizers well in 1975 and may provide hope for the future.
This paper argues that seasoned Black organizers in Rochester mobilized public outrage after Hawkins’ death, which leveraged the specter of the city’s 1964 uprising— which brought Rochester’s racist policing into national view—and threatened to once again tarnish the city’s reputation and place the police department under federal scrutiny. When public pressure was strong, Rochester seemed on the edge of another nationally recognized rebellion. However, another death in the family prompted Hawkins’ parents to withdraw support, and organizers followed their lead. In the absence of sustained national attention and community pressure, the city passed comprehensive police reforms in 1977, including establishing a Complaint Investigation Committee (CIC), which were compromised to appease the police and did little to stop police violence or redress the harm caused by police. Furthermore, Michael Leach, the officer who shot and killed Hawkins, was exonerated by a grand jury and never faced legal or criminal consequences. In 2012, Leach shot and killed his own son, Matthew, mistaking him for an intruder. To receive a lesser charge and a lighter sentence for murdering his son, Leach claimed to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from killing Denise Hawkins decades earlier. Framed as a tragic victim of circumstance, Michael Leach was sentenced to just six months in jail. Though a flagship city for Black economic development and police reform in the 1960s, the Rochester, NY of the 1970s was not able to protect Denise Hawkins, her family, or the family of the officer who shot her.
2. Black Activism and Police Reform in Rochester, NY
In the early 1960s, the midsize upstate New York city of Rochester was a national leader in police reform efforts and Black economic development. In 1963, after a series of police brutality incidents in the Black community, Rochester was the second (to Philadelphia) of five cities to participate in the first wave of civilian-led, independent police oversight boards (McKelvey 1993, pp. 249–50). When continued police violence sparked an uprising in 1964, Rochester became the second (to Harlem) of a nationwide series of uprisings that became known as the Long Hot Summer. In Rochester, the uprising lasted three days and involved heavy National Guard presence, 976 arrests, 350 injuries, four deaths, and over USD 1 million of property damage (Flamm 2016, pp. 210–14; Buttino and Hare 1984, p. 7). Black community leaders channeled collective frustration about over-policing, employment discrimination, and housing segregation into an “organizing frenzy” following the uprising (Hill 2021, p. 123). FIGHT, a working-class organization, sought Black self-determination through individual and cooperative capitalist gains within the Black workforce. Action for a Better Community (ABC) represented the city arm of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty; it was tasked with dispensing federal funds. The Urban League arrived later and represented the interests of the Black middle class (Hill 2021, pp. 123–29). Employment opportunities for Black workers, won by organizations like these, drew migrants to Rochester. The city’s Black population tripled between 1950 and 1970 (Hill 2021, p. 12). These changes, however, did not eliminate deeply entrenched racial inequality or police violence; if anything, they highlighted them.
FIGHT targeted the racist employment practices of Eastman Kodak Company, which was founded and headquartered in Rochester. Despite Kodak being a national model for corporate policy, its executives espoused racist ideas and refused to hire Black people (Murphy 2022). Minister Franklin Florence, the then-president of FIGHT, mobilized a multi- faceted attack on Kodak’s reputation, soliciting multiple national Christian denominations to join them in making a spectacle at the company’s annual board meeting in 1967. When Kodak balked, Florence invoked the specter of 1964, promising that “what happens in Rochester in the summer of ’67 is at the doorstep of [the] Eastman Kodak Co” (Loh 1976). Stokely Carmichael, leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and champion of Black Power, visited Rochester to register the SNCC’s support for FIGHT’s campaign. National news outlets including the Associated Press and the New York Times covered the feud between Kodak and Black activists (Hill 2021, p. 114). FIGHT knew the city of Rochester, and the Eastman Kodak Company feared negative press and continued to raise the stakes with provocative direct actions and coalition-building with churches and other organizations. Kodak submitted to pressure from FIGHT in June 1967 and opened an unprecedented number of jobs to Black people (Hill 2021, p. 122). FIGHT also partnered with a rival Rochester corporation, Xerox, to establish FIGHTON, a community develop- ment corporation (CDC) designed to create ownership opportunities for and within Black communities (Hill 2021, p. 134). FIGHTON stood as a national model for Black-power inspired CDCs [community development corporations]” (Hill 2021, p. 130). According to Laura Warren Hill, “Rochester emerged as a pioneer in the quest for Black economic development” (Hill 2021, p. 86) and a “national symbol in the fight for the soul of Black capitalism” (Hill 2012, p. 46). FIGHT successfully exploited Rochester’s fear of another 1964 and the attendant national spotlight; these lessons would remain salient for FIGHT’s leadership after the death of Denise Hawkins.
Despite decisive victories against employment discrimination, poverty and violence disproportionately persisted for the Black residents of Rochester and across the United States into the 1970s. Desegregation and federal civil rights legislation failed to reverse deeply entrenched economic and social disparities laid by a long history of racism in cities across the United States (Cashin 2004). As a result, uprisings continued in midsize cities like Rochester into the early 1970s: the United States witnessed 1949 uprisings in 960 segregated communities between 1968 and 1972 (Hinton 2021, p. 10). Uprisings after 1968 remained local—locally managed and locally remembered—and therefore tend to be minimized or forgotten (Hinton 2021, p. 12). However, Elizabeth Hinton defines the post-1968 era as the “crucible period of rebellion”, in which midsize cities like Rochester confronted state-sanctioned violence that continues in the 21st century (Hinton 2021, p. 12).
High-profile instances of state-sanctioned violence in upstate New York fomented additional distrust. In 1971, State Police and National Guardsmen brutally repressed an uprising of incarcerated people in the Attica Correctional Facility (Thompson 2016). That year, RPD officers harassed and arrested an increasingly organized coalition of activists, religious leaders, and students—most of whom were white—who staged anti-Vietnam war protests across town (Rosenberg-Naparsteck 1986). Members of Youth Against War and Fascism (YAWF) understood the RPD as a proxy for Governor Rockefeller and President Nixon, and therefore police aggression appeared to be an arm of the global effort to contain communism and quell dissidents (Gale and Rockowitz 1972). Meanwhile, economic recession, the War on Poverty, and expanded, militarized police departments collided to further impoverish and surveil Black communities across what has become known as the “Jim Crow North” (Purnell et al. 2019; Schrader 2019). In a segregated Rochester, police brutality remained a constant concern in the city’s 3rd and 7th Wards, where most Black people were forced to live (Scott 2008).
By the time Denise Hawkins was killed in 1975, Black organizations in Rochester had grown accustomed to responding regularly to state violence. Rev. Raymond Scott remembered police killings and subsequent uprisings occurring every year during his tenure as the FIGHT president from 1971 to 1976. A younger generation of Black Americans who witnessed their parents take enormous risks to secure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, felt disillusioned about the limits of that legislation to keep them safe from police violence and de jure segregation in the form of redlining, inherited poverty, and employment discrimination (Rothstein 2018). FIGHT filed complaints about police violence after 1964, but, according to Scott, police “would never volunteer any word on the outcome of their investigations”. And the news failed to report on police violence leaving FIGHT to be the front-line response to citizens’ grievances. Though other organizations existed, “when there was a crisis”, Scott recalled, “when people wanted action, you know, then they looked to the FIGHT organization” (Scott 2008). In the early 1970s, while Denise Hawkins attended Madison High School, FIGHT functioned as a liaison between the city’s government and Black communities afflicted by police violence. “Our primary objective”, Scott said, “was to keep our people from getting killed” (Scott 2008).
3. The Life and Death of Denise Hawkins
Denise Darsal Hawkins (née Roach) was born on 1 February 1957, in Geneva, NY, the second oldest of four children. Her father, Clifford Roach, was a technical sergeant in the US Air Force, so the Roach family lived in France, Panama, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Arizona before arriving in Rochester, NY. Roach retired from the US Air Force in 1970 and the family chose to settle in Rochester so Mrs. Waverly Roach could pursue a position at the Eastman Kodak Company. The family purchased a home in Rochester’s 19th Ward, a newly integrated neighborhood in the city’s southwest quadrant. Racist real estate practices and restrictive covenants confined Black families almost exclusively to the 3rd and 7th Wards; in 1965, the 19th Ward Community Association (19WCA) formed “to fight racist real estate practices, such as blockbusting and redlining, while purposefully cultivating a neighborhood that is diverse”.2 Black middle-class families employed at Kodak, like the Roaches, were among the first Black residents to move into the 19th Ward, where Clifford Roach still lives at the time of this writing.3 The 19WCA remains one of the oldest active Neighborhood Associations in the US.
In the 19th Ward, the Roach family provided a happy childhood for Denise and her three siblings. Denise remembered growing up in a “home of love”. Her parents were strict. “We had to be in before the streetlights came out [and] we weren’t allowed to start dating till we were like 16, 17”, her sister Ruthie recalls (Kimbrew 2023).
Denise attended two junior high schools before enrolling at Madison High School on Genesee Street in 1971, where she earned academic honors in multiple subjects and won awards in athletics (Kimbrew 2023). She developed a close relationship with her high school principal, Mr. Johnny Wilson. She considered him a father figure, and he called her “‘my child with the $64,000 smile’” (M.J. Walker 1975). She loved to dance and founded a dance club at Madison.
As a teenager, Denise composed poetry under the name “Shasheca” and explored themes of self-love, self-determination, and Black Power. Cheryl Clarke notes that during the Black Arts Movement of the early 1970s, “black woman identity reification poems were legion” (Clark 2005, p. 73). Reminiscent of Mari Evans’ “I am a Black Woman” (1969), Shasheca’s poem “I the Unique Black Woman” identified the intersections of her race and gender as sources of strength (Hawkins n.d.a). Evans described herself as “impervious and indestructible” and beckoned the reader to “Look on me and be renewed”, her visible presence a source of strength for others. Similarly, Shasheca celebrated her Black body: “my keen black eyes my widened nose my thick and lovely lips”. Drawing from these traits, Shasheca proclaimed: “I posess (sic) the power of black, it is in my heart and bound to my soul” (Hawkins n.d.a). The poem concludes with a gesture toward the collective of “all my Black sisters” for whom she offers a hopeful blessing for the future: that they “will be unique too”. At once aware of the persistent denial of Black girls and women and their sense of beauty and self-worth, Shasheca’s poem asserts a key theme of the Black Arts Movement of the 1960s and 1970s: simply existing as a Black woman in a society wishing to erase her was an act of resistance.
Shasheca’s poetry extended from the self to society, attendant to power and injustice. In “Boys”, for example, she imagined punching the “silly boys” who pull her hair—“cause it’s only fair” (Hawkins n.d.b). Another poem critiqued white supremacy:
If those people white and pale could paint their faces black would Try to wash the Paint away and Say thank God Im white. (Hawkins n.d.c)
In “Help”, Shasheca adopted the voice of those unable to read or write and critiqued poverty as the root cause of suffering for “Not just me but many more who have to take it because we’re poor” (Hawkins n.d.d).
In addition to her academic and artistic strengths, Denise Hawkins was well-liked among her peers. In her senior year at Madison, Hawkins was runner-up for Homecoming Queen, and her new boyfriend, Louis Hawkins, escorted her to the ceremony. Louis was four years older than Denise, known for his big personality and stylish fashion sense. When Denise first met Louis, she became instantly infatuated. Her parents and high school principal, however, disapproved. They suspected Louis was using drugs, and they worried he would be a negative influence on their daughter. But she was infatuated with Louis, and, although her boyfriend did not attend the school, Denise Hawkins insisted he escort her in place of another Madison High School male student (Henry 2023). Shortly before she graduated in 1974 with a Regents diploma, she learned she was pregnant. She planned to become a nurse but decided to marry Louis. Against Clifford Roach’s wishes, Waverly Roach signed the parental consent form so seventeen-year-old Denise could get married.
Louis and Denise Hawkins wed on 21 January 1974. Denise was a few weeks shy of her 18th birthday, and Louis was 22 (City of Rochester 1974). On 19 June 1974, Denise gave birth to Louis Hawkins Jr., known affectionately to his family as “Little Louie”. That summer, they moved to the FIGHT Village apartments at 103 Joseph Avenue. FIGHT Village was an apartment community run by the FIGHT organization to offer Black residents affordable housing. Joseph Avenue was a historically redlined neighborhood north of the city center and one of the locations of unrest during the 1964 uprising. Flemish Ashford, who was the president of the Fight Village Tenants Association (FVTA), told a reporter that, by the time the Hawkinses moved in, “there was no trouble there, no rowdiness” (Family, friends ask how 1975). Denise planned to get involved in the FVTA and applied for a position at the US Post Office. In the fall of 1975, a young wife and mother, Denise Hawkins had big plans for her future.
On 11 November 1975, Denise, Louis, and Little Louie Hawkins visited Denise’s cousin Adrienne Turner at the Apollo Apartments on Thurston Road in the 19th Ward. Together with Miranda Roach, Denise’s sister, they spent the evening listening to music, drinking whiskey, and dancing. Miranda recalled that “no one seemed intoxicated”, but, at some point, Louis whispered a suggestive comment to her (‘Didn’t mention weapons’ in call 1975). Denise stepped away from dancing with Adrienne to offer Miranda a glass of wine and to ask “‘What did Louis tell you?’” (‘Didn’t mention weapons’ in call 1975). Miranda told her sister what happened, and conflict between the couple escalated. Denise found a knife in the kitchen, and Louis grabbed a chair; Miranda determined that “‘things were really getting out of hand’”. The argument moved from the living room to the kitchen. “‘Denise and Louis were really at it with each other’”, Miranda said, “‘I felt someone was going to get hurt’” (Lovely 1975c).
Afraid for her sister’s safety, Miranda called the police department at 8:37 pm. The police would later claim that she told the dispatcher “husband and wife quarreling. Wife’s got a dagger–something. Please hurry up’”, but Miranda insisted “‘I did not mention any weapons or anything like that’” (‘Didn’t mention weapons’ in call 1975). The dispatcher exaggerated the situation, telling police there was a gun involved (Willis 1976). Michael Leach, a 22-year-old, white officer who had been on the force for 18 months, responded to what became a labeled “family trouble” call. Officers understand anecdotally that family trouble calls present greater risk for law enforcement compared to other calls; however, data do not support this perception (Nix et al. 2019). But, because “family trouble” calls carry the reputation for being dangerous, officers respond to them differently (Westley 1970, pp. 60–61; Black 1981, pp. 126, 141, 162–63). According to Jessica Gillooly, family trouble calls receive “High-priority” status and “prime the police for a serious encounter” (Gillooly 2022, p. 768). Officers in Chicago were found to be frustrated with, and reluctant to respond to, family trouble calls, especially those from poor or working-class neighborhoods, which officers associated with violence (Westley 1970, p. 60). Typical family trouble calls involved violence against women by their husbands, and officers’ delayed their response to avoid any harm to themselves and hoped the situation would resolve itself (Black 1981, pp. 113–17). Officers devoted even less effort to calls involving Black people and were more punitive toward Black couples (Black 1981, p. 187). The nascent “battered women’s movement” of the 1970s was building power and awareness of domestic violence throughout the 1970s, but Black women remained underserved by the criminal justice system and unprotected from domestic violence (Koyama 2006).
Leach arrived at the location of the family trouble call with three other officers: his partner, John Roberts; acting sergeant John Donlon; and officer Thomas Nagel. Before entering the building, Roberts called the dispatcher to confirm: “‘Did you state there was a gun involved?’” and the complaint bureau dispatcher replied, “‘Yes, weapons involved’” (Willis 1976). At this point, misinformation from the dispatcher compounded officers’ expectation that the family trouble call would pose a risk. Three of the four officers had drawn their service revolvers as they approached the door of the basement apartment, and Donlon brandished a shotgun (M.J. Walker 1975).
Meanwhile, inside the apartment, Miranda continued to deescalate the situation. She took the knife from Denise and hid it in the oven, out-of-sight. The argument seemed to be calming down, and Miranda never believed Denise had any real intention to harm her husband. Miranda turned to see Denise had opened the oven and retrieved the knife and threatened her husband again (‘Didn’t mention weapons’ in call 1975). The physical threat that Denise at 5 feet, 2 inches and 100 pounds posed to her husband was likely minimal, and, at some point, he grabbed her wrists, while she held onto the knife, to subdue her. Miranda tried to restrain Louis, and Denise decided to leave the apartment. She struggled to open the door but managed to get out. As Miranda held Louis back inside, she heard a gunshot in the hallway. “‘I pushed Louis aside, and run out immediately after, and my sister was shot’”, Miranda said (‘Didn’t mention weapons’ in call 1975).
Denise Hawkins may not have known the police were on their way, and it was unlikely, given the commotion ensuing inside the apartment, that she expected four officers with their guns drawn to approach as she fled her husband. Miranda never heard police announce themselves or direct Denise to drop the knife. In a sworn statement Miranda said,
“there wasn’t a sound. . .Denise just ran out, and I like heard the gunshot and I ran out. Louis ran out behind me. Before she got out that door, she shot, and I said, Louis didn’t do that. Where did that shot come from? And I ran out and there is my sister against the wall. . .and I saw the policeman’”. (‘Didn’t mention weapons’ in call 1975)
Michael Leach had fired his .38 caliber service revolver one time into the chest of Denise Hawkins, and the young mother of 18-month-old Little Louie died in the apartment hallway (Leach predicted 1975).
News reports of the tragedy from Communicade, one of Rochester’s Black newspapers in circulation, emphasized the loss of a beloved family member. A front-page headline lamented a “Young Mother Shot By Police” and the phrase “‘family trouble’” appeared in quotation marks in the first and final lines of the news article. The article emphasized her familial roles—as mother, sister, and wife—to highlight her interdependence with others in the community and to suggest a widely shared sense of loss. Though police labeled Miranda Roach’s call for help as a “family trouble” call, Communicade and Black activists countered that the police only caused trouble for the family by killing a young mother in their response (Young mother shot 1975).
4. Police Response
The police perspective dominated the white, mainstream newspaper coverage of Hawkins’ death and subsequent investigation. Rochester’s dailies, the Democrat and Chron- icle and the Times-Union, relied on police reports in their coverage of the police violence. Their reporting centered on Michael Leach, not Denise Hawkins. Headlines about the case identified Leach by name more often, such as “Leach: ‘She was Definitely in a Threatening Position,’” (Leach: ‘She was Definitely. . .’ 1975) and “Leach’s statement” (Leach’s statement 1975) headlined a full reprinting of his version of events. Media coverage characterized him as a noble victim of a dangerous profession, simply trying to defend himself. In a statement given shortly after the incident, Leach said, ‘She was attacking me and there wasn’t anything else I could do but fire. . .I know that if I couldn’t have shot, I would have been stabbed’” (Leach predicted 1975). The Democrat and Chronicle described Hawkins as “a screaming woman [who] lunged at him with a foot-long knife when she came out of the apartment” (Leach predicted 1975). In another description, she “held the knife raised in her right hand, the blade was pointed toward Leach in a downward stabbing position” (Cooper 1975). The mainstream newspapers repeated menacing terms such as “lunge” and “dagger” to exaggerate the threat she posed to the officers when she emerged into the hallway.
After the shooting, the RPD rallied behind Leach. Police Chief Thomas F. Hastings issued a brief statement declaring Leach’s use of deadly force to be “‘justifiable under the circumstances’” (Policeman in shooting 1975). Police internal affairs investigators and Assistant District Attorney Michael R. Saporito Jr. concluded, after a five-hour investigation, that there was no evidence that Leach required discipline or dismissal. The RPD reassigned Leach to a desk job and gave him paid leave “because he was emotionally upset” after killing Hawkins (Leach predicted 1975).
In the days after the tragedy, Michael Leach expressed that he felt absolved of any wrongdoing and assured of RPD support. Confident his actions were appropriate, he said, “‘If I’d have done something wrong, the department would have filed charges against me’” (Leach predicted 1975). He described killing Denise Hawkins as an inevitable feature of law enforcement, “an unfortunate thing that happened. . . I’m sorry that it happened, but it does happen”. Professional obligation required him to respond to the supposedly dangerous “family trouble” call—so he claimed to be simply carrying out his duty at great potential risk to himself. The RPD orchestrated a media narrative that legitimized Leach’s version of events, likely in anticipation of the subsequent investigation. Leach’s confidence may have stemmed from the fact that the RPD officers rarely faced charges. Not one of seventy-nine complaints of police misconduct from 1963 to 1970 resulted in disciplinary action (Myers 1984). Rochester’s policing challenges followed national trends in the 1970s. Police departments across the United States considered themselves “helpless victims of Black aggressors,” which hampered efforts to reduce police presence in Black neighborhoods (Hinton 2021, p. 103).
To investigate whether Michael Leach was a victim of Denise Hawkins, and therefore justified in using deadly force, Monroe County convened a grand jury. FIGHT president Rev. Raymond Scott said “‘we have no confidence in the Monroe County grand jury completing an impartial review’ of the Hawkins’ shooting. The grand jury has very little, if any, credibility in our community’” (Lovely 1975b). Rochester Mayor Ryan attempted to assuage these concerns with a pledge for transparency. He promised to make the grand jury report widely available. But Scott noted that police could “‘cover up’ details and withhold evidence”. FIGHT planned to mobilize community support to publicize counternarratives to the police version of the facts.
5. Community Response
Black organizers formed the Black Community Coalition, including a group of mothers, the Fight Village Tenants Association, FIGHT, and prominent Black leaders including James McCuller, Constance Mitchell, Councilmember-elect Ronald Good, County Legislator David Gannt, and former FIGHT president Franklin Florence. They stressed unity among groups and individuals. Together, they stifled the call for mass protests while emotions were high. The impulse for urgent action was particularly strong among younger Black activists. The City Council could not act until the grand jury report was submitted to the public, and they urged Black leaders to be patient. Council members also needed to consider political expediency; the new Democratic majority on the council hoped to strike a balance between “appearing to give in to black pressure” and “refus[ing] to negotiate”, which would have resulted in mass protest (Lovely 1975a). Black activists and organizers mobilized to ensure the Hawkins’ case was not “‘whitewashed’” or forgotten while the investigation was underway (Young mother shot 1975).
The Black Community Coalition started by building visible power around the goal of pressuring the city to suspend Leach. They contacted the US Department of Justice to investigate the situation in Rochester, who sent Fletcher Graves, a member of the Com- munity Relations division of the New York City Regional office (Young mother shot 1975). Meanwhile, the FIGHT Village Tenants Union, which represented Hawkins’ neighborhood, called for the suspension of all four officers (Young mother shot 1975). On November 14, at noon, a multi-racial coalition of about 50 community members spoke to the City Council to demand Leach’s suspension until the end of the investigation (Young mother shot 1975). That evening, a crowd of 1000 people gathered at St. Simon’s Episcopal Church for a com- munity meeting about Denise’s case led by FIGHT. A Black church built in 1921, St. Simon’s founded some of the community organizations that shaped the political landscape of the 1960s, including FIGHT, and organized in the city after the 1964 uprising.4 FIGHT President Raymond Scott appeared alongside Fletcher Graves and informed the crowd that the US Justice Department would investigate Hawkins’ death. The large crowd was outraged and young people, in particular, expressed urgent disapproval of Scott’s apparent acquiescence to the slow pace of justice. Scott reminded them of the imperative to channel their emotions strategically and collectively. He noted that public pressure was already working: Michael Leach had been temporarily relieved of duty in response to the people’s demands (McGin- nis 1975a). The Black Community Coalition hoped to continue to empower the community by mobilizing residents into a unified grassroots movement to pressure the City Council from within, while also looking to national platforms to pressure Rochester from outside. The Coalition believed that, if the city erupted into a disorganized uprising too soon, they would lose their key bargaining tool. The power lay in the threat of rebellion, and, as long as the possibility of another 1964 uprising loomed, leaders could brandish its specter to bend elected officials to the public will. Scott understood the imperative of an organized, deliberate response.
Thinly veiled political messages reached hundreds of attendees at Denise Hawkins’ funeral the next day at the Antioch Baptist Church (M.J. Walker 1975). Some of the words shared at the service focused on the personal details of Hawkins’ life. In contrast to the media portrayal of Denise as a violent, dangerous Black woman, loved ones remembered details of her life. Johnny Wilson, principal at Madison High School and Denise’s mentor, emphasized the family element. He characterized Hawkins as a person with deep “respect for the family institution” (M.J. Walker 1975). He believed that the “family trouble” call that led to her death was tied to her abiding loyalty to family. Wilson said, “‘I believe she was trying to preserve the family institution when she died” (M.J. Walker 1975).
Rev. Willie Cotton, the pastor of Antioch Baptist Church which Denise Hawkins was in the process of joining, delivered an impassioned eulogy with thinly veiled political messages. He lamented “‘living in a world of trouble’” and urged the crowd to seek Jesus Christ to find solace. He offered hope, claiming, “‘You can conquer hate with love’”. He implicated the police in Hawkins’ death, stating: “‘Those running around with guns are not going to be the winners’” (M.J. Walker 1975).
The grand jury investigation was set to begin November 26. They called for Leach’s suspension. They relied on Graves, who lived in NYC, to help publicize Rochester’s fight for justice for Hawkins at the national level. They contacted Rev. Jesse Jackson, an acolyte of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, who headed Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) in Chicago. Jackson asserted his skill for public campaigns following King’s assassination and developed an impressive reputation for maneuvering the media and organizing direct action campaigns to redress racism across the United States. Jackson pledged PUSH would “definitely get involved” with FIGHT to “put an end to such senceless killing (sic)” (Group takes role 1975). As the coalition grew to include PUSH and with investigation from the Department of Justice, Rochester’s fight for justice for Denise Hawkins emerged at the national level. Jackson’s attention to the Hawkins’ case increased the pressure on the city to respond appropriately and to avoid another 1964 uprising—because the nation was watching. This kind of attention intimidated the Rochester Police Locust Club. The Locust Club, the union for Rochester police, represents officers from the rank of Police Officer to Captain; its name comes from the hardwood used in the department’s first issued billy clubs.5 Timothy Hill, the Locust Club president, criticized the decision to remove Leach from active duty: “it appears that the threat of riots and violence from extremist groups who disregard due process of law has caused the city administration to buckle under pressure and change the duty status of Officer Leach’” (Policeman’s status 1975). Making it personal, Hill added: “‘We assure the citizens of the city that we will not tolerate Rev. Scott’s attempts to run the Police Department’” (Policeman’s status 1975). While the grand jury investigation continued, the Black Community Coalition believed that, as long as they remained unified in purpose and action, their political power functioned as a tool to push for police reform.
On behalf of the local NAACP chapter organization, President Howard W. Coles and Executive Secretary Theophilus E. Tyson echoed the calls for a unified effort for justice: “We are in full accord with the public opinions indicating that for no reason can we see that the police officer involved was justified in shooting this woman”. The NAACP noted “the community at large is greatly disturbed about the facts involved in this incident”, in part because the information was unclear but in part because the story was so familiar. Rochester residents experienced “many such incidents in the past entailing similar appeals and protests” to no avail. Describing the community as “anxious” and “struggling. . .to bring the citizens of this city and the Police Department to a point of peaceful co-existence”, Coles and Tyson were particularly concerned about the youth of Rochester who were already affected by “too many unfortunate past experiences”. They noted that Hawkins’ killing “negatively affected and so greatly disturbed” young people the most” (M. Johnson 1975). They lacked faith in the judicial processes, like Scott, and expected the cycle of police violence to continue unchecked. The Judicial Process Commission, a group of 30 community members formed to improve the criminal justice system in Rochester, urged the City Council to address the fact that city residents distrusted the RPD to resolve misconduct internally. They called on the City Council to appoint a panel to make information about the Hawkins’ shooting available to the public and “‘establish and maintain credible means of receiving and investigating complaints” about the RPD (Council urged 1975). Thirty Black clergy, members of the Interdenominational Ministerial Fellowship, called for a similar process for evaluating and changing the RPD so that city leaders “‘can better guarantee to Rochester citizens that this kind of incident (the shooting) will not be repeated’” (Council urged 1975). Broad support for a civilian review of the police gained support as organizations and individuals unified in the wake of Denise Hawkins’ death.
On Friday night, 21 November 1975, more than 600 community members filled the pews at the Immaculate Conception Church to support the parents of Denise Hawkins. When Waverly Roach, Denise’s mother, stood to speak, the crowd erupted in a standing ovation. The family announced a plan to sue Michael Leach for the death of their daughter. Willian Kunstler agreed to represent them. Kunstler was a famed civil rights attorney whose flamboyant style and willingness to defend unpopular causes in the name of justice earned national notoriety in cases such as the Chicago Seven, Attica prisoners, and Kent State survivors. Biographer David J. Langum notes that Kunstler’s opponents regarded him as the “most hated lawyer in America”, celebrated and loathed for “his willingness to do battle against the government, to throw a monkey wrench into its well-oiled machine of oppression” (Langnum 1999). Kunstler’s legal skill, but more importantly his public profile, elevated the effort to seek justice for Denise Hawkins. Kunstler announced he would also pursue a civil suit to secure federal oversight of the recruitment and training of the RPD. Raymond Scott said that FIGHT wanted “‘to see that justice is done. . .that this type of nonsense doesn’t happen again”. He promised to make demands on the City Council and escalate to the Department of Justice in a civil rights case. Waverly Roach urged the crowd to see Denise as a “‘symbol to all you young people’” about the costs of violence (Lovely 1975d). With Black leaders and the Roaches behind him, Scott told the crowd, “‘You must not allow this issue to die’” (Lovely 1975d). The number of supporters combined with the high profile of William Kunstler increased pressure on the city of Rochester to act swiftly. Timothy H. Hill, president of the Locust Club, said officers were “extremely nervous” about Kunstler’s ability to bring the national spotlight and federal intervention to their department (Lovely 1975a). Meanwhile, the RPD continued to feed reports to news outlets emphasizing Leach’s innocence and Denise Hawkins’ menacing actions. Leach returned to active duty on December 7 (Shore and Cooper 1975).
On December 11, the grand jury investigation exonerated Leach, finding he acted in self-defense when he killed Denise Hawkins. Because police are trained to use deadly force when they feel endangered, the jury determined Leach’s actions to be in accordance with the police policy and state law. Raymond Scott distrusted the report, noting it was “‘basically the same as the report the police gave after the shooting’” (FBI says 1975). The Black Community Coalition requested an independent FBI investigation of Hawkins’ death. Hugh Higgins, head of the Rochester FBI office, treated the case as a top priority and came to the same conclusion as Monroe County: Leach was innocent.
Black community activists continued to escalate pressure on the city of Rochester by deploying an economic boycott from their arsenal of strategies. They called for a “Black Xmas”. Protesters distributed flyers downtown, inviting shoppers to boycott all stores and shopping plazas: “Remember, the taxes you pay on the merchandise you buy pay the salaries of those who kill you, misrepresent you, and trick you. Join us in a Black Xmas to assure a brighter tomorrow’” (Boycott called for 1975). In the midst of the Christmas holiday shopping season, activists expressed their disapproval of the grand jury’s decision by wielding the power of their pocketbooks.
Meanwhile, the Black Community Coalition produced a Joint Statement with the City Council that advanced eight proposals for a citizen’s committee to review and improve the RPD’s response to crisis calls and to misconduct allegations, their firearms policy, and their training “in multi-racial neighborhoods”; to conduct a review of officers and an expansion of the Family Crisis Intervention (FACIT) program; to curate a list of “non-white and white clergy to be on call to assist in the resolution of family crisis problems”; and to ensure more Black cops in Black neighborhoods (Joint statement 1975).
As Black organizations unified to demand justice for Denise Hawkins, counter-protests and harassment attempted to derail the movement. The Locust Club attempted to control the public narrative and filed a temporary restraining order on the release of further information about the case to the public (Joint statement 1975). Other actions targeted FIGHT leader Rev. Raymond Scott directly. On November 23, someone left a severed deer head on the steps of the Holy Trinity Baptist Church just before Sunday services began. A note, stuck with a nail between the eyes of the deer, read: “This could be Reverand (sic) Raymond Scott” (Deer head 1975). A week later, police arrested Scott on outdated charges of petit larceny in a nearby suburb. The executive director of the Urban League, William Johnson, Jr., called it a “reprisal”, saying, “‘I find it difficult to believe that this action was insulated from Minister Scott’s active leadership in the Denise Hawkins Killing’” (Scott’s arrest 1975). Johnson likened Scott’s arrest to the FBI surveillance of civil rights leaders like Dr. King and the Black Panthers. He said, “We are greatly disturbed that anyone who questions the misconduct of police will have their past carefully scrutinized in order to uncover any incident that can be used against them”. Johnson denounced the RPD’s “gestapo-like tactics” and urged “black and white citizens of this community who believe in democracy” to protest Scott’s arrest (Scott’s arrest 1975).
Community members harassed Denise’s family as well. The telephone at the Roach family residence rang constantly. Ruthie remembers “evil phone calls” threatening violence to the family as they grieved. They “were calling us ‘niggers’” and threatening that “the rest of us would be killed” if the family pursued the suits against the Rochester Police Department (Kimbrew 2023). During this tumultuous time, Little Louie lived with his grandparents. Ruthie Kimbrew remembered Little Louie as a helpful, loving child. She said, “He was so smart. He had a lot of my sister’s characteristics. He was always helpful, well spoken, well mannered. He was almost like the perfect little kid. And he was so proud when he made A’s” (Kimbrew 2023). Waverly continued to work with activists in pursuit of justice, and Clifford remained skeptical about incurring any further harm on his family.
Beset by grief, Denise Hawkins’ widower, Louis, frequented the Roach family home in the weeks following her death to visit his son. Louis considered moving to Chicago with his brother and taking Louie with him. Clifford and Waverly Roach wanted Little Louie to remain with them and pursued full custody of their grandson. On December 30, 1975, Louis came to their house to retrieve Little Louie. Ruthie, Denise’s younger sister, remembers sitting next to Louis on the couch and urging him to leave. Tension escalated among the grief-stricken members of the family still mourning the loss of their beloved Denise and trying to raise her toddler. Louis refused to leave, and Clifford Roach returned with a shotgun. According to Ruthie, the men exchanged harsh words and, when Louis stood up and appeared to reach for the gun, Clifford shot and killed him. The family dragged Louis’ body to the sidewalk and phoned his mother and then the police (Kimbrew 2023). In a matter of six weeks, Little Louie became an orphan.
Clifford Roach was charged with killing Louis Hawkins. When police arrived, he was arrested and held on USD 10,000 bail. Unable to pay, he sat in the Monroe County Jail for two months. Because of the circumstances of the case and Roach’s spotless criminal record, his attorney, Charles Crimi, advised him to take a plea deal. Clifford, with his family’s safety in mind, took the deal and pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter. The judge gave him time served with four years of probation. In turn, he lost his job as a mail carrier for the US Post Office (D. Hawkins husband shot 1975). This additional layer of tragedy, combined with the relentless threatening phone calls to the family home, pressed Mr. Roach to remove the family from the public eye. The Roach family dropped the lawsuits against Michael Leach and the city of Rochester, severed ties with William Kunstler, and retreated from activism. Without the family’s support, the agitation for justice for Denise Hawkins waned. After this, news coverage of the case dropped off; national pressure on the city evaporated; and, according to Ruthie Kimbrew, the death threats against the Roach family ceased (Kimbrew 2023). The Roaches retreated to private life, raising Little Louie in Denise’s childhood home. Little Louie had been diagnosed with myocarditis and congestive cardiomyopathy, and in June 1980 the family learned he would not live much longer. Waverly Roach said, “‘I think he knew. He told me he was going to be in heaven with his mommy and daddy and not to worry about him’” (Family suffers new loss 1980). The day before he died, he insisted his grandmother give his toys to the children in the Cancer Center and ICU (Kimbrew 2023). He died in late October 1980 at Strong Memorial Hospital at age six. Within five years, Denise Hawkins’ entire immediate family was dead. The Times-Union described Little Louie’s death as the loss of “the youngest survivor of a family whose tragedies were part of Rochester’s history” (Boy, 6, dies 1980).
6. Policy Reform in the Wake of Denise Hawkins’ Death
The tragic death of Denise Hawkins provided sufficient cause for city leaders to revive efforts to establish a civilian oversight of the police that began more than a decade earlier. In the 1960s, police departments across the US experienced a significant crisis of legitimacy, owing to internal redistributions of professional power and external criticism from civil rights protestors. In this period of disruption, departments across the country recontoured policies, examined racial dynamics, and restrained officers’ individual discretion (Agee 2020). In this context, Rochester established its first civilian oversight board in 1963, follow- ing three instances of police violence against Black residents (Forsyth 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). Its Police Advisory Board (PAB) was comprised of nine Monroe County residents who investigated complaints of police misconduct and recommended disciplinary actions to the chief. Though the PAB could not discipline officers, it could hold public hearings to pressure the city manager to implement recommended discipline. This board pioneered civilian oversight efforts in the early 1960s, the second of its kind in the US to Philadelphia, followed by Washington, DC, Kansas City, and Denver (Coxe 1965; Philadelphia advisory unit eyed 1964). Representatives from New York City visited Rochester before constituting their own board (N.Y. City group 1964; Philadelphia advisory unit eyed 1964). The distin- guishing feature of this wave of civilian oversight boards was their independence—not only from the police but also from the procedures of internal review tasked with addressing misconduct allegations within police departments (Police advisers continue 1964).
Critics understood a civilian review to be an unnecessary impediment to the day- to-day operations of law enforcement. After the 1964 uprising in Rochester, the FBI, led by J. Edgar Hoover, blamed the inability of the police to stop “riots” on police advisory boards. The FBI report on the New York summer riots of 1964 argued that “where there is an outside civilian review board the restraint of the police was so great that effective action against the rioters appeared to be impossible” (Federal Bureau of Investigations 1964, pp. 13–14). A Rochester Times-Union editorial agreed, demanding that supporters of the PAB prove the board was not hindering public safety (City must answer 1964). Meanwhile, the Locust Club slowed the work of the PAB by filing a lawsuit claiming the PAB possessed unconstitutional power and asked the court to enjoin the board from taking any further official action (Rochester Police Locust Club v. City of Rochester 1965; Vogler 1965). Between 1965 and 1969, the Locust Club stalled the PAB with lawsuits. Unable to review cases while a legal action was pending, the PAB responded to only 79 complaints in seven years (compared to Philadelphia’s 206 in that time) (Coxe 1965). The New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the PAB, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the Locust Club’s appeal. By 1969, the PAB was free to resume business, but its reputation had been tarnished and public support had declined. Several board members resigned, their seats remained vacant, and the mainstream press called for its abolition. In 1970, Stephen May, the newly elected Republican mayor, defunded and abolished the board (It’s official 1970). Rochester residents once again lacked any credible process to handle complaints of police misconduct. Police violence continued.
The federal government mentioned civilian review boards in two reports issued in 1968 amidst the tumult of urban unrest and declining police legitimacy. The first—the Final Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders—was released in an effort to understand the numerous urban rebellions around the country and the widening gap between Black and white Americans. The Commission found no fault with municipalities establishing independent civilian review boards like the one in Rochester and in fact recommended the creation of such boards in order to “gain the respect and confidence of the entire community” (US National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968, pp. 311–12). The second report—The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society—crafted by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice addressed the causes of crime and ways to prevent it, while improving law enforcement and the administration of justice. The President’s Commission found it “unreasonable to single out the police as the only agency that should be subject to special scrutiny” from an external source. The Commission recommended against “the establishment of civilian review boards in jurisdictions where they do not exist” (US President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1968, p. 265). The federal government lacked coherence on civilian review.
It was not until 1975, when Michael Leach’s killing of Denise Hawkins caused enough of a spectacle, that Rochester renewed efforts for a civilian review. In January 1976, Mayor Ryan convened the Citizens Committee on Police Affairs to evaluate the RPD’s policies and procedures. He appointed 15 members representing a racial and professional cross-section of stakeholders in the community, including three Black activists—James McCuller (Action for a Better Community and the Black Community Coalition), Constance Mitchell (FIGHT), and William Johnson (director of the Rochester Urban League)—and three RPD officers: Lt. Robert Coyne (president of the Rochester Police Locust Club), Lt. Daniel J. Funk, and Isaac D. Carson (one of a few Black people on the force). They formed three task forces: police operations, training and recruitment, and police social work (Crimi and Willis 1976). Chaired by Charles F. Crimi, the committee was colloquially known as the “Crimi Committee”. Crimi was the son of a Buffalo, NY police officer and worked as a prosecutor at the US Attorney’s Office before starting a private practice in Rochester in the late 1960s. Colleagues regarded him as humble and fair, “a man of unquestionable integrity and a giant in the legal profession” (Sopko 1989). Crimi intended for his committee to cooperate to produce a report that all 15 members could endorse.6 He anticipated that the Locust Club would fight any proposed police reforms but remained confident the committee would meet those challenges (Stewart 1976).
After nearly a year, the Crimi Committee produced the Final Report of the Citizens Committee on Police Affairs. It contained 97 recommendations for police reform, including revised proce- dures for investigating complaints of misconduct, the establishment of a civilian review, revised procedures for evaluating job performance and promotion, and an expansion of the FACIT program. In February 1977, the City Council passed 87 of the 97 recommendations into law, and, within six months, nearly half were implemented (a). The city established the Complaint Investigation Committee—a diluted and powerless version of its predecessor, the Police Advi- sory Board of 1963—designed to review completed internal investigations of police misconduct. The CIC could not receive or investigate complaints directly or compel compliance from the RPD (Frank 1977b). The chief could ignore the CIC’s recommendations without explanation and had final decision-making power over officer discipline. Three-member panels reviewed each completed misconduct investigation; two panelists were command-level officers and one was a civilian who had to be approved from a pool of volunteers trained by the Community Dispute Services of the American Arbitration Association (CDS)—and then vetted by police.7 When the CIC determined an investigation was deficient, it could request further examination from the Internal Investigation Section (Crimi and Willis 1976, pp. 29–30). Unlike the Police Advisory Board (PAB) before it, the CIC held little power to redress police violence or inspire change in the RPD.
Nevertheless, the Locust Club opposed it. Lt. Coyne, the Locust Club president, had objected to the CIC and three other recommendations in the footnotes of the committee’s Final Report. 8 He dismissed a civilian review as “unnecessary” because the RPD already resolved misconduct allegations internally (Akeman 1976). The Locust Club perceived the work of the Crimi Committee to be “against officers’ interests” (Stewart 1977). Deputy Chief Delmar Leach noted the difficulty in balancing the Locust Club’s opposition against the need to find the “right civilian” to sit on the board. “‘We can’t have anyone with an ax to grind’” on the board, said Capt. Thomas L. Conroy, who had served on the Crimi Committee (Frank 1977a). Officers slowed the establishment of the CIC by threatening to strike and disputing their labor contract (Stewart 1977).
Finally, in September 1977, the CIC appointed its first pool of 25 private citizens from CDS to serve on the committee. The Locust Club consulted legal representation to determine whether the civilian review violated officers’ privacy, but Chief Tom Hast- ings promised them that policing in Rochester would remain unchanged. Hastings said, “this committee will only be reviewing complaints, and they won’t be making the actual investigation. . .the final decision will be left up to me just like it is now’” (Frank 1977b). Assured of the committee’s impotence, police resistance waned, and the CIC began its work. In the first year, it reviewed 15 cases. Chief Hastings determined ten complaints to be unfounded, three officers were charged, and two were suspended (Morris 1978).9 Subsequently, excessive force against Black women declined, but this change resulted more from the Crimi Committee’s scrutiny of the police department after Denise Hawkins’ death than any substantive policy change (Croft 1985, pp. 81, 83).
Police use of deadly force slowed but did not stop. Incidents of police violence across New York State in the late 1970s and early 1980s evoked calls for civilian review boards, especially from Black and Latino communities, amid resistance from police unions (Buffalo: Allen 1982; Gates 1979; Kerhonkson: Police group votes against 1984; Mount Vernon: Copithorne 1977a, 1977b; New York City: NYC forms police brutality boards 1984; Gearty 1983; Cop Brutality Board 1983; Hirschfeld 1983; Poughkeepsie: DiFillippo 1984; Suffolk County: McDonald 1980; Bernstein 1976; Troy: McPheeters 1976; Westchester County: Greene 1985). Scholars across disciplines attempted to excavate the tensions between the police and communities of color (S. Walker 1977). On 13 November 1983, the RPD killed Alecia McCuller in nearly identical circumstances to Denise Hawkins. Officer Thomas L. Whitmore and Officer Howard L. Davies responded to “a call of ‘family trouble with a fight’” between McCuller and her boyfriend, Robert Ralph, Jr. According to police, McCuller held a “hunting knife” and chased her boyfriend into the street. Police Chief Delmar Leach, Michael Leach’s father, said later that “the two officers repeatedly warned McCuller to drop the knife, but she did not” (Galante et al. 1983). To allegedly protect Ralph from McCuller, Whitmore shot and killed her. Alecia McCuller was 21 years old.
Alecia McCuller’s death, hauntingly reminiscent of Denise Hawkins’ death, indicated to many community leaders that police reform in Rochester had not gone far enough. Ale- cia’s father, James McCuller, had served on the Crimi Committee. Broken by grief and loss, McCuller said, “‘When the last ounce of breath left my daughter’s body, the Crimi report was dead, D-E-A-D, dead. . . You don’t go up to tombstones and start asking questions” (Crosby and Myers 1984). Other Committee members reflected on the compromises made to complete their work. Charles Crimi recalled concerns that the city would shelve the re- port if the final draft had not borne the signatures of all committee members. Furthermore, to prevent the CIC from getting tangled in court by the Locust Club, they softened their recommendations Eugene T. Clifford, Crimi Committee member and attorney, expressed regret: “‘Some of us would have liked to have civilian representation in a more meaningful way’”. Another member, Monsignor Cocuzzi, agreed: “I wish we had made a greater push [for a civilian review]” (Myers 1984). In 1983, many Black leaders called for community control of policing; however, Rochester City Council responded to the death of Alecia McCuller by simply adding a second civilian seat to the CIC panels (Bunis 1984). Despite its best intentions, the Crimi Committee failed to create substantive civilian review of police violence because of successful resistance from the police union.
7. The Leach Family
After killing Denise Hawkins in 1975, Michael Leach had a long and successful career. He worked under his father, Delmar Leach, who became the police chief in 1981. Michael was promoted to captain in the RPD and, after 25 years on the force, retired in 2001. After that, he worked part-time as a police officer in Perry, NY, a village about 45 miles southwest of Rochester.
In July 2012, Michael Leach was off-duty and vacationing in the Adirondacks with his son Matthew and a group of fellow police officers (Policeman shoots 2012). They shared a motel room at the Clark Beach Motel in Old Forge, NY for the weekend. On Friday night, Matthew came into the room he shared with his father who was already asleep. Mistaking his son for an intruder, Michael Leach fired his department-issued. 45 caliber Glock handgun and killed him (Cop kills 2012). Dan Rivet, Jr., who was the owner of the Clark Beach Motel, and a paramedic attempted to resuscitate him, but to no avail.
Michael Leach called the police just before 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, 21 July, to report the incident. State troopers arrived at the scene. Matthew was taken to St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in nearby Utica and pronounced dead. Police took Michael to Faxton St. Luke’s Hospital, also in Utica, for what the police called an “unspecified medical issue” (Perry man’s shooting 2012) and the Daily Mail characterized as “mental support” (Policeman shoots 2012). A sympathetic Daily News headline called the killing a “mistake” (Cop kills 2012). The RPD released a statement extending sympathy to the Leach family and asking everyone to keep them in their “thoughts and prayers” (Policeman shoots 2012. Matthew was 37. Six months later, in February 2013, the Herkimer County Court convened a grand jury that indicted Michael Leach on a second-degree murder charge with a 25-years-to-life sentence. He pleaded not guilty, bail was set at USD 200,000, and he spent the night in jail. Perry Police Chief James Case told reporters that Leach was suspended from duty, but otherwise law enforcement revealed very little about the situation to the public (Perry officer charged 2013).
Over the next 16 months, Leach’s defense attorney, Joseph S. Damelio cultivated a new defense strategy: to demonstrate that Leach lacked “criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.”10 Weeks before the murder trial was set to begin, Herkimer County Court received a mental health report about Michael Leach. Endorsed by expert testimony, the defense claimed Leach suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the experience of killing Denise Hawkins nearly 40 years prior. Leach had “recurring nightmares, specifically about a figure entering his home dressed in black” (Retired cop pleads guilty 2014). Leach admitted that once, while alone, he woke up in the middle of the night and fired his weapon into the air (Ex-city cop gets 6 months 2014). Doctors concluded that his “PTSD and sleep-related issues prevented him from appreciat[ing] the risks of sleeping with a loaded firearm” (Ex-police captain sentenced 2014). Because he was half-asleep when his son entered their motel room, the doctors concluded Leach could not have been thinking rationally when he killed Matthew. In this new defense, Damelio characterized Leach as chronically afflicted by mental illness, fearing intruders, and sleeping behind barricaded doors with a loaded handgun at the bedside. Rather than a jumpy two-time killer, Michael Leach appeared as a valiant public servant who had been denied proper mental health care following a traumatic incident on the job, and the defense convinced the prosecution to reduce the charge.
The prosecution reduced the charge to negligent homicide on 4 June 2014, and Leach pleaded guilty. Judge John Crandall of the Herkimer County Court considered Leach’s mental health and offered a far lighter sentence than the 25 years the initial charge carried. Leach got six months in jail, five years’ probation, and required PTSD treatment (Retired cop pleads guilty 2014). Theresa Leach, Matthew’s widow, publicly criticized the family for centering Michael’s trauma rather the tragedy of Matt’s death. Instead of supporting her, she said, the Leach family “constantly worried about you [Michael]” (Ex-police captain sentenced 2014). Linda, Matthew’s mother, rallied around Michael Leach, claiming that punishment for this so-called “mistake” was not what Matthew would have wanted.
Echoing Leach’s defense after killing Denise Hawkins in 1975, news coverage of Leach’s 2014 sentencing cast him as a sympathetic victim of circumstance. The Observer Dispatch in Utica, NY reported that “convicting Leach of a crime and punishing the retired police captain behind bars is something Leach’s family struggles to accept” (Ex-police captain sentenced 2014). By juxtaposing the prestige of a police captain with those “behind bars”, the paper implied Leach suffered an injustice and invited further empathy. The article attempted to empathize with the emotional difficulty of his position: “Although he spent 30 years protecting people as a Rochester police officer, Michael Leach in the end could not protect his most ‘prized possession’—his son” (Ex-police captain sentenced 2014). The Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester offered a similar refrain: “Just as Leach has been living with the lasting impact of that [Hawkins’] tragedy, he will never escape the guilt he has placed upon himself for killing his own ‘flesh and blood.’” His defense attorney, Joe Damelio, reasoned that guilt was punishment enough; because Leach “put himself in his own personal jail”, further punishment from the justice system was gratuitous (Ex-city cop gets 6 months 2014). Herkimer County District Attorney Jeffrey Carpenter expressed hope that Leach could focus on getting treatment after he served his six-month sentence, aware that “if he doesn’t seek help. . .this is something that could happen again” (Ex-police captain sentenced 2014).
The Leach family tragedy highlights the multivalent impact of police violence, not only to the families of victims but also to the families of the officers. It also reveals the stubborn insistence of the media to positively spin violence committed by a police officer, regardless of how sympathetic the victims may be. Denise Hawkins, a bright, young mother, and Matthew Leach, whom Michael considered a “best friend”, receded into the background as news reports concentrated on defending Michael Leach’s innocence.
8. Conclusions
Ruthie Kimbrew, Denise’s younger sister, remembers one childhood Christmas when their mom came home from the department store and surprised the sisters with a toy village of tiny kittens. Ruthie remembers Denise being so happy: “We must have played those dolls every day forever”, she recalled. Kimbrew continues to miss her sister almost 50 years later and now she bears fresh grief from the recent loss of her mother, Mrs. Waverley Roach, who died in 2022. “[My mom] went through a lot and our whole family has gone through a lot” as they continue to reckon with the cascade of events set off on 11 November 1975. Ruthie is the last living Roach sibling: her brother and sister both died from chronic conditions. She takes solace in the fact that “our love has been bonded through all the family”, and her extended family remains close (Kimbrew 2023). The problem of police violence in Rochester and across the US remains unresolved. Mayor William Johnson (1994–2005), who, among other notable posts, served on the Crimi Committee in 1976, looks at the long arc of police violence and failure of reform since then:
Once we accept the premise that all police departments are autonomous, we still have the question why in the Rochester Police Department—where there have been so many studies, so many initiatives, so much investment in change—why are we standing in almost the same spot after 50 years? Why can we not show any demonstrable difference? The names change, but it’s still the same scenario. (W. Johnson 2023)
To date, policy changes have had minimal impact on preventing police violence. In 2020, city residents saw body-worn camera footage of the suffocation death of Daniel Prude, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, by seven RPD officers (Albert 2020). In response, residents protested nightly and then weekly for months; police responded with blunt-force weapons, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, and police dogs (Saturday’s Protests End with 9 Arrests 2020). In 2021, another body-worn camera video showed Tyshon Jones, who was also experiencing a mental health crisis (Boudreaux 2021), shot and killed by another RPD officer with a violent history (O’Connor 2021). The RPD and the Locust Club continue to advocate for the expansion of police power and increased funding; Rochester City Council and Monroe County have increased law enforcement budgets since 2020.
As this case study shows, police violence traumatizes not only the victims and their families but all affected communities—and the legacy is lasting. The Roaches, Hawkinses, Kimbrews, and Leaches all grieve the loss of their beloveds, whose lives were lost at the hands of Michael Leach. Furthermore, the policy changes proposed by the Crimi Committee and adopted by the city of Rochester did not redress that harm or prevent future incidents of police violence. This perspective also reveals the high costs to officers involved in fatal shootings; police training instructs officers to shoot to kill when they feel threatened, and, according to Michael Leach’s defense attorney, he paid the price of his mental health and his son’s life.
This research on a single 1975 police killing of a Black woman bears contemporary reso- nances to deaths at the hands of the police in the 21st century. It demonstrates that much remains unchanged in contemporary policing. Officers remain empowered to use deadly force, they disproportionately target Black people, and Black women are chronically underrepresented in narratives about police violence. Black women remain vulnerable to gendered dimensions of white supremacy that exaggerate their capacity for physical violence and justify the denial of protections afforded to white femininity. While police violence disproportionately impacts Black people, the white supremacy that undergirds it harms everyone, including the agents of the state charged with enforcing it. The story of Denise Hawkins reveals, in no uncertain terms, that all parties involved—civilian and officer, all races, all genders—were harmed by policies that permit police use of deadly force. As a result, the legacy of Denise Hawkins is an invitation to reconsider the assertion from the Combahee River Collective, a group of Black feminists founded the year Denise graduated from high school, who wrote, “if Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression”.11 Heather McGee recalls in The Sum of Us that “Black writers before me, from James Baldwin to Toni Morrison, have made the point that racism is a poison first consumed by its concoctors” (McGee 2021, p. xxi). McGee demonstrates that policies about housing, employment, the social safety net, crime, and healthcare, which were intended to harm Black people also harm white people. She also prompts a hopeful solution in which people across lines of difference reject two core lies at the heart of American national identity: that power is a zero-sum game and that the “forces selling denial, ignorance, and projection” are inevitable features (McGee 2021, p. 200). Policies that would have protected the lives of Black women like Denise Hawkins and Alecia McCuller would also have saved the life of Matthew Leach and may have saved Michael Leach from a lifetime of PTSD.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: T.F. and M.S.; methodology: T.F. and M.S.; formal analysis: T.F. and M.S.; investigation: T.F. and M.S.; resources: T.F. and M.S.; data curation: T.F. and M.S.;writing—original draft preparation: T.F. and M.S.; writing—reviewing and editing: T.F. and M.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Did District Attorney Sandra Doorley Violate Ethics Guidelines While Attending a Local Republican Fundraiser in May?
Jim Goodman - Sleeper Cell for the Revolution!
If activists received any coverage in Rochester from the mainstream press the last three decades, it was probably because of Jim Goodman. Activists don’t trust the mainstream press, for good reason, they are typically the translators of the capitalist class. But James Goodman was the exception, he wrote for us, not them.
Goodman was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, a hotbed for leftist academic study. He held a degree in history from there and a master’s in history from some Ivy league we won’t mention. The important thing to note here is that Goodman was the people’s historian. Goodman was not a reporter embedded with the military, nor police state, but was on the ground with us. He was telling our stories NOT as advertised by some suave looking reporter on the D&C billboard: Your Stories, My Words, no Goodman actually reported accurately what we were saying, in our own damn words. Our words were good enough for him. While other reporters of the mainstream press, would chase after the next, and the next story, Jim took his time on the scene making sure to get every detail and then often times more.
I recall the first time I met Goodman. I had attended some political event, was in the parking lot afterwards, and all the television reporters had left, nearly everyone who had attended the event had left for that matter. Jim was there just casually talking with some straggler. I went up to him to ask him a question, not sure if he was an official reporter or not, since he didn’t really fit the description. He was not suave, in the made for corporate marketing sense, many times his shirt fell untucked outside his drawers, he stood average height with a crop of unorganized curls, more typical of a member of a rock band than that of the mainstream press.
I asked him one question, Jim answered it in his disarming way, then just started talking to me about the entire event and getting my ideas. It was a real conversation, something I had never seen with reporters. Here he was randomly talking to people who had no power, had no title, he didn’t even ask for my name to use or anything in his story. It was just purely human, if the true nature of humans is to interact without trying to extract some monetary gain out of one other. You had this sense that Goodman was always on the job and that he never was. He had wrapped journalism around who he was and his interests, and that meant covering stuff that his managers never would have assigned for him, and it also meant lingering longer at the scene to gain depth of knowledge, to throw a net around the subtleties of a story. I think I had to end that conversation because I had to go somewhere. Now I wish I hadn’t…
Later I got to know Jim a bit more through my wife Erica Bryant’s working at the adjacent cubicle at the D&C with him. I would joke with him when I would see him that Erica was my second favorite reporter. Goodman would suggest revolutionary reading for me, “have you read the speeches of Rosa Luxemburg?”
He was known for a completely riotous cubicle, with all his notebooks flowing into other people’s spaces and onto the floor. Erica looked up to him tremendously, I know this from the way she emulated his cubicle organization skills, meaning none. They both deserved each other as workplace neighbors. And I have a feeling that despite my attempts to tell here she could probably have more focus if she cleaned up her work area, I fear now that cause is lost. And for good reason.
Because it takes more than efficient working methods, and clean-cut looks, to tell a good story. I repeat Jim Goodman wrote for us. Despite his disheveled ways, he infiltrated the castle walls of corporate media in 1983 and always looked back. And that has made all the difference. JIM GOODMAN SLEEPER CELL OF THE REVOLUTION, YOU WILL BE MISSED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A CALL TO ACTION: For all you activists in Rochester and beyond, come through for JIM Goodman as he came through for us!
A service will be held on Thursday, July 7, 11:00 a.m., at Anthony Funeral & Cremation Chapels, 2305 Monroe Ave., Rochester, NY. The service will be livestreamed here https://client.tribucast.com/tcid/1508143451
The Press as Powdered Donut with Blue Badge in the Middle
If I hear one more critic of the newly formed Police Accountability Board mention “performance goals” I am going to storm their Trump2024 zoom session. I have heard it repeatedly from mainstream journalists and former in the last several weeks. You mean to tell me that a rag tag outfit given $5 million is supposed to somehow setup camp and oppose an army of Red Coats flush with cash at the near $90 million mark and growing. So the PAB should already be on firm footing in 1 year when confronting an institution that has a 150 year head start of JIM CROW colonial entrenchment?
US Police kill as many people in a month as British police have killed in 25 years.[i] Who are the Redcoats now? So a new public institution that garnered a landslide 75% voter mandate, representing the masses – the Police Accountability Board (PAB), trying to bring ACTUAL PROTECTION from the most violent domestic terror group in the US (the RPD and its affiliates) is not going to have some torment at its inception, given the traumatic hyper imperialist cop coddling white supremacist environment it is birthed in? We are talking the opposite of the NICU (Neonatal intensive Care Unit).
By all means necessary, the mainstream press (City News and the D&C) so far serving as the PR firm for the police, will be trying to drop and bash this baby any chance they get. And they have a gazillion cop shows streaming into living rooms everywhere to model their behavior after and indoctrinate the colonial occupying class who make loads of money off of mass incarceration.
Don’t forget that the press and the police are in partnership to preserve inequalities, that is their core function. Don’t be fooled by their shiny chargers and their high horse, German Shepard and pony show. Look under the hood, do your research, read anything by Kristian Williams, Michelle Alexander, or Angela Davis and you will understand the true nature of the institution of policing in America.
“We need to think about them not in terms of law enforcement or crime-fighting or Public Safety but instead look at the existing distribution of power in the society and in general the police behave in ways that tend to preserve existing inequalities especially hierarchies based on race and class.” (Kristian Williams, Our Enemies in Blue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laLi5hcYBmc)
Do you really believe this terror outfit that promotes officers, who have been federally indicted for police brutality, to leadership positions of the Locust Club,[ii] is going to somehow be out maneuvered by crumbs of money Rochester City Council throws at PAB? According to Campaign Zero, $5 million is the bare minimum amount of funding level necessary for effective police oversight.[iii] Meanwhile, in the summer of 2020, in the midst of the greatest mass protests in American history[iv], demanding to DEFUND THE POLICE, current Mayor Malik Evans, then a member of city council and all of his colleagues (except for Council member Mary Lupien) decided to punt on the historical moment and pass a $100 million budget that retained 98% of the colonial army’s typical funding. Again, even George Washington would have had little luck against these modern-day Redcoats (now donning blue fatigues), with this kind of lop-sided financing.
But when this occupying colonial army doesn’t meet their internal goals, 21% clearance rate last year for all crimes[v], you can hear a pin drop regarding “performance targets”. The police failed to solve crimes 80% of the time. As public defender Dee Ponder has pointed out, if you were a student and you only got 21% you would get an F, and be considered a flunky!!! Instead these mass incarcerators from the suburbs (85% live outside of the city and 85% are white in a city where 62% of the population is non-white.) were given recently an extra $1.3 million for fancy new gas guzzling charger police cars, by Mighty Malik and his minions on City Council. (Two revolutionary council members broke ranks with their cowardly colleagues to vote against it.)
So don’t come at the PAB with any of this “performance indicators” nonsense or transparency issues Gino Fanelli of City Newspaper. May I remind you that you are tasked with being a muckraker not a muck-noser, spreading horse shit for the mounted police. Fanelli was just copying and pasting press releases by the Locust Club at one point for his Twitter feed.
Fanelli posted on May 13 via Twitter:
Frankly, I'm just a tad frustrated that the Police Accountability Board, an organization with a stated mission of creating transparency and accountability in city police, has declined to provide any information on why they put their executive director on administrative leave.
Note to Fanelli, the PAB’s charge is to be transparent regarding public facing matters, meaning police and civilian cases, not internal matters. Meaning they don’t have to tell you shit reporter for the mainstream press.
What is transparent is that mainstream corporate journalists, these fly-by-night interpreters for the capitalist class, have their nose so deep into the mounted cop horse’s arse. And the residue forms a glaze over their head they can’t see straight. The journalist then adds some sugary tidbits maybe some powder and sprinkles and serves up the favored meal of the occupying army. That is what the press equates to today, a donut with a blue badge in the middle!
[i] Kristian Williams, Our Enemies in Blue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laLi5hcYBmc
[ii] Dredging Up the Past on Police Union President Mike Mazzeo
Police and Political Commentary
Traditionally, police kept their opinions about political matters, judges, elected officials, and suspects private. They no longer do that and that creates harm to the community.
There is a wall between the police and the expression of political opinions. This separation has been maintained to guard against the corruption of police personnel by elected officials. For example, police personnel are prohibited, by NYS law, from soliciting campaign contributions. Police may not wear political buttons, pins, or insignia on their person while on duty. Political bumper stickers cannot be displayed on police vehicles. Police are supposed to withhold their political opinions while exercising their duties. Police are also supposed to be neutral about the people they arrest. They are not supposed to try to influence public opinion about judges or other elected officials. Currently they are doing all of that.
There is a trend of police officials talking with local news media and on social media during which they inform us of crimes, suspects, and their political opinions. The expression of these opinions negatively impacts police community relations and can create problems for the District Attorney’s Office at trial.
The Twitter account “RPLC Safety Information for Rochester” (Rochester Police Locust Club) is very active. Tweets regularly disclose the names of those arrested, their birthdates, details about arrest records, and the names of judges who grant release without bail. While the police can no longer offer the media an arrestee’s mug shots, they are offering a wealth of other information, most of it intended to damage the person’s credibility.
Repeatedly the police present themselves as the heroes and the suspects as the villains. They blame judges and call them out by name when they release people without bail. They are insinuating that the judges are wrong when they release people back into the community without bail. This is false: the judges are abiding by the law.
The community supports bail reform whereas the police are opposed to it. Some police officers have forgotten that people posted bail prior to bail reform and not all arrests required bail. Often people were arrested and given appearance tickets.
People are not guilty of the crimes they are arrested for until they are found guilty. RPD would have us believe that everyone they arrest is guilty of every crime they are arrested for. Additionally, they believe that we, the community, would be better off if folks sat in jail until they were found guilty.
This belief promotes a system that is unjust. People arrested are considered innocent until proven guilty. Individuals sitting in jail for months, if not years, will very likely lose their jobs, apartments, relationships, vehicles, and private property. These losses are often insurmountable. It is extremely difficult for wage earners to dig themselves out of this financial hole. (Given the number of people arrested in the city, how has this contributed to poverty?)
On October 12, 2021, Chief Cynthia Herriott-Sullivan held a press conference about a police officer killing Mr. Simran Gordon at the Family Dollar store. The Media Release itself is innocuous on its face, but her additional comment at the presser was incendiary. She said that the man killed was a suspect in three homicides. When pressed about which three, she responded that she could not offer details. If he was really a suspect then he should have been arrested. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to arrest him. Since there was not enough evidence to make the arrest then he really was not a suspect. This comment will harm the prosecution of the three homicides.
She painted Mr. Gordon as “bad” person. The “good” guys made the right call and therefore we should not be upset by it nor should we question their judgement. It was an incident that requires nothing from the community. She wants us to turn our heads away from and accept her explanation at face value.
On October 17, 2021, Chief David Smith issued a media release in which there are details about a tragic car accident. This accident involved a stolen car which was traveling at very fast resulting in the death of an. Innocent bystander who had nothing to do with the stolen car and the hospitalization of five people. The media release also reported that one of the people who allegedly stole the car was arrested last month and was involved in three other stolen car cases over the last two years.
One of the suspects in the stolen car had three outstanding warrants. Apparently, the chief does not see the police culpability in this instance. They could have arrested this individual before the accident.
A few days later Captain Frank Umbrino, emboldened by the current chief and previous chief, spoke to local media about this incident. The highly publicized portion of what he said is on Twitter. He used it to attack elected officials. He said that county legislators and city council people don’t talk to these families and therefore do not understand the pain these families experience. Elected officials are part of the community, they do talk to families, and they know them. They also know their pain and struggles daily.
Captain Umbrino went on to say that it is the policy decisions being made that lead directly to deaths. Legislators have “blood on their hands”. He declared at the closing that he was not there to be politically correct but to speak the truth. What he does not recognize it that his truth is not the only truth.
What the police don’t realize is that they are capable of radicalizing people against their own best interests. They do not see their role in the current anti-police attitude. People become anti-police when they are treated unfairly and when others who they identify with look like them are mistreated.
The police say they want community cooperation, but they do not comprehend that cooperation is a two-way street. They are not cooperating with the Police Accountability Board because they do not trust the community. The entire job of the police is around accountability, but not for them, only us. They are satisfied with their current level of non-accountability.
People do not talk to the police because they do not trust them. There has to be mutual respect, there isn’t. When police use rhetoric like “blood on their hands” or “he was the suspect in three homicides” they are telling us that they are not part of the community nor do they want to be.
I felt compelled to offer my own opinion on what I saw in the media because I am a retired Rochester Police Department officer. I worked in the department, and lived in the city, for 22 years rising to the rank of deputy chief. I am a city resident today and my views on the police come from my experiences as both a consumer and provider of police services. It is an unusual, but not unique, perspective.
BWC video indicates Mark Gaskill was holding his phone as police shouted "gun"
The Rochester Police Department shot and killed 28-year-old Mark Gaskill of Rochester early Friday morning. According to the RPD, the ShotSpotter alarm went off in the general area, indicating that a gun may have been shot. The RPD then pulled over a car with Gaskill in the backseat and began questioning the driver and front passenger. Both stated that they were driving to the hospital because the driver was pregnant and experiencing pains. After about 15 minutes, one of the officers asked to open the back door to talk with Gaskill who had been on his cell phone for most of the stop. As the officer opened the door, he suddenly shouted "there's a gun", at which point the officers fired at least 9 times at the car. Gaskill was pronounced dead on the scene.
After the shooting, the RPD claimed that Gaskill was "brandishing" a handgun, but it's unclear what that means. Are they saying that he was he holding the gun or that a gun was visible in the car? It's extremely unlikely that he was pointing the gun at anyone since the RPD has not specifically said that.
The police released body worn camera footage from the incident during the weekend. The BWC footage does not conclusively tell the story of what happened inside the car, however an analysis of the video seems to indicate that Gaskill was still holding his cell phone when the officers began yelling "gun". Presented below are still frames from the video WROC posted to YouTube.
Just before the fatal shooting, Gaskill can cleary be seen holding his phone. At this point one of the officers can be heard saying, "You good if I open this door to talk to you?" (timecode 24:33:09).
At that point, the camera shakes as the officer moves to open the door. The next frames that show Gaskill are blurry and difficult to see, but position of his hands appears very similar to how you would hold a phone. Also, the object in his hand certainly seems phone-shaped. It's not clear from these images if one or two hands are holding the object, but when viewed frame-by-frame it certainly seems like two hands. The officer begins shouting "gun" right when these images were captured (timecodes 24:54:81 and 24:54:85)
After this point, the camera goes shakey again as the officer runs for cover as other officers open fire and kill Gaskill. At the end of the footage, one officer goes into the car with evidence gloves on, presumably to retrieve a gun, although I couldn't see what they took out when watching the video.
I'd like to note again that the footage is difficult to intepret and the video quality is not ideal -- especially since it has been re-encoded for YouTube. Rochester Indymedia has made a FOIL request to the City of Rochester for a copy of the original file.
How the NY Attorney General's defended the police who killed Daniel Prude
Earlier this month, the NY state Attourney General's office released the transcripts of the grand jury trial investigating the death of Daniel Prude. While reading through them, I was reminded again and again of a Noam Chomsky quote: "In political discourse every term has two meanings: an official meaning and it's opposite and it's the opposite meaning that's normally used". The official title for the lawyers from the NY Attorney General's office was "prosecutor", but the reality was they acted as the defense for the police. A dig through the transcripts shows how they did it.
Present Highly Questionable Evidence as Fact
The prosecutors presented Dr. Gary Vilke as one of their two expert witnesses. Vilke's is a highly controversial researcher that frequently provides testimony in defense of the police. He has testified in dozens of cases where suspects have died while being restrained by the police. Vilke nearly always finds the same result: the police officers did nothing wrong. Vilke has stated that it was doubtful that Derick Chauvin's actions caused George Floyd's death, whch was highly disputed by the expert witness for the prosecution in that trial. In the grand jury trial for Daniel Prude's death, Vilke testified that the police were justified in their actions as expected, but didn't stop there. He further claimed that it was basically impossible for them to be at fault, because it is always safe for human beings to have up to 225 lbs of weight on their backs for over four minutes. He followed than one up with the even more unbelievable claim that the police were actually helping Daniel Prude.
Vilke testified along with many others about "excited delirium." Like Vilke himself, this medical syndrome is surrounded in heavy controversy. Excited delirium is not recognized by vast majority of medical professionals, including the American Psychiatric Association and American Medial Association. Critics of the term argue that it should be called "sudden death in restraint syndrome", since it's frequently used to explain deaths that happen while police or other authorities are restraining someone. They also point out the parallels between traits of excited delirium and stereotypes of black people used to justify violence against them: super-human strength, immunity to pain, animalistic behavior, etc. Finally, they point to the term's dubious history. Medical examiner Charles Wetli, a promoter of the modern use of the term, claiming that excited delirium killed 32 black women in 1980s Miami. Many of the women work were sex workers and Welti told journalists the women died from having sex during excited delirium (although males were never affected). In 1992 police identified the serial killer who actually killed the 32 women.
Many other outlets have already done excellent stories on these issues. Vilke was discussed in the Evan Dawson interview with attorneys Natalie Ann Knott and Don Thompson. Current Affairs also recently published a great article on excited delirium.
Let the Police Tell Their Narrative
The grand jury transcripts contain hundreds of pages of testimony from the police. Almost all of them involve the police simply telling their point of view, with little to no pushback or aggressive questioning from the prosecution. This invited the jury to see the world through the eyes of the police. In this world the Bad Guys frequently escape handcuffs while being pinned to the ground and the police pin people to the ground for their own safety. The prosecution's role was generally to assist the police in constructing this narrative by asking helpful questions. In some cases they redirected questions from the jury so that the answers could fit the narrative.
Of course, the attorneys still had the official title of "prosecutor," so they needed to at least act like they were doing their official job. At some point they needed to ask some tough questions.
There are a couple things to note about this line of questioning. One is that it was extremely rare. The there was over 150 pages of testimony from the two accused officers, maybe 20 pages of that consisted of questions like these. There were also testimony from around 20 other police officers and they never faced tough questioning. Secondly, this questioning seemed to be solely focused on issues that didn't affect the guilt or innocence of the officers. The above example tries to establish that the officers weren't empathetic enough, but the prosecution's case doesn't rest on that question. The critical questions, which were given as jury instructions after all testimony was over were: 1) were the officer's actions part of a chain of causes that resulted in Daniel Prude's death? 2) was the officer's use of force justified because it was necessary to effect the arrest? There were plenty of critical questions that could have been asked along those lines, but the prosecution focused elsewhere.
Mixed in with the tough questions were more questions designed to help the officers construct their narratives. For example this question where the prosecutor and officer construct a narrative together where the police always need to "control" a suspect, since any signs of complains could just be fake.
Distract From the Autopsy
The medical examiner's first finding on the autopsy report was "Complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint." This could be quite damaging to the police officer's defense so the prosecution highlighted the other findings on the autopsy report: excited delirium and PCP intoxication. The argument was basically that all of the things should be weight equally since any of them could potentially kill someone. The medical examiner seem very happy to go along.
This argument ignores a couple of serious issues. The first one is the specifics of what happened to Daniel Prude. Danial Prude was not simply "restrained", he was pushed face down into the pavement on a freezing cold day and held there even after the police noticed that he was having medical issues. The second is it ignores the key medical question: was the police's pinning of Danial Prude part of a chain of causes that resulted in his death? Theoretical questions like "can PCP kill someone" are irrelevant to that question. The prosecution choose to not to ask this question to the medical examiner. In theory the jury could have asked a question like that, but they were not informed of its importance until all testimony was over.
Ignore the expert witness testimony of police misconduct
The last piece of evidence that the prosecutors needed to deal with was the testimony of Geoffrey Alpert, a PhD of criminology. Alpert is not "anti-police" in any sense, but he does have mild criticisms of them. For example in an Atlantic article he pushed for ending qualified immunity, better data collection, and more police training. Alpert testified that the police actions were "unreasonable and against police practice," in other words they were unlawful. According to Alpert, the police behavior has reasonable at the start of the arrest, but once they officers had Daniel Prude on the ground, with his legs controlled, there was no more reason to pin him down and he should have been moved to the "recovery position" on his side. He further argued that once Daniel Prude was vomiting on the ground there was "no excuse" for not rolling him over on his side.
The main way the prosecution dealt with this was to ignore it. They didn't dwell on Alpert's statement that the actions were "unreasonable and against police practice." They didn't use his arguments to question the police officers. For example, they would ask "have you ever seen someone in handcuffs escape," rather than "how likely is it that Daniel Prude would have escaped if you would have rolled him over and held him by his legs." In general, they just dropped the themes of his argument, in contrast to things like excited delirium and PCP which they brought up over and over.
No Idictments
The jury voted 15-5 in favor of no charges for any of the police officers. Would this be different if the prosecution employed a different strategy? That is an open question. What is abundantly clear though is the strategy that Letitia James' Attorney General's office employed was not designed to indict anyone. The strategy was designed to defend the police and, in this case, it worked.
Hats off to Kropotkin!!
Facebook Posts Lead to Federal Rioting Charges for Justice for Daniel Prude Protester
- A link to a Huff post article, with the comment “burn this shit to the fucking ground”.
- A recipe for a Molotov cocktail, with extra steps: light wick, aim at cop, throw.
- A greeting of “Good morning to everyone ready to burn this whole fuckin country to the ground”
- An smiley face emoji holding a Molotov cocktail
- A profile picture with the words "Antifacist Action". This was an anti-fascist/anti-racist organization active in the 80s and 90s and disbanded in 2001.
- A picture of them dressed in black with a helmet and goggles. Wearing black is a common protest tactic used by many groups who want to avoid personal identification. Wearing a helmet and goggles is common sense when the police are shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at the crowd.
- A circle-A picture and the words and "Anarco-communist". Anarchism is a political wide-ranging political philosophy that is general opposed to facism. Some strands of anarchism advocate violence for political ends, while others advocate pacifism.
Youth Sports Leagues, Personnel Files, and Journalistic Peddling of Copaganda
During a summer of citizens uprising against the racist Rochester Police Department, as well as against police departments across the world, Rochester's Democrat & Chronicle is demonstrating whose side they are on. On Aug. 22, Rochester's only daily circulated newspaper published a story by James Johnson on two youth sports organizations who reached out to, rather than turned their backs on, RPD officers. The piece detailed an annual local youth basketball clinic. This year the clinic includes members of the RPD. Also named in the piece is the Rochester Hispanic Youth Baseball League, which received recruiting and suggestions from an RPD Crime Prevention Officer. RPD Officer Moses Robinson wrote to the paper the initiative "demonstrates the close working relationships between the Rochester Police Department and our community partners," and, "We believe that to increase the law enforcement community policing concept, sports interaction will help with that introduction."
The article quotes a city firefighter, who received an invitation to the annual basketball clinic; "With the current climate that we have, it's good that we facilitate positive interaction through sports with our community and our youth," and that, "It's been a lot of negative behind police officers, in general. If people are talking about the bad, then we have to highlight the good."
Nine days later, the D&C published a story by Will Cleveland detailing RPD Chief Laron Singletary's personnel file. The story described the personnel file as portraying Singletary as "patient and professional," and that, "Two decades worth of monthly and yearly appraisals portrays Singletary as a compassionate and dedicated police officer." Singeltary, who in the past served as Deputy Chief of Community Engagement, as well as the Community Affairs Bureau, is depicted as the ideal well-rounded officer.
Like other depictions across the nation, these fluffy stories describe positive interactions between community members and police, while painting officers as wholesome community servants. The problem with these stories, as noted by leading abolitionist lawyer Alec Karakatsanis, is that the reports are anecdotal when compared to the brutal nature of our nation's carceral state, as well as when compared to vast depictions of officers brutalizing community members long before, leading up to, during, and after protests.
For example, the past summer saw countless documents of use of force by the officers during protests. One only needs to look back on May 30 to see RPD's brutal response to local community members. RPD violently and indiscriminately shot pepper balls into a crowd and sprayed chemical gas on protestors to disperse "the rowdy crowd."
As Karakatsanis writes, politicians respond to these brutal acts, and subsequent good press from 'good cops’ by, "pledging more recruitment and training of 'good cops,' better 'community policing' practices, and rewritten ‘use of force’ policies. These pledges are then followed by increases in police budgets after the unrest subsides. The police bureaucracy keeps expanding, and police keep killing Black people.” Unsurprisingly, leaders in Rochester are calling for these exact policy changes.
Local Reverend Lewis Stewart called for allocating more resources to training RPD officers through the “reallocation of resources” as a response to the ongoing protests and calls to defund the police. City Council Vice-President Willie Lightfoot pushed back at the notion of defunding the police stating, “I'm talking to citizens every day. They're not telling me to defund no police. They're calling me to say you better not defund our police”. Mayor Lovely Warren stated the city should not defund the police but that her goal was to work in partnership to uplift the community while also improving police and community relationships. She also, now infamously, stated, “…I can tell you that by light years Rochester is ahead of the curve and we will continue to do what is necessary to make sure that our community feels safe and that our officers feel safe…”
According to Karakatsanis, “This cycle is the result of the gulf between the image and the reality of the role that police serve in our society. In order to preserve the massive (and profitable) policing bureaucracy in this country, police must conceal what they actually do on a systemic level.” The positive stories published by the D&C provide additional shade for the policing bureaucracy feedback loop. The two pieces place neatly into the former half of the feedback loop, which calls for additional ‘community practices’ and ‘good cops.’ The stories emphasize hollow interactions between police officers and youth athletes and uplifts the mythical ideal cop, who sports constructive qualities for the community. The writeups, of course, never mention the brutal subjection of policing, which is akin only to that of a colonizing army.
Take the youth sports story as an example. The story presents officers as aiding several community sports organizations. The story never mentions the cases of David Vann, Benny Warr, Sylvester Pritchett, or any other victim of the same police force that brutalizes black bodies for merely living in that same community.
Additionally, author James Johnson, in paraphrasing the basketball clinic’s director, gloomily states, “Latino and Black men and women are going to remain a part of the community in Rochester. And no matter what reforms take place, there will be a police department in the city.” Such a statement purposely or ignorantly ignores the current uprisings across the nation, in which police departments face mass disinvestments. Such a view ignores the continuing rallies in Rochester that are calling to defund the RPD. If there were ever a time when police departments could cease to exist, now would be that time. The take it or leave it notion of police-community relationships also means trust is not the intention, but rather compliance.
The coverage of Laron Singeltary’s personnel file is another example of this disturbing copaganda. Mentioned in the story are Singeltary’s positive traits as assessed by RPD superiors over the past two decades. Not mentioned in the coverage is the fact that RPD cleared only 27% of crimes during Singeltary’s first year as Chief. Although 2018 and 2019 data are not available, 2017 data indicates only half of gun homicides and 20 percent of gun assaults in the City of Rochester result in arrest.
Also not mentioned is the fact that Singeltary sustained only 19% of allegations against officers, while 61 allegations of excessive force were filed during his first year as Chief. In fact, in 2019, only 1% of excessive force complaints were sustained or determined by a preponderance of the evidence that alleged misconduct occurs. The 61 allegations of excessive force did not include the 83 other claims of procedure, courteously, and other misconduct. The 144 total allegations equate to under 3 allegations per week. All the while, Singeltary states he ought to be the sole power to discipline. [Note the total number of allegations is almost certainly inaccurate, given the abundance of missing data in the criminal justice system].
Additionally, Karakatsanis mentions that while various police chiefs, such as in our case Chief Singeltary, have risen through the ranks throughout the decades, the US cages Black people at far higher rates than South Africa at the height of Apartheid. The personnel story makes sure to document Singeltary’s rise, mentioning Singeltary’s long-term goal of “excelling to the highest rank I can.” By not citing any condemnation, such as the low clearance rate or the lack of substantiation of allegations, as well as the story’s general absence of criticism towards policing, the D&C is providing credulously positive coverage of the department and its Chief.
What is peculiar about the coverage of Singeltary’s personnel file is the framing of how the newspaper received the records. Cleveland mentions the D&C filed more than 60 open request records with the city of Rochester to gain access to police personnel files and that most are still pending. Not mentioned are police unions fighting journalists and the NYCLU from receiving those same records. Nor is it mentioned that 60 open request records are a drop in the bucket compared to the several hundred on-duty officers per year. RPD had 500 police officers in 2019, with 660 total officers in its Operations department. Compare this to the ACLU of NY, which filed a FOIL for every police officer in the RPD, and one can see that the paper is dedicating little in comparative investigative coverage to the personnel files.
To D&C’s credit, the newspaper published a recent story critical of two officers’ personnel records. However, digging into the account reveals more of the newspaper’s peddling of police nonsense. The D&C published a story by Cleveland showcasing the records of two toxic officers previously lauded by the Mayor and Chief of Police. The toxic records include one of the officers damaging six fleet vehicles in thirty-six months, while the other officer was suspended multiple times.
The incident tying the two officers together was the arrest, and eventual dropped charges, of a person during a “routine patrol." Cleveland writes, “during the ensuing confrontation, a loaded handgun was knocked to the ground and the officers eventually gained control of it.” Charges were dropped after a judge found the officers had no probable cause for stopping the individual. The officers also did not turn on their body cameras during the confrontation.
Conspicuously not linked nor mentioned in the officer’s personnel records story is the D&C’s initial writeup of the arrest. Published Jul. 24, 2019, the initial writeup contains the disgusting headline, “Convicted felon charged after scuffle leaves two cops injured.” Written by Cleveland and Victoria Freile, the writeup reads like a press release for the cops. Neither the defendant nor witnesses are interviewed for the story. The police are quoted eight times in the initial report, with direct quotes making up 94 words and officer paraphrases making up 84 words. In total, police speak 178 out of 427 words, or about two-fifths of the story. The headline labels the innocent-until-proven-guilty defendant a convicted felon. The newspaper suspiciously mentions their past charges, even though the past felony is seemingly independent of the alleged act.
This initial writeup is uninterrupted coverage for the cops. The writeup never questions the veracity of the alleged weapon, even though the department has a credible history of planting weapons on victims. The writeup never examines the merits of the suspected ‘scuffle,’ even though RPD has a history of violence against community members.
Even the newspapers revealing story on the dropped charges is oddly written. Written by Cleveland, the report paraphrases the defendant's Attorney as stating, “once [Judge] Moran decided to suppress the gun as evidence, the Monroe County District Attorney's Office asked for a monthlong adjournment to research whether it could appeal the decision. The DA's Office decided not to move forward at a Dec. 19 hearing and that's when Guerrieri and his co-counsel, Melissa Wells-Spicer, asked for the charges to be dismissed. Moran agreed.” The paraphrased quote frames the charges as dropped after the DA's Office vaguely decided not to move forward a month after the suppression of the gun as evidence and the cops not turning on their body cameras.
The problem of this framing comes to light when one takes the time to read the transcript of the case. Judge Moran ruled the officers had no probable cause for stopping the defendant. The case was initially dismissed because of this lack of probable cause [“My ruling is this. There was no probable cause. Your case is dismissed unless the People want to do something about it in the future”]. The DA could not move forward because there was no evidence to move forward, not because they vaguely ‘decided not to move forward.’ The DA had no case, as the officers admittedly stopped the defendant even though the defendant had not committed a crime. [ “Q. He was talking with him, right? What did my client do? A. He began to run. Q. So, he runs away. He hadn’t committed a crime, right? A. Not at that time. Q. So, in essence, you guys chase after him without him having committed a crime, right?” and, “Q. You stated you don’t know what individual, if anyone, had marijuana, correct? A. Correct. That was part of our investigation. Q. At that point, Mr. Hawkins hadn’t committed a crime, right? A. No, he did not. Ms. Catalano: Objection. The Court: Overruled. Let him answer. What was the answer? The Witness: No, he did not commit a crime at that time.]
Also not mentioned in the revealing story is this golden nugget from the judge: The case wasn’t the first time the judge heard prosecutors press charges without body-worn camera evidence [“I’m starting to see a pattern that I find deplorable. Every time I turn around now, oh, it didn’t work, I don’t know what happened, my camera didn’t work, it didn’t work, it didn’t work”, and “You can do whatever you want, but I’m telling you, it’s not going to change my mind. This is absolute wrong. This is like the fourth time in the last month I have heard this line. Come on. Who are you kidding? This is not my first cruise. You can say whatever you want. I’m not changing my mind. I got to be honest with you. I’m mad as hell about this.”]. The disturbing ‘pattern’ is never interrogated by the paper, even though its claim potentially means defendants face charges without evidence.
All of this goes without bringing up the recent news of the killing of Daniel Prude and the subsequent coverup. The unfortunate irony of the case is that news of Daniel Prude’s death broke two days after the publishing of the Chief’s personnel story. The same newspaper that published the puff piece called for a new Police Chief within five days of their initial report. The paper makes little acknowledgment of its role in disseminating the uncritical coverage of the Chief. The editorial calling for the Chief to resign merely states, “Chief Singletary might have had an exemplary record as an officer. He might not have been on Jefferson Avenue that fatal night. But the mayor says he misled her by saying Prude died of a drug overdose. If it walks like a coverup and quacks like a coverup, it's a coverup.” The paper is either ignorant in its role or unwilling to admit its role in the police bureaucracy it calls to reform.
The editorial, which calls for ‘total reform’ of the RPD, arrogantly states, “Police agencies have some of the most robust public relations efforts in America. They churn out news release after news release about how much cocaine was seized in a drug bust or how some guy was arrested for burglary or tax evasion or whatever. And yet no one…saw fit to put out a news release that Daniel Prude had become brain-dead after three Rochester cops pinned him to the ground?” Of course, the editorial board never acknowledges that police agencies churn out news releases because media, such as the D& C, are willing to regurgitate those same releases. The repulsive “Convicted felon charged after scuffle leaves two cops injured” writeup is a prime example of this journalistic arrogance.
In its editorial calling for ‘total reform,’ the board never mentions defunding, abolishment, or any form of ‘less’ policing. The editorial does call for the ubiquitous ‘reordering of police training,’ which again places the editorial neatly in the former half of the policing bureaucracy feedback loop. To paraphrase Karakatsanis, what does it say that when an editorial board sees a police force systemically targeting people in our community, they conclude, “We need more training”? The editorial is all the writing one needs to read to see which side the Democrat and Chronicle is on.
Related stories from over the past year:
Keyoni Adams tells her story of police violence
Judge on gun case: no body-worn camera footage, no probable cause, case dismissed
RPD officer Michael Sippel found guilty
On camera: another case of racial profiling by the RPD
Feel free to email me at robertmeek2020@gmail.com with any questions or concerns