|
Last week, a member of Miami's
Civilian Investigative Panel asked Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez a
question about Carl Kesser, the photographer who was shot in the face
with a small bag of lead pellets. A portion of Kesser's face is now
paralyzed.
Fernandez said the department was
still investigating the shooting, which took place Nov. 20 during the
Free Trade Area of the Americas conference. He said there were three
officers who could have been responsible for the shooting.
Then Fernandez said something rather
amazing. Referring to the shooting, the deputy chief declared: ``It was
clearly not intentional.''
What kind of an objective review of
Kesser's shooting could the department be conducting if the deputy chief
has already decided that the shooting wasn't intentional? And since
Fernandez doesn't know precisely who fired the shot, how is he able to
know what was in this officer's mind at the time he pulled the trigger?
At least one witness, Roger Prehoda,
an NBC News photographer, said he believes that police were deliberately
targeting journalists when Kesser was shot. Kesser himself doesn't
understand how he could have been shot, since he was standing away from
protesters.
Wednesday night, Fernandez told me the reason he believes it was an accident is that his officers shot only at protesters.
I don't think it is out of the realm
of possibilities that police officers -- many of whom are not big fans
of the press -- might intentionally fire a few bean bags and rubber
bullets into a pack of reporters and photographers. After all, this is
Miami, where cops have been known to do dumb things in the past.
But what is troubling is Fernandez's
failure to even consider this possibility. And therein lies the problem
with the report the department issued last week describing its actions
during the FTAA meeting.
The report, presented by Fernandez
and Miami Police Chief John Timoney, wasn't a critical analysis of the
department's performance, but an attempt to justify the department's own
bad behavior.
At times during the civilian panel's presentation, Fernandez came across comically nave.
Several panel members brought up the
fact that most of the police in riot gear had no identifying marks on
their uniforms. As a result, even if people wanted to file a complaint,
they would have no way of identifying the officer.
''If you don't know who that officer is, you are wasting your time,'' panel Chairman Larry Handfield stated.
Even Miami officers, who had their ID
numbers stenciled in white paint on the vests of their body armor, were
hard to identify because often the numbers were rubbed off. Fernandez
tried to sell the panel on the idea that if any number was scratched
off, it was done accidentally, and that Miami police officers would
never scratch the numbers off their own vests to avoid being identified
by protesters.
Fernandez's comments drew a big laugh
from the audience listening to his presentation. And as folks laughed, I
looked over at Timoney and could tell that he was seething with anger.
How? His face and neck were turning a dark shade of red.
Timoney has shown nothing but
contempt to the civilian panel. He dropped copies of the FTAA report the
night before the meeting, giving panel members little time to study it,
prepare questions or review the thousands of pages of supporting
material. And Timoney continued to show his contempt last week, snapping
at panel members who wanted to know if any officers were being
reprimanded for their conduct during the FTAA meeting. He told them to
mind their own business.
My favorite Timoney moment last week
was his non-apology apology. He still refuses to admit walking up to a
protester who was being arrested and saying to him, ``F--- you!''
''Let's say for the sake of argument I
said it,'' the chief told the panel, after giving a long statement
about how he doesn't remember saying it. ``If I did it, I apologize to
the man and I apologize to the city.''
Now that's sincerity.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted
material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material
non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this
constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in 17 U.S.C ยง 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper
which first published the article online and which is indicated at the
top of the article unless otherwise specified. | 
