Police auditor says officers’ use of force against reporter at Annandale parade was justified
 |
| FCPD officers try to arrest Michael Stark. [Shareblue Media] |
Fairfax County Independent Police Auditor Richard Schott ruled
that officers from the Mason Police District did not violate FCPD’s
policy on the use of force when they tackled a reporter to the ground and physically restrained him at the start of the Annandale parade on Oct. 28, 2017.
The reporter, Michael Stark, was yelling and
cursing as he tried to confront Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie.
As the police moved in to restrain Stark, the episode was captured on video by
several spectators.
cursing as he tried to confront Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie.
As the police moved in to restrain Stark, the episode was captured on video by
several spectators.
The FCPD policy on use of force states: “Force is to be used
only to the extent it is objectively reasonable to defend oneself or another,
to control an individual during an investigative or mental detention, or to
lawfully effect an arrest.” The policy notes that officers “must make rapid and
necessary decisions regarding the amount of force to use in tense, uncertain,
and rapidly evolving situations.”
In the 18-page report, Schott says he reviewed the statements of
officers and witnesses, previous court rulings on use of force, and videos of
the incident.
officers and witnesses, previous court rulings on use of force, and videos of
the incident.
The report concludes: “The officers clearly had probable cause to arrest
Stark when they did, and the officers had a reasonable belief that he was
offering some level of resistance to avoid being arrested.”
Stark when they did, and the officers had a reasonable belief that he was
offering some level of resistance to avoid being arrested.”
The report also addresses Police Chief Edwin Roessler Jr.’s public
comments shortly after the incident defending the actions of the officers who
arrested Stark. Some observers questioned whether those remarks could hinder
the objectivity of the FCPD Internal Affairs Bureau investigation of the incident
which was in the early stages.
comments shortly after the incident defending the actions of the officers who
arrested Stark. Some observers questioned whether those remarks could hinder
the objectivity of the FCPD Internal Affairs Bureau investigation of the incident
which was in the early stages.
Schott agrees that “the chief’s quick defense of his
officers’ actions certainly could have made it difficult for an IAB
investigator to conclude that those same officers acted inappropriately,” but
he said Roessler was trying to be transparent and the subsequent internal investigation “was complete, thorough, objective, impartial, and accurate.” The IABt report also exonerated the police officers.
officers’ actions certainly could have made it difficult for an IAB
investigator to conclude that those same officers acted inappropriately,” but
he said Roessler was trying to be transparent and the subsequent internal investigation “was complete, thorough, objective, impartial, and accurate.” The IABt report also exonerated the police officers.
In February,
Stark was found guilty of disorderly conduct and fined $500. The judge ruled Stark was not guilty of resisting arrest.
Stark was found guilty of disorderly conduct and fined $500. The judge ruled Stark was not guilty of resisting arrest.
4 responses to “Police auditor says officers’ use of force against reporter at Annandale parade was justified”
Leave a reply
In other words: person in charge of preventing county from getting sued, declares no wrongdoing by county. I have a feeling that those that find the country at fault too much eventually, are told that their services as a county auditory are no longer needed.
I like how they basically downplay the role of the chief trying to influence/taint the investigation from the start. It's become so par for the course, that it's not even considered a big deal anymore.
I don't know. He objectively believed his officers were innocent and he said so. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If he had remained silent I'm sure he'd be crucified for "knowing something the public didnt." I dont see how they can win here, someone will always seek bad judgment even when there is none.
"I won't comment on an open investigation." Police are taught from the academy on that you always side and protect fellow officers no matter what. You never go against a fellow officer. It's called the blue wall of silence. If you don't, they're told that others won't have your back in your tone of need. One day you'll be in an iffy situation, and you'll need your fellow officer to say it went down the way you said it did.
The real injustice here is calling Michael Stark a “reporter.”