Boardman writes: "Nobody said it would be easy to get justice for a dead man, especially a poor dead man, especially a poor dead artist with epilepsy who was tasered to death by a Vermont State Trooper."
MacAdam Lee Mason. (photo: Mason Family/Seven Days Vt.)
Taser Death Still Festers in Vermont
31 January 13
AG uses secret reports, public evasions to justify non-prosecution.
hen the Attorney General of Vermont decided not to prosecute a Vermont State trooper who used a taser to kill an unarmed, 39-year-old epileptic artist, few Vermonters were surprised, most of the Vermont media managed to get the story partly wrong - and none of the media took note of clear falsification in the AG's press release describing his decision.
AG William Sorrell, 65, issued a carefully-written release on Friday, January 25th, announcing that "criminal charges should not be filed" against Trooper David Shaffer, 29, who used his taser to kill MacAdam Mason, 39, on June 20, 2012, at his home in Thetford. Sorrell's press release indicated that he and a county prosecutor had "completed independent reviews" of the fatal "incident," but it did not explain their conclusion beyond saying, in summary:
"The review was solely to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued against Trooper David Shaffer.... In a criminal case, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's use of force was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case."
In other words, the prosecutors seem to imply, the trooper may or may not be actually guilty, but they don't think they have enough evidence to make a conviction a sure thing. But they do not explain why they think that.
Although the "reviews" were done by the prosecutors' separate offices, the actual investigation of the Vermont State trooper was done by the Vermont State Police itself. There has been no independent investigation by any other official entity.
No Formal Finding of "Reasonable Fear for Safety"
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.(photo: New Market Press)
The press release noted that, under Vermont law, the killing might be justified if the officer was found to be in reasonable fear for his safety or the safety of others. The release is clear that neither prosecutor has formally made that finding, only that they have agreed that they would have a hard time proving that the use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Most of the release goes on to give the Attorney General's version of the events of June 20, 2012, an account that is largely consistent with the public record, but with significant omissions that contribute to the creation of an overall false impression.
Although previous reports by the State Police and media refer to only one phone call, the report describes the start of the chain of events leading to Mason's death this way:
"The [State Police] investigation determined that after 3:00 pm on June 20, 2012, the Vermont State Police barracks in Bradford received two calls from personnel at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center requesting a welfare check at an address in Thetford, Vermont. Dispatch was told that an unidentified male at the address, who sounded intoxicated, had stated that he was suicidal and homicidal, that he had access to weapons and that he hoped the police would shoot him."
To date, the caller or callers from the hospital have not been publicly identified and transcripts of the call or calls have not been made public. The initial State Police "press statement" on June 21 indicated a single phone call from an "Intake Crisis Technician" at 1511 hours - but made no reference to "a welfare check" or to Mason's expressing any hope the police would shoot him. Since the Attorney General's report itself is still secret, it's hard to know where those variations come from, but they do tend to denigrate the victim to the benefit of the police who killed him.
Unidentified Troopers Told to Leave Premises
The press release goes on to describe unidentified "troopers" finding Mason inside his house, where he refused to come out or to let them in. The police then contacted the homeowner, Mason's life partner, Theresa Davidonis, who came promptly to the scene. She found the house empty, but found Mason in the woods behind the house, where she talked with him for awhile, or as the press release characterizes it:
"Ms. Davidonis subsequently found the unidentified male - MacAdam Mason - in the woods near the house and could be heard arguing with him. Ms. Davidonis asked the troopers to leave because she said that their presence was aggravating Mason. She also said that she would take custody of Mason."
The troopers then left. Although the press release doesn't describe the troopers' interaction with Ms. Davidonis any further, one might assume that as a matter of professional competence, they would have completed their "welfare check" in some fashion before leaving. In any event, they had been implicitly if not explicitly reassured as to Mason's welfare. Additionally, they knew they had been asked to leave private property, they knew they had no indication of criminal activity, and they had no warrant.
Nevertheless, after Ms. Davidonis left to go back to work, the troopers surreptitiously returned to the property some time later. These events were developing slowly, more than three hours would pass from the initial hospital phone call to the fatal tasering.
The AG's press release omits any timeline, allowing a reader to get the impression that events happened quickly, without time for thoughtful action. Whether deliberate or not, this is a false impression.
Motivation of Troopers' Return Is Unexplained
MacAdam Mason with his life partner, Theresa Davidonis.(photo: Mason Family)
When the troopers left the property, they had no apparent reason to think Mason was anything but all right, according to the AG's press release, which goes on:
"After the troopers left her home she [Ms. Davidonis] went back to work. In light of the requested welfare check and the information provided, the troopers returned to the residence to personally confirm that Mason was okay. Trooper David Shaffer was directed to assist with setting up a perimeter in the woods near the house. Tpr. Shaffer was not aware of reports that Mason had a history of seizures."
This account not only fails to explain why the troopers thought they needed to trespass on Ms. Davidonis's property against her expressed will, it fails to explain why they thought they should take a quasi-military approach to an apparently peaceful situation by setting up "a perimeter" around the house - especially when they had reason to know there was a possibility Mason was still in the woods. And they had been told that their presence was "aggravating him."
The press release does not say what else Ms. Davidonis told them, but if the troopers acted with reasonable professionalism, they had learned the basic outline of Mason's condition: that he was epileptic, that he had had a seizure the night before, that his present state of mind was part of a pattern familiar to Ms. Davidonis.
The rest of the official press release creates the utterly false impression that Trooper Shaffer and Mason were in a one-on-one face-off with no one else around. The release says that Shaffer realized that Mason was unarmed and, in reaction, shouldered his M-4 rifle, but that Mason moved toward him and that he "told investigators that he believed that Mason was going to physically assault him...."
AG Press Release Riddled With Misleading Omissions
The press release does not mention that there were at least three other State Police troopers and a police dog on the scene at point, and that one or more of the troopers witnessed the killing.
The press release does not mention that Ms. Davidonis had returned to the scene with her son, and that they both witnessed the killing.
The press release does not mention that Ms. Davidonis shouted warnings that Mason was in a vulnerable condition.
The press release does not mention that the autopsy, which was performed in New Hampshire, attributed the cause of death to the taser. The autopsy report remains secret.
The press release does not address the question of why, when there was no identifiable emergency, at least four troopers and a police dog decided they needed to enter property they'd been told to stay off, and then created a situation in which one of them killed an unarmed man over the shouted warnings of Ms. Davidonis.
Most of the state's media coverage omits most of these details, generally reporting - inaccurately - that the Attorney General had determined that the police behaved appropriately, which is not what the press release says, although William Sorrell apparently said something to that effect in a news conference. Here are some of the ways some of the media misinformed their audiences - each is wrong:
- "Deadly Force Justified in Stun Gun Death" - Vermont Public Radio
- "Vermont Attorney General Clears State Trooper in Thetford Taser Death" - Seven Days
- "A state trooper was justified in using force ..." - Associated Press
- "Attorney General: Trooper justified in firing Taser at man who later died" - Burlington Free Press
- "Sorrell says trooper had good reason to fire Taser at MacAdam Mason ..." - vtdigger.org
- "Vt. AG Clears State Trooper of Criminal Wrongdoing in Taser-Induced Death of Thetford Man" - Valley News
No Public Statement on Negligence or Reprimand
MacAdam Mason and his mother, Rhonda Taylor.(photo: Mason Family)
Getting it right was WCAX-TV, with the headline, "AG: trooper will not face charges in taser death" and further clarification in its story: "Sorrell repeatedly stressed that Shaffer's actions were not criminal, but he wouldn't say if he acted negligently or if he's been reprimanded by state police. Those internal investigations are secret."
Trooper Shaffer remains on paid administrative leave, as he has been for most of the time since Mason's death.
Perhaps the most extreme misrepresentation of the events of June 20th came from the State Police, when Col. Tom L'Esperance, director of the State Police, said, "The actions of our troopers helped protect citizens in a highly dangerous and life-threatening event." This does not square with the reality in Thetford that day, when the only person seriously threatened was the one the police killed.
Last July, Ms. Davidonis filed a civil suit in the Superior Court in Orange County, where she lives, seeking unspecified damages for police conduct that her complaint calls "malicious, wanton, willful, and outrageous." That case is pending. In mid-January, Superior Judge Timothy Tomasi gave the Attorney General's office two weeks to explain its investigation into Trooper Shaffer's actions.
Responding to the AG's press release on January 25th, Ms. Davidonis's attorney, Thomas Costello told the Valley News:
"History of seizures or not, they were up there for hours before it happened. Theresa told them he was emotionally disturbed.... The crisis was created by Shaffer going onto their property, contrary to Theresa's commands and what the police had been doing for two hours. There is violence and there is a shooting and there is a death. Who is doing the shooting? Law enforcement. An emotionally disturbed person is killed by violence by law enforcement. That demands leadership."
On the same day, attorney Edward Van Dorn announced that he would be filing a federal lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the State Police on behalf of Mason's mother, Rhonda Taylor, who lives in New Hampshire. The attorney indicated that the state's withholding of so much evidence made the suit necessary.
ACLU Questions State's Commitment to Justice
Among those questioning AG Sorrell's willingness to ever bring an enforcement action against a Vermont police officer involved in a lethal event, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Vermont, Allen Gilbert, commented that "It's hard to know when, if ever, criminal charges might be brought in a law enforcement shooting death." The ACLU issued a statement signed by Gilbert, saying in part:
"The Vermont Attorney General's Office has declined to bring any charges in the fatal MacAdam Mason Taser shooting last June, leaving open the question of who bears responsibility for the death of an innocent Vermonter. The stark facts of the case are these: A state trooper fired a weapon that killed a man. The weapon was used in a way contrary to guidelines from the weapon's manufacturer, Taser International....
"We will continue to work on ways to bring about greater police accountability. We support the establishment of a professional licensing system for police, as there is for most other Vermont professions. Both the public and police suffer when officers' conduct is not reviewed by an independent state board that makes sure all officers are aware of and meet professional standards."
Soon after Mason's taser death, the ACLU, Vermont Legal Aid, mental health advocacy groups, and others called for a state moratorium on tasers at least until all police armed with tasers were fully trained in appropriate taser use. Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, together with Attorney General Sorrell and state police officials, all rejected the idea of a moratorium out of hand, without giving it much deliberation. An online petition supporting a moratorium had 1,217 signatures as of January 29th, including that of former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, also a Democrat.
Nobody said it would be easy to get justice for a dead man, especially a poor dead man, especially a poor dead artist with epilepsy who was tasered to death by a Vermont State Trooper in June 2012, but, at least Vermont's Governor, Vermont's Attorney General, and the Vermont State Police are helping to make it harder than it should be.
William Boardman runs Panther Productions.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I made the voluntary SHORT statement what I witnessed.
When the next local cop came (friend of the Pizza businessman - he screamed at anybody who spoke against assailant that he will arrest them - scary cop on power trip - it irritated him that I was not scared at him ... he was scared of my dogs - quite interesting dynamics.
One should recognize where some of these cops came from - veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan where they could shoot with impunity. These psychopath are now back in the USA on the street - as police.
Individuals who are armed and placed above the law lose their capacity for respect. The nearest thing to respect that can be taught is fear. Once law enforcement develops a healthy degree of fear of consequences for inappropriate actions, they just might start protecting people instead of victimizing them.
I think this idea would be better used against criminals. "Something bad will happen to you if you keep robbing us" kind of thing.
MEXICO is developing squads of vigilantes that are hunting and killing cartel members and other drug-thugs. They have been able to bring order in 15 DAYS where the Mexican Government couldn't in 15 YEARS!
This thing of local police using deadly force on unarmed and distressed civilians is epidemi, and rarely is there any countability demanded (or responsibility taken) by our elected or spiritual leaders . . . and God forbid that the local news media might put honest investigative reporters on these cases.
This is not an isolated case, folks. and we are on a slope that, if we do not stop this trend, will drop us down into a military-fascis t world similar to that which flourished in Germany, Italy & Spain during the the late 1930'.
Speak the truth loudly and clearly so that others may hear and join you!
I.e., the areas where inner-city terrorists have already created our own warzones?
Of the 184, we know the race of 156 of them:
http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html
49% of those killed by Police Tasers in the US, were Black.
The upshot of it is, Blacks only comprise of 13% of the overall population.
A Black person is almost 8 times more likely to be killed by a Police Taser in the US than a White person. And, a Black person is almost 4 times more likely to be killed by a Police Taser than a Hispanic.
These are deaths. I wonder what the overall electrocutions / Police Taser occurrences are on American Citizens?
"Help! This man is raping my wife, robbing my house, etc."
"I'll write him a ticket, that'll show him!
Honestly, I would prefer we didn't have or need cops, but until either everyone is strong enough mentally and physically to defend themselves, or criminals just stay home of their own accord, that's not going to happen. There will always be pacifists who refuse to lift a finger or pull the trigger in their own defense, so they need to be protected.
Or are they "Acceptable Losses"?
Would you prefer to return to a "Stronger are MEANT to Prey Upon The Weaker" system? In which case, thugs, of whatever color, would disrupt, if not execute, honest people instead.
You're right! The Caveman and his club didn't necessarily need a mailbox, cop, judges, an auto mechanic mechanic, etc.. But, as a society, I would have to say, "things are a little more complex than that, now."
Obviously, the (facts / data) tells us that we could use a little broadening of our conversation if we would care to live as a collective society of one.
I didn't give any opinion. I only had the willingness to ask myself some questions and do some very rough calculations after reading the document. I looked at it some some other ways too that I also thought were pretty interesting.
I do have another question now though. Who should we start with first for those, "acceptable losses?"
I know that we as a society are much smarter and stronger than if we were going to rough it alone. But, I also acknowledge that in a complex society we must also ask a lot more questions of ourselves and discuss 'em. So we don't have one foot capable of stepping on the moon and one foot still in that cave..
I realize the necessity for specialization, but you must realize the Police Caste are part of that as well, otherwise, only the strong and well-armed would defend themselves, and the rest would be at the mercy of the scum. If everyone could defend themselves as well as perform their primary duties, cops would no longer be necessary. There are a FEW pedestrians who beat up their attackers, shopkeepers who shoot the scum attacking them, but those are the EXCEPTION, rather than the rule. There are even a few who intervene on someone ELSE'S behalf, but that turns out even worse. Look up the McHero for arguably the worst example.
In a number of cities, folks are actually more afraid of the cops than they are the bad guys. The taser came along and made it worse. The anger among veterans, even those who are not, is understandable but does NOT qualify them for a job in law enforcement. The determination to hire returning veterans to compensate their service is misguided and dangerous.
Think about it: Bad neighborhoods are an "ecology" of sorts, and when the predators overhunt useful stores, they can no longer make a profit and leave. Maybe they open somewhere else, maybe just give up and become someone else's employee instead. Sometimes they catch the bad guy, but it sues them. Win or lose, the store has to pay to stop the LAW from rewarding the thief!
Liquour stores and pawnshops become the only things that can survive in an environment like that, and people blame them for somehow "corrupting" the neighborhood, confusing cause and effect. Pawnshops sometimes double as "fences" which reduces the amount people will steal from them, and the owners are often rough&tumble types themselves, and even the worst thug USUALLY avoids fighting in liquour stores to avoid spilling a drop of the Blessed Potations!
These are advantages that department stores, grocery stores, even fast-food and convenience stores don't have!
And as I say, the taser made it worse.
The fact that they were stealing should overwhelm that they were minors. Did the parents face any responsibility?
I find it odd you complain about the Tazer, which if anything, REDUCES lethality of the cops. A gun would cause property damage and/or kill the criminal, depending on aim and backstop. Yes, they COULD go for a disable shot instead of a killshot, but the chances of missing are even higher when you don't aim for center-of-mass, making those foolishly risky trick shots best remanded to movies and videogames.
If people don't want cops, they either need to stop denying that THEIR kids are the ones doing these crimes and correct and stop this behavior(Lotsa luck), or let people fight back against their own criminals, without having to separate into a special Cop Caste.
So far, anyone who fights back is charged with a crime themselves! (Media circus optional)
Big names include:
Joe Horn
Zimmerman
Bernard Goetz (How many thugs do you need to be jumped by before it becomes self-defense?)
AND THEY ALL DIED!
And a good cop does NOT shoot a six year old kid in the head while the little guy is running away.
I'm sorry, but I've seen the cops who are all carrot, no stick. They're INCREDIBLY ineffective at stopping crime.
If criminals can think some rudimentary form of risk-reward formula, then they'll think, "OMG, only pain and death await criminals!" and rethink their career options, OR if they're too far mentally gone to think of things like that, then Darwin's Will Be Done.
Always remember Chris Rock's "advice": If you don't want your ass beat by a cop, don't fight the cops!
The police here is NOT only brutal - but extremely corrupt. Tried to challenge this through the courts - it is the same system - police state.
$100 ticket for well socialized/trai ned dog walking on the trail at heel (nobody else was there). Police putting non-parking signs AFTER cars were parked there and than writing parking tickets?
Yes - the police is targeting OLD cars, poor people, homeless people ... it is old story ... Les Misérables by Victor Hugo ...Jean Valjean, after spending nineteen years in jail and in the galleys for stealing a loaf of bread ..
Sad thing is that many "towns" look at the police as revenue generator ... go to court hearing ... you will see there 90% of poor ... rich people get off by paying lawyer.
My wife had to leave the baby and bail me out ...
One "nice" thing was that next time I gave the cop $20 ... only in Amerika.
The police have for many years set traps for people in towns and cities, to the point of setting stop lights to catch folks, and writing tickets with false testimony concerning what speed the driver was going. All revenue, and I have been victim, myself.
The NH Chiefs of Police are raising money for police cadet camp with a raffle that gives away a gun a day in the month of May. The first listed gun prize is a Ruger SR-556C, a semiautomatic weapon. The NH Chiefs have received an offer from a concerned citizen's group to buy out the raffle, covering the price of all tickets sold, and a jeweler is willing to used the melted guns to create items to benefit victims of gun violence. Ask the NH Chiefs to take the win/win/win option and save lives.
That's why we created a petition to Chief Paul Donovan, President of NH Chiefs of Police, which says:
"Give up the gun giveaway and accept the offer of a buyback of all of the raffle tickets."
http://signon.org/sign/ask-nh-chiefs-of-police?source=c.em.cp&r_by=6908476
EPGAH3 you have obviously have no experience with epileptics, and, not a shred of compassion.
An epileptic may be mentally disoriented after even a petit mal (short "blanking") seizure, let alone a grand mal (major physical and mental trauma that can last for many, many hours), and have no idea of what they are saying or doing.
Most police do have some basic first-aid training, but they are sorely lacking in special-needs situations.
I once had an officer threaten to arrest my epileptic husband while he was lying on the floor *in our home* bleeding from a head-wound after falling during a seizure, because he couldn't tell the officer his name. The officers responded first to the 911 call for an ambulance.
My husband couldn't even speak at the time because his brain was still trying to recover from the massive "electrical short-circuit" of the grand mal. All he could do was start crying and hold out his hands for the 'cuffs. He wasn't resisting or threatening the officer, he just *could not* comply with the officer's command.
At the risk of this comment not being posted by the RSN moderators, I'm going to say to you, "Take your ignorance and post it somewhere else. You sicken and disgust those of us who love and care for people with 'special needs' medical conditions."
Mind you I'd hate to be a cop in this country where every nutter with a grudge is likely to have a lethal weapon (thanks NRA) and a speeding violation can end up in a fatal encounter.
It's all part of a nasty circle of elitism and yes, classism bred by a society in which the poor are not even recognized and the poor and unbalanced are consigned to the margins as unwanted trash blowing about in the street.
I have a good (poor) musician friend who fell into a newly dug ditch walking home from a bar (not drunk) and staggered out into the road bewildered, was reported by a passing driver who almost hit him and subsequently taken to jail for the night by the cops although he didn't blow a blood alcohol content on the wee tube.
He subsequently received 9 days in jail for falling into a ditch in the dark (I forget the "official" nomenclature of the sentence.
Point is, if that had been one of the local elites or a "respectable" resident of the area, the cop would probably have offered them a ride home. If they sat outside a nearby country club (I used to be a member) they could make their "quota" every night at closing but they tend to entrap and harass the poorer demographic.
Go figure.
Pneumonia, though, is a very nasty way to go. As much as I believe in Darwin, I do NOT believe in unnecessary cruelty.
Macadam Mason wanted anyone to kill him.
The suicide hotline people are anonymous still.
There is no public transcript or recording
of Mason't call or calls to the hospital.
The original state police press statement (6.21.12)
mentions the phone call, but does NOT say or imply
that Mason said he wanted to be shot.
As far as the public record goes, this claim
was introduced by the AG in his press release (1.25.13)
without any substantiation.
Given this history, together with the nasty, self-serving
nature of the claim, it is highly suspect
and should not be believed without reliable corroboration.
State is constant, but ineffective at pot field searches, however.
RSS feed for comments to this post