So can we assume the Rawlings family will ask that the killer be released, since his arrest was facilitated by the MPD, the same MPD that they are suing and claiming is out to get them?
Or would this be yet more taxpayer-funded resources that they have no problem using, when it's convenient?
What? I thought their position was that the police can never be trusted.
Actually, I think their position is that the two policemen who shot one of their sons can't be trusted, and that the MPD can't be trusted to impartially investigate one of their own. That's a very different position than the one you're describing. But I understand that knocking down strawmen is more fun.
The US Attorney's office did the investigation of the Rawlings killing. It wasn't some sort of internal MPD cover-up.
And the family was all over the local media and neighborhood saying the entire police department were corrupt and useless. And various people I know in MPD say their biggest problem was witnesses not cooperating because family and friends of the Rawlings family told them not to.
As recently as the killing of George Rawlings the family attorney snidely suggested that George Rawlings was dead because he couldn't go to the police for protection. Ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that he could have gone to the FBI, to the US Attorneys office, DEA, etc.
It's a pattern with this family.
I'm not justifying the actions of the two cops that killed the Rawlings boy. They didn't follow procedure on several fronts.
But an independent US Attorney's office investigation found that it was highly likely that the events described by MPD actually happened - that the Rawlings boy pulled a gun on them.
Can you provide me with a link including a quote from the Rawlings family indicting that the police "can never be trusted"? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to know that you're right.
Re: the US Attorney's office report, this got discussed (not sure that's the appropriate term) in another thread recently. My understanding is that the conclusion of the report was not that the MPD version was correct, but rather that they had no evidence that it wasn't. Is that not true? Has the report been publicly released, so that I can look at it and educate myself as to its findings and the basis for same?
FTR: I personally have no problem at all with MPD as an organization. There are MPD officers that have really frustrated me; but there are other officers that have impressed the hell out of me, and still others I know reasonably well and count as personal friends. I suppose something like that is true of any large organization. And I have no reason to believe that the official story of what happened re: DeOnte Rawlings isn't true.
My problem, instead, is with what happens in comments here whenever anything contentious is brought up -- with the way a lot of people here act occasionally, and some people here act every time. Whenever anything contentious or emotional is brought up, there's an over/under of about five posts before someone will make a snarky comment that has no purpose other than to make civil discourse difficult to impossible. Very very often, the point is not to put forth an argument, or to persuade, but to ridicule; and quite frequently what's being ridiculed is a misrepresentation of a point of view, either of a public figure or of someone posting here. And in short order, this place is no better than the shouting matches you find on Bill O'Reilly or Crossfire. We can be better neighbors than that.
I didn't like your post when I read it; but if your details are in order, I do apologize.
The Rawlings family had no respect for themselves, the property of others, the safety of others, and most obviously any form of moral or legal authority. They have committed themselvse to a life of verbal abuse, physical violence, drug use, rehabilitation, incarceration! And, despite losing one son, did not consider that "the bottom". Perhaps the loss of two sons will change this...I have my doubts.
WP has an update on the killer and and his premediated first-degree murder charges http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601673_pf.html Interestingly, it seems the accusation against the victim was not that he was a witness to the prior shooting, but that he was involved in it. Tragic either way, but good to see people speaking out about this nonsense and MPD making good arrests.
"But an independent US Attorney's office investigation found that it was highly likely that the events described by MPD actually happened - that the Rawlings boy pulled a gun on them."
^ ^ Since the report you're referencing was never publicly released, how would you know what said report concluded was "highly likely"? Is this hearsay or do you work for the U.S. Attorney?
I don't have any real easy links to comments by the Rawlings family. Much of what I remember came from the very lurid sensationalistic television coverage at the time. And there were several Washington Post stories that quoted MPD and US Attorney officials basically begging witnesses to come forward, saying the family and neighbors were refusing to cooperate, and were encouraging others to do the same.
The most recent reference to the Rawlings family lawyer blaming George's death on MPD are in several Washington Post stories from the past week.
I think the cops that killed Deonte Rawlings did a terrible job, in pursuing without backup on a personal theft, on apparently not identifying themselves properly (as was admitted in an audio interview with one of the cops, etc.), and probably on several other counts I'm not familiar with.
But I find it simply implausible that Deonte didn't draw a gun on them, and that they somehow magically produced a gun and planted it at the scene, then faked the gunfire at themselves.
There is a decent chance that he didn't know they were cops, but if you steal property while in the possession of a gun it's really hard for me gin up sympathy for you, even if the cops acted incorrectly.
And I agree that a lot of the comments here are unfortunate and tend to stifle productive discussion.
But in this instance my points are pretty valid, and my overall point is that we have a subculture that denigrates the police, denigrates working for a living, and glorifies a violent outside-the-law existence, all the while quite often living off of the taxpayer (the Rawlings father had 16 kids, most of which are on the public dime).
And this killing was done with the impacts of this subculture as a major player in the unfortunate drama.
Am I celebrating this kid's death? No. It's tragic, no matter how many crimes he'd committed.
Just like Deonte's death was tragic, even though he pulled a gun on cops after stealing from them.
But do I think he sortof had it coming, based on what we know so far about the family and about his lengthy criminal history?
wait, rawlings killed hunter then showed up to his funeral? why? is this some poor attempt at crafting an alibi? if this account is correct, rawlings would have (or should have?) been aware that other parties witnessed (or somehow knew?) he was the shooter. why on earth would he show up to the funeral?
has anyone else ever heard of a shooter showing up to the victim's funeral? maybe to make sure he finished the job?
The U.S. attorney's office and FBI based their findings on gunshot sensor technology, shell casings found at the scene and the accounts provided by police"
The U.S. attorney's office and FBI based their findings on gunshot sensor technology, shell casings found at the scene and the accounts provided by police"
^ ^ you do realize that none of the above info other than the account of the officers establishes that *deonte* is definitively the person who shot at the officers, don't you? if this were a court of law, none of those things (other than the account of the officers) ties deonte to the crime, especially since Post reports later uncovered a third party who had a gun that was tied to the incident (this same young man apparently shot his girlfriend and a gun matching the shell casings found at the scene of the deonte shooting was on his premises; see the story at dcist.com/2007/10/shell_casings_f.php
I would be equally likely to believe a domestic abuser who had access to a firearm similar in caliber to the shell casings found might be as likely to be the shooter as deonte, especially since he shot his own girlfriend (showing violent tendencies, clearly)
in light of this evidence, how can you say the report shows it was *highly* likely that deonte shot at the officers? highly? try *slightly*
I'm not sure how accurate ShotSpotter is in detecting the caliber of firearms being fired, particularly in the middle of gunfights (where presumptively multiple handguns of various calibers are being fired near or at the same time as one another) although a cursory Google search and some hunting did turn up this
which basically says the infrared sensor is accurate
so now the question is, (1) was that 45from some older shooting in the same location and (2) what caliber gun did Deonte use
I suppose, at this point, it would be fair to note that the Shotspotter rules out the girlfriend shooter's gun as the other gun that was fired.
I still don't think anything other than the officer's story conclusively points to Deonte being the shooter (and the unsworn testimony of this fellow who shot his own girlfriend, which came to light only after he was arrested, giving him quite a bit of motive to claim he knows information that may or may not be true (although what value assigning blame to Deonte, a dead person, would do in any plea agreement is somewhat of a mystery since prosecutors usually look to get testimony against living perps)
if this were a court of law, none of those things (other than the account of the officers) ties deonte to the crime
And here I think you unwittingly reveal the depths of your bias: after all, until it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt (the standard of the criminal trial system), clearly law enforcement officers must be lying about their cold-blooded murder of an innocent 14-year-old.
25 comments:
That was fast. Good work MPD! Hopefully the first guy will snitch on his buddies who helped.
I will celebrate when I hear that the suspect wont be back on the streets in a few months.....
hope they have something that sticks
tip of the hat to MPD
great......
So can we assume the Rawlings family will ask that the killer be released, since his arrest was facilitated by the MPD, the same MPD that they are suing and claiming is out to get them?
Or would this be yet more taxpayer-funded resources that they have no problem using, when it's convenient?
And will the Rawlings family and friends instruct all witnesses and others with relevant information to refuse to cooperate?
What? I thought their position was that the police can never be trusted.
Until the MPD comes out with irrefutable proof otherwise, I will continue to believe that it was the *police* who killed George Rawlings.
I say again: Where's the proof?!?
What? I thought their position was that the police can never be trusted.
Actually, I think their position is that the two policemen who shot one of their sons can't be trusted, and that the MPD can't be trusted to impartially investigate one of their own. That's a very different position than the one you're describing. But I understand that knocking down strawmen is more fun.
The US Attorney's office did the investigation of the Rawlings killing. It wasn't some sort of internal MPD cover-up.
And the family was all over the local media and neighborhood saying the entire police department were corrupt and useless. And various people I know in MPD say their biggest problem was witnesses not cooperating because family and friends of the Rawlings family told them not to.
As recently as the killing of George Rawlings the family attorney snidely suggested that George Rawlings was dead because he couldn't go to the police for protection. Ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that he could have gone to the FBI, to the US Attorneys office, DEA, etc.
It's a pattern with this family.
I'm not justifying the actions of the two cops that killed the Rawlings boy. They didn't follow procedure on several fronts.
But an independent US Attorney's office investigation found that it was highly likely that the events described by MPD actually happened - that the Rawlings boy pulled a gun on them.
Can you provide me with a link including a quote from the Rawlings family indicting that the police "can never be trusted"? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to know that you're right.
Re: the US Attorney's office report, this got discussed (not sure that's the appropriate term) in another thread recently. My understanding is that the conclusion of the report was not that the MPD version was correct, but rather that they had no evidence that it wasn't. Is that not true? Has the report been publicly released, so that I can look at it and educate myself as to its findings and the basis for same?
FTR: I personally have no problem at all with MPD as an organization. There are MPD officers that have really frustrated me; but there are other officers that have impressed the hell out of me, and still others I know reasonably well and count as personal friends. I suppose something like that is true of any large organization. And I have no reason to believe that the official story of what happened re: DeOnte Rawlings isn't true.
My problem, instead, is with what happens in comments here whenever anything contentious is brought up -- with the way a lot of people here act occasionally, and some people here act every time. Whenever anything contentious or emotional is brought up, there's an over/under of about five posts before someone will make a snarky comment that has no purpose other than to make civil discourse difficult to impossible. Very very often, the point is not to put forth an argument, or to persuade, but to ridicule; and quite frequently what's being ridiculed is a misrepresentation of a point of view, either of a public figure or of someone posting here. And in short order, this place is no better than the shouting matches you find on Bill O'Reilly or Crossfire. We can be better neighbors than that.
I didn't like your post when I read it; but if your details are in order, I do apologize.
The Rawlings family had no respect for themselves, the property of others, the safety of others, and most obviously any form of moral or legal authority. They have committed themselvse to a life of verbal abuse, physical violence, drug use, rehabilitation, incarceration! And, despite losing one son, did not consider that "the bottom". Perhaps the loss of two sons will change this...I have my doubts.
WP has an update on the killer and and his premediated first-degree murder charges http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601673_pf.html Interestingly, it seems the accusation against the victim was not that he was a witness to the prior shooting, but that he was involved in it. Tragic either way, but good to see people speaking out about this nonsense and MPD making good arrests.
It sounds from that last story like multiple witnesses came forward. Very, very happy about that.
Great news. Another animal off the streets.
"But an independent US Attorney's office investigation found that it was highly likely that the events described by MPD actually happened - that the Rawlings boy pulled a gun on them."
^ ^ Since the report you're referencing was never publicly released, how would you know what said report concluded was "highly likely"? Is this hearsay or do you work for the U.S. Attorney?
Curmudgeon:
I don't have any real easy links to comments by the Rawlings family. Much of what I remember came from the very lurid sensationalistic television coverage at the time. And there were several Washington Post stories that quoted MPD and US Attorney officials basically begging witnesses to come forward, saying the family and neighbors were refusing to cooperate, and were encouraging others to do the same.
The most recent reference to the Rawlings family lawyer blaming George's death on MPD are in several Washington Post stories from the past week.
I think the cops that killed Deonte Rawlings did a terrible job, in pursuing without backup on a personal theft, on apparently not identifying themselves properly (as was admitted in an audio interview with one of the cops, etc.), and probably on several other counts I'm not familiar with.
But I find it simply implausible that Deonte didn't draw a gun on them, and that they somehow magically produced a gun and planted it at the scene, then faked the gunfire at themselves.
There is a decent chance that he didn't know they were cops, but if you steal property while in the possession of a gun it's really hard for me gin up sympathy for you, even if the cops acted incorrectly.
And I agree that a lot of the comments here are unfortunate and tend to stifle productive discussion.
But in this instance my points are pretty valid, and my overall point is that we have a subculture that denigrates the police, denigrates working for a living, and glorifies a violent outside-the-law existence, all the while quite often living off of the taxpayer (the Rawlings father had 16 kids, most of which are on the public dime).
And this killing was done with the impacts of this subculture as a major player in the unfortunate drama.
Am I celebrating this kid's death? No. It's tragic, no matter how many crimes he'd committed.
Just like Deonte's death was tragic, even though he pulled a gun on cops after stealing from them.
But do I think he sortof had it coming, based on what we know so far about the family and about his lengthy criminal history?
Yes.
wait, rawlings killed hunter then showed up to his funeral? why? is this some poor attempt at crafting an alibi? if this account is correct, rawlings would have (or should have?) been aware that other parties witnessed (or somehow knew?) he was the shooter. why on earth would he show up to the funeral?
has anyone else ever heard of a shooter showing up to the victim's funeral? maybe to make sure he finished the job?
To Anon @ Nov 16, 2009 12:37:00 PM -- Couldn't agree with you more.
The family's outrageous lawsuit (before the details came out) said to me that the most they saw in DeOnte's death was dollar signs.
Common Sense:
Here is the quote from the Post story on the Federal investigation...
"Federal prosecutors said yesterday that no criminal charges will be filed against two off-duty D.C. police officers involved in the fatal shooting of 14-year-old DeOnté Rawlings, saying they concluded that the youth fired the first shots.
The U.S. attorney's office and FBI based their findings on gunshot sensor technology, shell casings found at the scene and the accounts provided by police"
off topic: PoP has news on developments on 3rd and K NE.
http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/11/new-artist-housing-coming-to-3rd-and-k-streets-ne/
The U.S. attorney's office and FBI based their findings on gunshot sensor technology, shell casings found at the scene and the accounts provided by police"
^ ^ you do realize that none of the above info other than the account of the officers establishes that *deonte* is definitively the person who shot at the officers, don't you? if this were a court of law, none of those things (other than the account of the officers) ties deonte to the crime, especially since Post reports later uncovered a third party who had a gun that was tied to the incident (this same young man apparently shot his girlfriend and a gun matching the shell casings found at the scene of the deonte shooting was on his premises; see the story at dcist.com/2007/10/shell_casings_f.php
I would be equally likely to believe a domestic abuser who had access to a firearm similar in caliber to the shell casings found might be as likely to be the shooter as deonte, especially since he shot his own girlfriend (showing violent tendencies, clearly)
in light of this evidence, how can you say the report shows it was *highly* likely that deonte shot at the officers? highly? try *slightly*
pardon me, that should say "Examiner reports" not "Post reports"
I'm not sure how accurate ShotSpotter is in detecting the caliber of firearms being fired, particularly in the middle of gunfights (where presumptively multiple handguns of various calibers are being fired near or at the same time as one another) although a cursory Google search and some hunting did turn up this
strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20051031.aspx
which basically says the infrared sensor is accurate
so now the question is, (1) was that 45from some older shooting in the same location and (2) what caliber gun did Deonte use
I suppose, at this point, it would be fair to note that the Shotspotter rules out the girlfriend shooter's gun as the other gun that was fired.
I still don't think anything other than the officer's story conclusively points to Deonte being the shooter (and the unsworn testimony of this fellow who shot his own girlfriend, which came to light only after he was arrested, giving him quite a bit of motive to claim he knows information that may or may not be true (although what value assigning blame to Deonte, a dead person, would do in any plea agreement is somewhat of a mystery since prosecutors usually look to get testimony against living perps)
if this were a court of law, none of those things (other than the account of the officers) ties deonte to the crime
And here I think you unwittingly reveal the depths of your bias: after all, until it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt (the standard of the criminal trial system), clearly law enforcement officers must be lying about their cold-blooded murder of an innocent 14-year-old.
You're misrepresenting what he said *again*, oboe.
Post a Comment