New Haven Independent

Posted by: In The Hood | April 28, 2008 6:15 PM

What is the officer's side of this story? Is there a police report? This story seems one-sided.

Posted by: Westvillian | April 29, 2008 11:55 AM

The story seems one-sided because the police dept. declined to comment -

"Because we haven an [internal] investigation taking place, it is our practice not to comment on these cases until an investigation is concluded," mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said Monday afternoon.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 29, 2008 12:52 PM

In The Hood

That is why I have not commented on this. Dennis has been a good officer to my knowledge. So I am a bit thrown by this and the fact there is another charge against him.
To many unanswered questions. If he is guilty than shame on him. But if he is not, this can ruin a good officers name.

Posted by: VJ Vitkowsky | April 29, 2008 1:28 PM

I requested the police report last wed, and could not get a copy e-mailed to me by the time the story was printed. As soon as I hear back from city hall I will post their version of events.
-VJ Vitkowsky

Posted by: facChek | April 29, 2008 2:10 PM

"Sanchez pled guilty to a non-criminal infraction in February, and paid a $40 ticket".

Based on the above, Sounds like a long shot law suit at best.
Case closed.

Posted by: NHBR | April 29, 2008 7:28 PM

"But if he is not, this can ruin a good officers name."

There are no good officers in New Haven.

Posted by: unprotected | April 29, 2008 9:18 PM

sounds like a lawsuit that will be settled prior to trial. city will give him a few thousand dollars, half of which the lawyer will get. in the hood, will we ever get both sides of the story? remember that contoversy sells.

Posted by: EarlyBird | April 30, 2008 7:59 AM

"I...could not get a copy e-mailed to me by the time the story was printed..."

Then you hold the story. Sloppy work.

Posted by: Paul Bass | April 30, 2008 8:04 AM

Early Bird: Here's why we ran the story: We gave the city five days to give its side of the story. Finally, on Monday, the city's spokeswoman said the city decided not to give its side, period, because the matter is being investigated. At that point I felt it was time to pubilsh the story. This was a suit filed in court making serious allegations. The city had plenty of time to respond and chose not to. It's an important ongoing issue (policing and immigration). I felt the public deserved to learn about the story and make its own judgments. The alternative would have been not to report the story period simply because government chose not to comment. That's a dangerous precedent -- government can silence any scrutiny of its behavior simply by never commenting. And voices of people who don't hold positions of power would never be heard.

That said, in retrospect, perhaps we should not have published the officer's name, since nothing has been proved against him.

Posted by: Paul that's ridiculous | April 30, 2008 9:39 AM

Paul,

While it is important to note that you thought through the variety of implications before you published your story, your stated second guessing is ridiculous.

There is a lawsuit and an internal investigation. The name of the officer is legally public knowledge in both cases. To have written the story as "some officer may have beaten up some immigrant" would have been unreal.

And given that this is America and people are innocent until proven guilty, under your "retrospect" you could not have used the officer's name until he was found guilty by a jury. That's ridiculous.

People know there are two sides to the story. You need only report what both sides told you with some estimation of the likelihood of truth based on relevant facts. In this case, one side refused to talk so you report that. In terms of relevant facts, you have evidence that for one reason or another this guy was beaten up.

Now we have had other cases where people have been hit by New Haven cops and the chief has come out and said I believe my officers did nothing wrong, they needed to restrain this individual. Here the chief has said no such thing. Readers can infer something from that as well like the chief is not certain enough to say that.

As public officials, police officers especially given their inherent right to kill on the job, deserve clear scrutiny in the ways they do their job. And they need this not after they have been found guilty but throughout the investigation. In fact you are part of that investigation in our democracy.

Would you not have printed the names of the officers who killed Amadou Diallo? They were all exonerated by a jury. If not for the press, America would never know that a grave injustice was done by specific individuals. Under your scenario, we would not know that the people who killed an unarmed man reaching for his wallet were: Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy.

This officer may indeed be innocent but in our country the need for the press to expose potential corruption is both an obligation and a burden. So be sure to consistently describe those elements of the situation which may show that the officer acted honorably -- to the extent they exist.

Posted by: Paul Bass | April 30, 2008 10:05 AM

That's Ridiculous--

I hear you. In general I do believe that non- "public figure" citizens who are accused of crimes -- even charged -- should have their names withheld until their cases are adjudicated. Even though the press can (though doesn't always) follow up to report when someone is found innocent, that person's reputation is ruined forever once we report that he or she allegedly committed a crime.

You do make good points on the other side. Public officials need to be held accountable. And the public should know when people entrusted with government power are accused of misbehavior. For instance, I think politicians forfeit some privacy rights when they run for office; if they're accused of a crime, that should certainly be reported. It seems like your argument is that cops are in a similar position. That's definitely a legitimate argument. I'm just not sure. I do worry about everyday cops having reputations ruined based solely on a person's charges. It seems like the public still gets to hear about the charges themselves and the need for accountability if the charges are reported and the story told without the name. However, I do think you definitely could be right. It's a question I've wrestled with for a long time.

Posted by: Da Hill | April 30, 2008 10:20 AM

Good work paul...this story is horrible no matter how you cut it.

Posted by: facChek | April 30, 2008 12:12 PM

Paul and That's ridiculous...
Stop all the back and forth banter,, This man was given a ticket for interfering with a police officer. subsequently, he plead guilty and paid a fine. He could have been charged with other violations as well if the officer had the inclination to do so. Why would he plead guilty if his brother-in-law was there and witnessed the whole event as Sanchez tells it?
Sorry but there are obvious holes in his story that will need a major explanation. With out seeing the police report, I would venture to say that it will not support Sanchez's story in spite of his brother -in law.

Move on and let the courts decide. The criminal aspect is closed,
Out>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 30, 2008 4:08 PM

No I think Paul was right for allowing it to go to press . We as citizens in this great city have the right to know that things like this can and are happening, no matter which way you spin the story. It allows us to be more informed and more on the watch. And the one thing we know we will get at the NHI is follow ups and updates.
I had my reservation about the story because of the lack of city response. But I do understand why they could not give an answer.

Posted by: Paul that's ridiculous | April 30, 2008 6:43 PM

Actually Paul,

Three problems with the way you are looking at it.

1. Are you saying that if there was a home invasion or a violent assault and the police finally caught a suspect who the victim identified as the perpetrator that you would not name the person? Seems to me you have done that in this online newspaper. And if I am mistaken (didn't you name the serial rapist before he was convicted) then you are basically alone among all reporters in American news.

2. In this case where there is an allegation that a police officer used his position to torture another human being, you start with a presumption by most Americans that the police officer's word is better than the alleged victim. If a newspaper's job is not to balance that by telling the alleged victim's story, then how is it that there will ever be freedom from the threat of arbitrary violence by the police. Unfortunately we have so many cases of officers over-stepping their bounds that one of the only checks in a free society is the press.

3. Your online newspaper alleges behavior all of the time which could be criminal and name people who have potentially engaged in illegal behavior. Remember the fire fighter who choked the other one? Now in most places that would have been criminal behavior and I believe you named everyone involved. In fact every couple of days you do so -- what's so different here?

Oh and facchek -- The point was that the basic allegation is that this man was potentially tortured and was fearful enough that he was willing to sign anything to protect himself. Now this may be wholly made up but it may not be. To then say hey he signed a ticket saying he broke the law is ridiculous. You are using one of the facts which establishes the allegation to claim that the officer therefore must not have broken the law. That would be the perfect basis for a judicial system -- in Zimbabwe.