Comments
Independent Discussion GuidelinesShocking...SBPD gets away with it again...
Still waiting for the video footage...
-1 + 1 = ... :) henry
dont drink and drive playa. again. and again.
SBPD getting away with it, or the DA has no nads, or the DA is in cahoots? which one is it? I will say Mr. Dozer will call a spade a spade. While I am disappointed with their decision not to prosecute TUDOR, the explanation is reasonable. It would be a cluster#@$% of opinions, lenghty costly trial with a hung jury. I think the civil case will be quite different. They really should release the videos regardless. Gee, maybe Mayor Schneider will intervene?....NOT!
In this specific case, if the arrestee has been found not to have resisted arrest, then logic would say there was excessive force based on eyewitness testimony. An uncorrupt DA's office would have no problems seeing and acting on that.
The DA should charge Tudor and let the jury decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason we have a system that asks 12 jurors of his peers to make the decision of whether or not Tudor used excessive force.
sbs124-You obviously have zero concept of how our judicial system works.
KV-You know it's not that simple.
Hell, even I want to see the video's as it appears to those, such as myself that are mostly UNINFORMED, that something was not handled correctly.
Actually, since Denunzio and I are both Italian he MUST be innocent...
KV-You know it's not that simple.
Hell, even I want to see the video's as it appears to those, such as myself that are mostly UNINFORMED, that something was not handled correctly.
Actually, since Denunzio and I are both Italian he MUST be innocent...
"The DA should charge Tudor and let the jury decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason we have a system that asks 12 jurors of his peers to make the decision of whether or not Tudor used excessive force."
- sbs124
Juries don't indict suspects. It looks like you're skipping over a step; the indictment. This is where cause is, or is not found by the grand jury to go to trial. If Tudor had been charged, he would likely have been charged with a felony. A suspect charged with a felony has to be indicted before a jury trial is had. Also, if it was found that Tudor acted under "color of law", the FBI would be tasked to investigate, and he would be prosecuted federally, in which case there would be a federal indictment by a federal grand jury.
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/nov/30/da-wont-file-excessive-force-resisting-arrest-char/#commenttoggle
Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley DISAGREES
DA Won't File Excessive Force, Resisting Arrest Charges in Denunzio DUI Case
The Office Cites Differing Accounts of 13 Witnesses
Wednesday, November 30, 2011The District Attorney’s Office will not file excessive force or resisting arrest charges related to the incident between Santa Barbara Police Officer Aaron Tudor and DUI suspect Tony Denunzio in the Loreto Plaza parking lot on October 21. While some witnesses said Tudor used excessive force in apprehending Denunzio, Chief Cam Sanchez came out in support of Tudor’s actions, explaining he believes appropriate actions were taken, and that sometimes police work isn't pretty.
Denunzio, who has two prior alcohol-related driving convictions, was pulled over by Tudor after allegedly changing lanes three times along Las Positas Road without signaling. Denunzio told The Independent he had only one drink at the Boathouse restaurant that night, but his attorney and the DA’s office confirmed Tuesday that a blood sample taken right after the incident showed Denunzio's blood alcohol content was .09 percent. His attorney, Darryl Genis, questioned the manner in which Denunzio’s blood was drawn, however, and plans to mount a legal attack challenging the sample. Genis is also having his own lab test a sample of Denunzio's blood drawn at County Jail prior to his client being taken to the hospital.
In the meantime, Denunzio will be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 percent, and driving on a suspended driver’s license. He will also face allegations of two prior alcohol-related driving convictions.
Courtesy Photo
Tony Denunzio shortly after his October 2011 for alleged DUI
Denunzio, during an interview four days after the incident, showed signs of the encounter — his face was still bruised, his eye red, and his breathing labored from broken ribs. “Why is this being done?” witness Ellen Hunter said Denunzio yelled during the arrest. “Why are you doing this?” Hunter said her husband eventually told her to call 9-1-1 to get Denunzio help. “A police officer is beating up a driver for no reason, and we need help,” she recalled telling dispatch.
Chief Sanchez, in a statement released the week following the altercation, defended Tudor, saying Denunzio wasn’t complying with verbal orders, and that Tudor used palm and knee strikes to gain control over his arrestee. “All of the decisions made and options exercised by the arresting officer that were captured on the video recording were justified standard law enforcement practices given Mr. Denunzio’s resistance,” Sanchez said.
The footage captured by a new dash-cam in Tudor’s patrol car showed parts of the incident. In addition to that video, the DA’s office viewed two other videos as well -- one from Gelson’s Market and one taken by a witness. Wednesday, The Independent renewed a public records act request to view these videos.
The DA’s office said there were two divergent views regarding the force utilized by Tudor. “They are both reasonable assessments of the arrest procedure in this case,” it said. In all, there were 13 witnesses who saw all or some of the incident between Tudor and Denunzio. None of those 13 people are police officers. Some characterized Tudor’s actions as appropriate, some did not. “There were some witnesses who saw more, there were witnesses who saw less,” Senior Deputy District Attorney Hilary Dozer said. “There were those who characterized Mr. Denunzio as resisting arrest and not complying with the officer. There were witnesses who felt the officer was not acting in a way consistent with professional police behavior.”
With divergent views among the people who saw what happened, and a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, officials determined that filing charges relating to the altercation was not appropriate.
Tuesday morning, with his significant other sitting in the front row of the courtroom in support, Denunzio pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of domestic battery, stemming from an incident alleged to have taken place prior to Denunzio’s DUI arrest.
With his alleged victim prepared to tell Judge Jim Herman there was no reason for an order banning contact between the two, the judge decided a more substantive hearing was needed, and pushed the matter out. In the meantime, the judge opted to forgo a no contact order, but instead told Denunzio he could not molest, annoy, threaten, or harass the woman. “That’s not a problem, because he’s not going to do that anyway,” Genis said. A December 6 hearing was scheduled to address the order.
Details on the allegation are slim because it is a domestic violence charge. Genis said police were summoned because there was an argument of some sorts, and Denunzio ended up leaving before authorities arrived. He didn’t hit the woman and he didn’t break anything, Genis said. When authorities did arrive, his significant other told them nothing really happened.
After the hearing, Genis repeated a mantra he had stated earlier, saying he believes the charge is designed to drum up the idea that Denunzio is a violent man and was resisting arrest the night of the alleged DUI and subsequent altercation with the police officer. Dozer said he wouldn’t comment on that claim, though he told The Independent a few weeks ago that “if I was a defense lawyer, that’s the kind of spin I’d put out for my client.”
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
November 30, 2011 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)