Did you feel that?
If you’re among those of us who’ve been swimming against tidal waves of news about police mistreating people they encounter — especially Black people, and, mostly, Black men and boys — you had to feel the earth shake more than once over the last couple of weeks.
Here in Aurora, the Sentinel has for years diligently revealed case after case of Aurora police using not just excessive brutal force against some people they encounter, but cynical, grim, deadly force.
Of course there’s a caveat, and it’s an important one. The entire Aurora Police department isn’t filled with hordes of corrupt bullies. After years of watching — and watching — I’m confident in passing along that the vast majority of Aurora law enforcers are dedicated and passionate professionals, who work hard at not only doing the right thing — but even knowing the right thing.
But I can equally attest, having waded deep into the quagmire of the Aurora Police Department for decades, that there are too many sick and sadistic bullies carrying guns and badges. Among the ranks are racists, bullies and people wholly unsuited to enforce the law.
While these sadistic and corrupt bullies truly are few in the department of nearly 700 officers, there’s another community of officers inadvertently equally as dangerous.
There are certainly dozens of Aurora police officers who intentionally or subconsciously look the other way, or outright refuse to acknowledge and stop, on-duty excessive acts of force, acts of unprofessionalism or daunting acts of racism.
Some officers purposefully ignore illegal or inappropriate stunts among their peers. Most are not confident or courageous enough to step in and stop these wrongs, or even report them.
The first tremors that rattled Aurora and police departments all over the state hit three years ago when state lawmakers, astonishingly, passed a bevy of laws meant to radically change policing. These laws were, in a large part, fallout from the killing of Elijah McClain by Aurora police and fire department medics.
The new laws no longer offer police statutory, blanket immunity for anything they do because it was just “in the line of duty.” Another law makes it illegal for police to stand by and watch another officer abuse a subject or criminally attack them.
An Aurora police officer was among the first in Colorado tripped up by the law by passively standing by as her police partner pistol whipped and savagely beat a young Black man he was attempting to arrest for hanging out on an apartment complex median without permission.
There has been a steady drum of vibrations and tremors over the past couple of years as police officers in Aurora and elsewhere were unhired or adjudicated for what are clearly crimes against the public by police.
There was another jolt last week when a federal appeals court agreed that Aurora could be liable for damages after the city’s officers used excessive force in trying to quell anti-police-brutality protesters in Denver, after Aurora cops were urgently called in to help in 2020.
Not even five years ago it would have been unheard of for police to be subjected to that level of accountability by anyone, especially district attorneys.
But the biggest temblor so far came earlier this month when the district attorney for Clear Creek County stepped forward and charged six sheriff deputies for having failed to step in and stop the cruel and deadly abuse of Christian Glass, a young man in a mental crisis who called police for help, stuck in his car outside of Georgetown.
These aren’t the cops who actually pulled out a gun and ruthlessly shot Glass dead as he struggled with a panic attack, essentially created by a botched police response to his call for help.
That officer, Andrew Buen, has been indicted by a grand jury and has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder for firing his gun into Glass’ car and killing him.
Rather, 5th Judicial District Attorney Heidi McCollum recognized that under state law, and under the weight of common decency, the six officers that stood by and watched Buen aggravate and escalate the situation with Glass violated the new state law. That law says officers must intervene, and certainly not participate, in episodes where fellow officers beat, abuse, maim or aggravate people they come in contact with.
It was nothing short of a stunning achievement for people like Sheneen McClain, whose own son, Elijah, was a textbook example of deadly police abuse.
Tragically, Elijah was the reason for, rather than a beneficiary of, these new state laws.
For a district attorney in a historically conservative district to step up and invoke a law that few thought could ever even exist is staggering.
“Law enforcement officers must be held accountable for their actions when performing their trusted public service duties,” McCollum said.
Local attorney Qusair Mohamedbhai said he, too, was astounded by the announcement.
He’s stood in courts for years now, alongside victims of police in Aurora and across the state, trying to push the vast weight of officer accountability up the steep mountain of police, court and public resistance.
“Stunning,” he said as news traveled that the state’s criminal justice system has now evolved to accept that the abuse some police inflict on the public, is, indeed, a crime.
It doesn’t mean that people of color, and especially Black men, can now relish the fact that they will always be treated just like white people when they encounter any police officer.
Aurora police, however, spend a huge amount of time and resources implementing police reform, mostly through training, and some through attrition. Just recently Aurora firefighters trained their ranks how to “de-escalate” unnerving and potentially dangerous encounters with people in crisis.
No, we’re not there yet. Two of three officers who clearly played a role in the death of McClain were acquitted of even a misdemeanor. One Aurora officer, Nathan Woodyard, who provoked Elijah into a deadly choking and overdose debacle, has even come back to the Aurora police department, for now.
But as the aftershock of these striking changes play out, there is, maybe for the first time ever, real hope.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@SentinelColorado.com
Sooner, rather than later, Aurora citizens who have built our community over the past forty years will realize your hateful, redundant editorials toward the APD, your positive statements about socialist trains of thought, and your reporting that implies that only activists, immigrants, gays and people of color are welcome to live here in Aurora, your very own Sanctuary City.
I believe the Sentinel Blog’s editorials, news reporting and leadership is absolutely revolting for a civilized community within the history of the Denver area, Colorado and the USA.
Some will say, why do I still read this Blog. I will reply because I want to know what my enemy thinks, locally, and this Blog gives me that information in a perfect manner. Thanks for that, Dave.
Some will say, why not move away from Aurora. I’d reply, old white, conservative guys do not like change at all, and the water is great, (but expensive). Also, now we are getting a City Council that appears to see a better vision for our City and they will need citizen support.
More inflammatory and I presume intentionally inaccurate reporting. First, there never was blanket protection for officers. Implied Immunity was never a blanket protection like the activists convinced the legislature. Implied immunity was created by the courts out of an understanding that police officers often must deal with situations where the law is not clearly established. It is not a blanket protection. A judge decides whether an officer is allowed Implied immunity. It was only granted in about one third of the cases. By saying that it should not be allowed in Colorado, you are saying that you don’t trust judges to make that decision. You are also telling officers that you are going to hold them accountable for vague case laws.
The officer who was held accountable for failing to intervene was not standing by. She was actively involved in struggling with the suspect. In that situation, it is often hard to see what your partner is doing. Even if you do see, it is very difficult to stop anything anyone else is doing while you are involved in the struggle. I was pulling officers off of suspects long before it was popular. I got not support from the command staff. In her case, the most important evidence in the entire episode was not used because her attorney did not do his job. The DA’s office has some responsibility in this also. Let us look at how the editor characterizes the struggle where the suspect was pistol whipped. He says that the officer savagely beat the young man for hanging out in an apartment complex. First, it wasn’t an apartment complex. It was a business parking lot and the owners called because of the rampant drug use and dealing by the “young man” and other homeless. The officers ascertained that all three had felony warrants. Two of the warrants advised caution. The “young man” had a felony warrant for probation violation for strangulation (violent crime). When the female officer took too casual an approach to the arrest, two of the suspects ran. The “young man” did not get up fast enough and he was stopped by the “pistol whipper”. A warrant is an order from a court to arrest someone. When he did not obey commands to roll over, the officers guided him to his stomach. After being told he had a warrant for his arrest, the “young man” (felon) began to resist arrest. The young man’s right hand went to the officer’s gun before he was hit. His left hand went to the officer’s gun before he was hit. Throughout the struggle he continued to grab for the officer’s gun. All the witnesses said that it was a violent struggle (not like what the detective said in his affidavit). The law says that an officer may use deadly force when his life is threatened. When a suspect tries to take your gun, that is about as threatening as you can get. Every year, 8%-15% of officers killed are killed with their own gun or their partner’s gun. The suspect received injuries that looked dramatic but that did not rise to the level of serious bodily injury. The investigation was shoddy and rushed and enabled Chief Vanessa Wilson to look like the reformer when she got before the cameras. Unfortunately, they filed charges against the officers before they even picked up the most important evidence. Incompetent or criminal, or both.
As far as the Glass case goes, certainly the officer who shot Glass should be prosecuted. The incredible incompetence shown during that whole episode speaks to the lack of both training and adequate supervision in law enforcement. As far as the other officers at the scene, again when you are just there and not the agency in charge, it is difficult to stop sudden and stupid actions by other officers.
The incredibly poor performance of both Denver and Aurora officers at the George Floyd demonstrations speaks volumes about the incompetence and impotence of their leaders. The newspaper articles stated that the officers had no faith in their leadership. Duh. Our systems keep picking the smooth talking politicians (sociopaths) who never learned the job and never had the courage to stand up. They kept their mouths shut when officers were out of line. They worked on their own promotion. That meant they never made any waves. Their records were spotless because they never did anything and never disagreed when the bosses were wrong.
There are better ways to do police work and there are better ways to pick chiefs. We will never get those things through the bureaucracy of local government.
As far as this editorial goes, the author needs to look at facts and not wild emotion. That is the reason the officers are leaving. They know that whatever they do, they will be vilified by uninformed emotional people and they will have no support from those who should support them.
I see Dave has recycled, yet again, his tired screed. Sadly it does not spur reform, it reinforces dangerous misconceptions.
Generally, I agree with Editor Perry that “There are certainly dozens of Aurora police officers who intentionally or subconsciously look the other way, or outright refuse to acknowledge and stop, on-duty excessive acts of force, acts of unprofessionalism or daunting acts of racism.” But the blame needs to be widened … the Colorado Legislature did indeed pass a law pretending to eliminate qualified immunity, or as Mr. Black calls it, “implied immunity”. This immunity did, previously, exist in Colorado laws such as CRS 18-8-103 and 104, where, as long as the officer makes ” a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.” it is good. It’s this concept that the jury may have been considering in Mr. Woodyard’s acquittal. And who picks the people who craft Colorado Revised Statutes? YOU do! The Colorado Constitution, in the first section after the surveyors’ definition of Colorado, states:
All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
So maybe WE should act like it, people!