Commentary: Police Audit’s Finding Obscures Troubling Currents Beneath the Surface

Share:
Photo Courtesy Don Sherman

By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor

Davis, CA – The city released the findings from their first ever use-of-force audit and were generally pleased with the results.  The city and police auditor of course want to trumpet the findings of the auditor’s report that showed use of force in Davis to be well below state average.

Good news—but not surprising.

As I have pointed out a number of times, use of force by the Davis Police Department is not the complaint I have registered and not the complaint I have heard in my 15-plus years of doing this.

Over the years the primary complaint that I have heard about DPD is racial profiling and police stops, not excessive force.  The data released last year bears that out—the Davis Police Department stops Black people, in particular, at a disproportionate rate that is well above the state average.

Moreover, if we drill down into this particular audit, the findings are not nearly as rosy as perhaps the headline indicates.

The report also highlights seven cases that involved the use of force by DPD.  The auditor, Mike Gennaco, said last night that all were within department regulations.

This is where it gets fuzzy.

Take Case 2, for example, which would have parallels to George Floyd but for the fact that the person involved did not die.

“As a result of a court order, access to information relating to this use of force has been limited. The responding officers used their body weight to take the resisting individual into custody. One officer placed his knee near or on the subject’s neck, above the shoulders and directly below the head,” Grennaco wrote.  “This use of force was found to be ‘in policy’ by DPD supervisors.”

But, later in the report, we find out that this incident was pre-George Floyd.

This case occurred “before the new DPD policy prohibiting neck restraints was enacted and, more notably, before the murder of George Floyd, which brought attention to the issue of placing knees and/or body weight on the neck, and subsequent changes to state law banning all neck holds.”

That is important because regulations changed.  Gennaco never evaluated whether it would be currently within regulation—and I’m guessing that it was not.

I was just in Stockton on Tuesday covering a lawsuit filed in the Shayne Sutherland, case where he did die from positional asphyxiation.

New state law restricts police officers from using asphyxiation technique in order to subdue someone.

Civil Rights Attorney James DeSimone pointed out, “This has been something that’s been well-known when you have someone handcuffed, you cannot apply pressure to their neck, their hat, they’re struggling breathing anyway. And there’s just no reason to do it.”

So the state law had not caught up to police practices here, but what Case 2 shows is that Davis was doing the same kind of practices that all departments were doing—they were just fortunate enough that, in their cases, the people involved did not die.

The case in the motel is also instructive.  Clearly, the man there needed to have a mental health professional arrive at the scene, but darn it, “Since this incident occurred in the early morning hours, a mental health clinician would not have been available to respond as Davis does not have mental health professionals available around the clock.”

So instead the police attempt to first talk him down, and then when that didn’t work after apparently a few minutes, per the description, the officers decided to use force.

Again, the result was that they used a Taser and applied force.  Because things went fairly smoothly and no one died, the incident is being reviewed from this vantage point.

But, in effect, the police used a hammer when a screwdriver was the tool that was needed.  Because they did not have such a tool available, they used their hammer and this time, fortunately, it worked.

This screams for a Crisis NOW approach—which is coming.

Another problem that is evident—the standard of reviewing these use-of-force cases is fairly low.  I only looked at two of them closely, but both are kind of questionable.  In one case the force use is probably now illegal and, in the other, another approach would have been optimal.

Yet, they both fell within compliance.  The same could be said for the few other use-of-force cases we have reviewed over the years.

For example, in the Glacier Point incident the officer was severely reprimanded and ultimately fired from the department for his handling of the case.  They found that he arrived too hot, used his Taser on two college students and basically acted improperly.  But, at the same time, the use-of-force complaint was not sustained (other complaints were sustained).

In the Picnic Day incident the police were faulted for their handling of the incident, but the use-of-force complaint was not sustained.

The incident that we reported on that involved Ryan Bellamy punching a suspect in the face multiple times—there was no sustained use-of-force complaint.

Given just these three examples—the state of California has revised use of force in some areas, particularly the use of deadly force and some types of force such as carotid control holds.  But they have left open a whole range of force options so long as they don’t result in death.

So, in the end, the city and some police defenders will trumpet the low use-of-force findings.  But perhaps the real result is that Davis benefits from operating in a relatively low crime environment—violent crime is extremely low and the vast majority of crime is property crime that does not result in direct interactions between police and suspected offenders.

Moreover, they have been fortunate not only with a low number of encounters but that the few encounters they have had have not resulted in death or serious bodily injury to police or members of the public.

In my view, that should not be interpreted as the police force in Davis performing their job better than other departments.  Indeed, when you examine the two incidents highlighted in the recent report, you recognize that the police handled these little differently from any other department—they simply were fortunate enough to get a good result.

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

33 thoughts on “Commentary: Police Audit’s Finding Obscures Troubling Currents Beneath the Surface”

  1. Keith Olsen

    Commentary: Police Audit’s Finding Obscures Troubling Currents Beneath the Surface

    Yup, can’t let that good report go unchallenged as it goes against the agenda.

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          Actually, I would argue that the cherrypicked cases illustrate the exact problem. The city’s police do not operate any differently from other departments when they get the opportunity. The lower use of force seems to be largely less because of policy differences and more because the opportunity and need does not arise.

  2. Keith Y Echols

    So what use of force standard would you use for the Police?  Sounds like you’re kinda moving the goal posts here.  Use of force is part of a job of a Police officer.   I asked you yesterday what a standard model for use of force should be or what would be acceptable use of force numbers….including acceptable error rate.  Your post comes off as unreasonable and as if you’re digging pretty hard and digging all over the place for something to be critical of the Davis police.

    Person Criticizing Police Has No Idea What It’s Like To Wake Up Every Day And Put Lives In Danger

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      Keith – it would be better if you want to have a discussion about this that you stop posting from the onion.

      In terms of use of force standards, I would refer you to:

      21st Century Policing – https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf
      AB 392 passed a few years ago in California
      AB 26 just signed by the governor prohibiting the asphyxiation holds…

      The goal posts are moving because news laws have been passed moving them.

      1. Keith Y Echols

        That’s fine if the goal posts are officially moving.  But the report spans before and after those changes were made.  You can’t criticize the Police Department for changes in rules made during the timing of the report.  It’s like changing the rules of a tackle football game to two hand touch DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.

        So none of what you listed answers my question about a baseline or model for police use of force in a community….and what is an acceptable error rate?  The 21st Century Policing Doc is interesting….about half of it can be summed up in implementing and integrating a citizen oversite/review of Police activity…. (BTW.  It’s 181 pages long!  I read it as well as I could in 5 minutes…you coulda summarized any point you wanted to make that came from the document….geez! throw me bone!) in that much of the suggested procedural implementations for community engagement and support have more recently been pushed to be stripped from the Police by the “Defund the Police” movement.  I think either way the recommendations need to be implemented.  Having community engagement/social services/support etc…fall outside of the Police’s direct responsibilities certainly has it’s benefits.  On the other hand you’re going to have to figure out a way to integrate law enforcement and social services to work closely together…and that’s the hard part.   One way maybe a better social services solution to the community and the other may be more efficient use of resources (people, time and assets/money).  But none of this is actually relevant to the discussion at hand right now.

        I found this amusing from the 21st Century Policing Doc.

        Community policing emphasizes working with neighborhood residents to co-produce public safety. Law enforcement agencies should work with community residents to identify problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for the community.

        Wasn’t this the idea behind “Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol”?

        Okay no Onion articles….I’ll take the stab at my own satirical headlines:

        “Community Afraid Because Local Police Are under Their Use of Force Quota”

        “Gotham Social Justice Imitative Adopts Citizen Review Board for Vigilante Use of Force Conduct”

         

         

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          ” You can’t criticize the Police Department for changes in rules made during the timing of the report. ”

          Yes and no. On the one hand, I don’t fault the department for saying that this fell within policy. On the other hand, as the civil rights attorney pointed out at the press conference yesterday on a case down in Stockton which did result in death, the police have known that certain holds are dangerous for a long time and that putting pressure on a handcuffed person is dangerous. I would argue it’s amazing that it took George Floyd’s death to finally formalize what they knew for 30 years or more.

        2. Keith Y Echols

          David,

          I do not know how a story out of Stockton is relevant to about Davis PD.

          I take your article and comments as if the Davis PD got a B on a test.  Okay…not bad.  But the you’re focusing on the problems they got wrong.  Not the 80%+ they got right.

          On an case by case basis; sure we’d like police use of force to be implemented perfectly.  And studying the cases were it wasn’t used correctly is certainly worthwhile…..as it should be always the goal to get 100% on the test.

          But when all is said and done and the results are in; it’s not realistic to expect 100% even though you’re trying for it.  So I believe your criticism in this article is out of place and unwarranted.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            “I do not know how a story out of Stockton is relevant to about Davis PD.”

            Only because we were talking about the law. Davis is impacted by the same law as Stockton.

            “I take your article and comments as if the Davis PD got a B on a test. Okay…not bad. But the you’re focusing on the problems they got wrong. Not the 80%+ they got right.”

            I would say the analogy here is they didn’t study, looked at the wrong notes and still passed. My point is they were more lucky than good.

    2. Matt Williams

      “Unless you’re actually out there responding to a call, faced with the prospect that at any moment you could kill someone, then frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about,” said local Police Chief Joshua Bennett, adding that until Laurent had put on a uniform, gotten in a squad car, and confronted a highly charged situation that he then escalated until it became violent and deadly, he ought to keep his mouth shut.

      .
      The above quote is from the article that Keith E linked.  I understand the sentiment Chief Bennett is expressing … and believe it is even more evidence for the wisdom of converting to an integrated Public Safety Department model.

      I believe the problem with the current Davis model, as well as the model in Chief Bennett’s department is the fact that all (or almost all) of the police personnel who leave the station for either patrol or responding to an incident do so armed with one or more weapons capable of deadly force.  In an integrated model, the vast majority of public safety personnel who go out into the community do so unarmed because they are not responding to ether a call or an incident, but rather being a positive face in the community providing “How can I help you” support communications rather than “What are you doing” challenges. An unarmed policeperson going out to be seen as support to the neighborhood is going to be much less likely to feel they are putting their life on the line.

      JMO

      1. Ron Oertel

        You missed some other pertinent quotes (which was from The Onion):

        But how would you react during a tense encounter if you were an officer who spent all his time out on the streets making people fear for their safety and the safety of those around them? I’ve been on the force 20 years, and let me tell you, when you go to work each day knowing that you may be intimidating, assaulting, or even murdering members of the community—well, it’s harder than it looks.” 

        From your comment:

        they are not responding to ether a call or an incident, but rather being a positive face in the community providing “How can I help you” support communications rather than “What are you doing” challenges. An unarmed policeperson going out to be seen as support to the neighborhood is going to be much less likely to feel they are putting their life on the line.

        Police are responding to calls and incidents, generally out of concern regarding potential violations of law.  No city is going to start paying for roaming personnel, asking everyone if they’d like “fries with that”.  🙂

        What you (and others) seem to be advocating for is an expansion of public responsibilities (into the realm of healthcare), in addition to police work.  The type of thing generally handled by the healthcare system, and which is considered a personal responsibility to seek and pay for.

        Left unanswered is how fiscally-challenged cities are expected to provide these additional services.

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          “Police are responding to calls and incidents, generally out of concern regarding potential violations of law. No city is going to start paying for roaming personnel, asking everyone if they’d like “fries with that”.”

          Are you sure about that?

        2. Ron Oertel

          Not likely that they’ll be promoting obesity in Davis.  🙂

          In any case, good to know that the city isn’t facing any fiscal challenges.

          Seems like a couple of comments (from someone else) have “disappeared”.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            Maybe not fries. But consider – policing especially during the day involves a lot of downtime and a lot of the community policing models are focused around customer service and community connections. (PS – I’m not a big believer in community policing).

        3. Ron Oertel

          policing especially during the day involves a lot of downtime 

          Well, that’s (possibly) interesting.

          Probably a good thing that there’s no donut shops which would be at risk of closing that I’m aware of, in Davis.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            I don’t know if Fluffy closed, but there still is Pink by the big Nugget. I used to see a lot of DPD at Starbucks downtown pre-pandemic. I would often see five down there and tear off at 80 miles an hour the other direction knowing there were no cops anywhere else in town… J/K

        4. Keith Y Echols

          What you (and others) seem to be advocating for is an expansion of public responsibilities (into the realm of healthcare), in addition to police work.  The type of thing generally handled by the healthcare system, and which is considered a personal responsibility to seek and pay for.

          Police already respond to things in the community that are part of the healthcare system and social welfare of the community.  In fact the (stupidly named) “Defund the Police” advocates taking much of that responsibility away from the police.  So police officers aren’t the primary ones that have to engage problems in the community with the homeless, mentally ill people, domestic disputes/abuse/assaults, juvenile crime…etc….  Weather or not separating out this kind of soft skills/psycho-social work from the Police is up for debate.  But integrated or separate the two functions (law enforcement and social services) in the community need to work together.

          The whole “personal responsibility thing” is so freakin bogus when it comes the majority of the stuff that we’re talking about….again; domestic abuse, juvenile crime, homelessness, mental health problems, addiction…etc…  “Personal responsibility” in society works for the majority segment of society that doesn’t fall past the point of being unable to sustain self sufficiency, self care, self management…..

          Left unanswered is how fiscally-challenged cities are expected to provide these additional services.

          Well, that’s where the “defund” part of “Defund the Police” comes from.  I’m not an advocate that part of it….as I say we need more police presence.   Hey….how about another parcel tax?  Some will argue that the long term savings in proactively and properly managing these problematic segments of the community will pay for themselves in the long run and they’re probably right to a certain degree.  But I don’t believe in future offsets as stable financial foundation to act upon (I’m looking at you single payer social healthcare).  That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea but yeah…funding it (increased social services to supplement police engagement in the community) is tricky.

           

        5. Ron Oertel

          Police already respond to things in the community that are part of the healthcare system and social welfare of the community.  In fact the (stupidly named) “Defund the Police” advocates taking much of that responsibility away from the police. 

          The “Defund the Police” movement started-out as just that – defund the police.

          So police officers aren’t the primary ones that have to engage problems in the community with the homeless, mentally ill people, domestic disputes/abuse/assaults, juvenile crime…etc….

          They do when they become a problem for others.

          Weather or not separating out this kind of soft skills/psycho-social work from the Police is up for debate.

          It’s “whether”.

          The whole “personal responsibility thing” is so freakin bogus when it comes the majority of the stuff that we’re talking about….again; domestic abuse, juvenile crime, homelessness, mental health problems, addiction…etc…  “Personal responsibility” in society works for the majority segment of society that doesn’t fall past the point of being unable to sustain self sufficiency, self care, self management…..

          There’s more than one issue, here.  Some of what you list is criminal activity, while others fall into the realm of healthcare.  Sometimes, there’s blending of the two.

          But healthcare has been a personal responsibility – even under ObamaCare.  You’ll probably recall that those who did not carry insurance were subject to what was essentially a fine, on their income taxes.  I believe it was called an “individual mandate”.

          Left unanswered is how fiscally-challenged cities are expected to provide these additional services.

          Well, that’s where the “defund” part of “Defund the Police” comes from.  I’m not an advocate that part of it….as I say we need more police presence.

          Pretty much the opposite of what some advocate on here.  In any case, why would more police be needed if it’s a relatively safe community?

          Some don’t even want vehicle registration enforced.

          Hey….how about another parcel tax?

          I doubt that would fly, given the “defund the police” movement.

          Some will argue that the long term savings in proactively and properly managing these problematic segments of the community will pay for themselves in the long run and they’re probably right to a certain degree.

          That is the question. Especially since those needing services (and/or creating problems for others) may “congregate” where services are offered, compared to other communities. Which means that the communities willing to pay for it are essentially a “patsy”, for those which don’t.

          But I don’t believe in future offsets as stable financial foundation to act upon (I’m looking at you single payer social healthcare).  That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea but yeah…funding it (increased social services to supplement police engagement in the community) is tricky.

          One would be national, one would be local.  I’d look to the one that can literally print money.  🙂

           

        6. Ron Oertel

          I’d look to the one that can literally print money.

          Oh – and I’d lock them up (as needed), as they used to be.  Partly to centralize/contain the cost of providing services.

          I’m not much of a believer in freedom, as it relates to harming others.  Perhaps even to oneself.

          Someone else on here referred to “Sleepless in Seattle” – the meth years.  (The actual program is called “Seattle is Dying” – it’s on YouTube.)

          That’s one component of the problem, at least.

          I suspect that the jury is out regarding turning low-cost hotels into homeless apartments.  I do recall that one homeless woman was severely assaulted in Davis a few months ago, by another homeless person.

          I don’t know if either of these individuals was housed under “Project Roomkey”.

          https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/samaritans-man-beating-homeless-woman-davis-police-say/103-a8c5f748-0d07-4ae0-a090-c60ac01eb39f

          I can tell you that I witnessed a change in the neighborhood near what I believe is one of these hotels. In any case, it seems like a recipe for problems to just congregate these individuals in a hotel with no services.

        7. Keith Y Echols

          They do when they become a problem for others.

          That’s the point.  So a proactive social services can either preemptively take care of problems before they escalate or work with police to not escalate the problem.

          The “Defund the Police” movement started-out as just that – defund the police.

          I mentioned that in my original comment.  “Well, that’s where the “defund” part of “Defund the Police” comes from.”

          But healthcare has been a personal responsibility – even under ObamaCare.  You’ll probably recall that those who did not carry insurance were subject to what was essentially a fine, on their income taxes.  I believe it was called an “individual mandate”.

          Your reply about “personal responsibility” and Obama Care have little to do with the community social services that are either part of or support the Police.  I’m not sure where you’re going with it.

          I doubt that would fly, given the “defund the police” movement.

          I was kidding…there should be a sarcasm font.  Actually I think increased community social services as either part of the police department or especially apart from it…might be more of a winner with local voters than you might suspect.  Especially if there’s a promise to clean up the homeless from the streets and parks and take care of them.  On the other hand I think even in Davis, the residents are pretty taxed out.

           

          Pretty much the opposite of what some advocate on here.  In any case, why would more police be needed if it’s a relatively safe community?
          Some don’t even want vehicle registration enforced.

          Well, most people are….well…I’m sure you can guess my opinion on this matter.   There’s liberal anti-authority sentiment (that ironically is shared by conservative libertarians) in regards to the police.   It’s irrational given that for the vast majority of people in Davis, the Davis PD aren’t even a direct factor in their day to day lives.

          I for one am tired of bad drivers on the streets, loud unruly houses (students), homeless people creating messes in public….etc…  I have no problem with more of a Police presence.  But I do think more social support services either under the police or separate from them is a good idea.

          One would be national, one would be local.  I’d look to the one that can literally print money.

          There probably should be some federal support for this kind of integrated or supplemental social support services for the local police.  Still primarily funded locally but with some federal support.

          The fiat money system is a house of cards.  But I suppose if you’re going to print imaginary money….you might as well do it to provide healthcare and social services to the people.  Money is printed to keep feeding the ginormous US defense budget.  But here’s the kicker that most people don’t realize, the ability of the US to print imaginary money that the rest of the world believes in is highly dependent on the US military spending.  The stabilization of the whole house of cards is dependent on the US’s ability (along with the other major powers) to enforce some degree of economic and political stability.  Remember that the fiat money system is all psychologically based monetary value.  The US has the biggest stick and biggest (or 2nd biggest) economy so the world values it’s money.

        8. Ron Oertel

          Your reply about “personal responsibility” and Obama Care have little to do with the community social services that are either part of or support the Police.  I’m not sure where you’re going with it.

          Just that healthcare (including mental healthcare) has traditionally been a personal responsibility, as is housing for oneself. (You’re the one who discounted personal responsibility. In any case, my comment is more of an observation, not an advocacy.)

          But I suppose if you’re going to print imaginary money….you might as well do it to provide healthcare and social services to the people.

          Probably better-than having local government pay for it (which can’t even “pretend” that it has money).

          Maybe Davis should join the state of Jefferson.  🙂

          I suspect we’re going beyond the comment limit, so I’ll quit while I’m ahead (or behind – not sure which). Unless the Vanguard wants to lift that, for this article.

           

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            “Just that healthcare (including mental healthcare) has traditionally been a personal responsibility”

            That was easy when healthcare was a saw and a leach

        9. Keith Y Echols

          Maybe Davis should join the state of Jefferson

          Davis, Jefferson?

          That’s a little too close to Jefferson Davis for me.  Next thing you know, former Mayor Brett Lee will be given the rank of General.

        10. Ron Oertel

          Just that healthcare (including mental healthcare) has traditionally been a personal responsibility”
          That was easy when healthcare was a saw and a leach

          When it moved beyond that, individuals and families were expected to pay for it (e.g., as part of the benefit package of most career-level employment).

          Seems to me that what we now have is individuals disassociated from their own families, and expecting the government to take its place.

          And sometimes, families cannot even handle their own kids, despite having health insurance.  On rare occasions, it then becomes a police matter.  At which point the police get blamed for the result (and the city and police department get sued).

          Again, as a result of someone else creating a problem for others in the first place. And blaming society (and extracting enormous payoffs) for not fixing what they (themselves) could not do.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            It looks like the whole system evolved together. As it got more professionalized and specialized it got more expensive at which point the average person could not be expected to pay the costs. Teddy Roosevelt actually first ran on the idea of national health insurance in 1912. By the 20s, the middle class had health insurance in order to be able to pay medical bills. By 1930 probably about 1.2 million or 2 million persons were covered under medical pre-payment or health insurance arrangements. The gap between the haves and have nots were enormous. In 1945, Truman fought for an early form of medicare, but it would take another 20 years for Medicare to come into existence. I don’t think your analysis is valid. The problem was the rising costs of medical coverage as the professional and technology grew outstripped the ability of the individual pay (unfortunately insurance acted as an catalyst for that as well).

            Bottom line is when it moved beyond that – individuals and families did not pay for it because they couldn’t. So we had huge health disparities in this country and the system that arose, arose out of that need.

        11. Ron Oertel

          The problem was the rising costs of medical coverage as the professional and technology grew outstripped the ability of the individual pay (unfortunately insurance acted as an catalyst for that as well).

          In some countries (Thailand comes to mind), one can receive excellent health care by paying for it in cash, at a fraction of the cost.

          Even when considering incomes in those countries, the cost of care is much lower.

          Bottom line is when it moved beyond that – individuals and families did not pay for it because they couldn’t. So we had huge health disparities in this country and the system that arose, arose out of that need.

          I don’t know what “system” you’re referring to.  But for sure, anyone bringing a child into the world (if they don’t even have health insurance for their families) is beyond irresponsible.  Again, that’s a benefit of most career-level employment.

          And if their kid then turns into a problem for everyone else under the circumstances you describe, let’s just say that I don’t look too favorably on lawsuits from families that might arise when the police are forced to get involved.

          In any case, ObamaCare required individuals to contribute toward it, at varying levels.  I understand that the individual mandate is gone, now.

           

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            Thailand has a public health care system and universal health care

            “Healthcare in Thailand is overseen by the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH), along with several other non-ministerial government agencies. Thailand’s network of public hospitals provide universal healthcare to all Thai nationals through three government schemes.”

        12. Ron Oertel

          Is that right? I heard that they had to pay for healthcare, there.

          ” . . .three government schemes”. (Sounds amusing.)

          In any case, I’m not opposed to national healthcare.  In fact, I’d say that I support it.

          But I suspect that a “tiered” system would remain, for those wealthy-enough to pay for additional (superior?) care.

          You’ll have government doctors, and private doctors. And, guess which one will be more responsive to their customers?

          (Actually, the “customer” of the government doctors is the government, itself – not the patients.)

  3. Alan Miller

    would have parallels to George Floyd but for the fact that the person involved did not die.

    Good thing they didn’t die.

    The successful launches of the space shuttle would have parallels to the Challenger launch, except the booster rocket didn’t explode.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      The correct analogy is you jumped off a three story building onto the street with traffic rolling and you ended up not dying. You did something really dangerous and probably dumb but got away with it. That’s what happened here. They are fortunate that something really bad didn’t happen.

      1. Alan Miller

        Since I cannot write an acceptable response to the censors, please let me know how you would like me to respond, and I’ll just call it my opinion.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for