Excessive Use of Force

by Loretta P. Prater

  During my initial telephone discussion with the chief, my very uncharacteristic behavior was to say very little and mostly listen. The chief later reported on our conversation to the local media. He told them that he had spoken to the family and that we were very calm. Actually, he had only spoken to me. I think that he must have confused calmness with compliance, which is very different. I believe that he may have thought that we would be a family who had ultimate trust and faith in the police and would not question anything that he or his executive team said to us. He later learned that his initial impression of the family was very wrong. When I first talked to him, I was calm, because I was still in shock and in ultimate disbelief.

  On January 3, 2004, the same Saturday that the chief had his first conversation with me, he held a press conference. The chief’s statements were reported in a newspaper article written by Mike O’Neal and titled “Chief Pledges Death Probe to Be Open.” The Chattanooga Times Free Press featured this article on Sunday, January 4, 2004. This title was misleading, because our experience was that the probe was more closed than open. In fact, the behavior of departmental personnel indicated that they were actually focused on being as closed as possible, even to the extent of lying. Regarding media reports, the police department is advantaged and the victim and family members are disadvantaged. People tend to believe the initial reports of the police, especially if it is stated by the chief and there is no video recording to the contrary.

  Even though the truth may come out later, there are people who still believe the initial words of the chief and feel that police can do no wrong. After reading portions of the first news account of Leslie’s death, you may understand why the family developed a lack of trust in the Chattanooga Police Department, a feeling that still remains. In my opinion, the content of Chief Dotson’s interview amounted to fake news. The following excerpts are exact statements as quoted from the previously mentioned January 4, 2004, article.

  Excerpt #1: “Our desire is to be as transparent as possible in all cases, especially when someone’s resisting arrest ends in their death.”

  Rather than resisting arrest, Leslie was cooperating, according to the deposition later given by one of the police officers named in the lawsuit. Instead of arresting Leslie for the misdemeanor of public nudity, Leslie received the capital punishment of death. I continue to maintain strongly that Leslie’s movements, in an attempt to breathe, were his resistance to death. Also, the police investigation was as closed as possible, not transparent. As an example, the department was not forthcoming with some public documents requested by the family until we employed an attorney to secure those items.

  Excerpt #2: “Mr. Prater collapsed while officers were trying to restrain him and efforts to save his life were unsuccessful.”

  Officers already had Leslie restrained. He was already on the ground with his hands cuffed tightly behind his back, while they were on top of him. In fact, there were two sets of handcuffs used. At least one of the officers weighed more than two hundred pounds. Leslie’s face was pushed into the ground, his legs were placed in the unlawful hog-tie position, and he was pepper sprayed by two different officers at two different times, all of which would compromise anyone’s ability to breathe. There were no actions indicative of trying to save Leslie’s life. No one should be held in a prone position, with face and chest down, hands cuffed behind their back, and pressure placed on them. That position causes one to have trouble breathing, and one’s automatic action is to move in an attempt to breathe.21 In fact, Leslie’s life was not in danger prior to those officers’ abusive, unmerciful, and horrible actions. After Leslie died at the scene, another officer arrived with a defibrillator. Of course, it was never used.

  Excerpt #3: “The three white officers who were first on the scene have been placed on paid administrative leave while the investigation is under way.”

  Leslie was an African American male. Because it was mentioned that the three officers were white, it was likely that racial overtones would surface. There was a picture of four officers, with their faces blurred, released on Chattanoogan.com on January 5, 2004. The caption read, “Chattanooga Police did not release photos of four officers placed on paid administrative leave in the death of Leslie Prater.” The release of that particular picture was another deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, because the officers involved with our case did not want their pictures released. The file photo was actually of four white police officers who were not connected to Leslie’s death. Later, the department revealed that there was a discovery that a fourth officer was involved. Conveniently, that officer was African American. My question is “How could the police chief make such a significant mistake in a matter resulting in the death of a citizen?”

  Excerpt #4: “Chief Dotson said he had been told Mr. Prater was more than 6 feet tall and weighed more than 300 pounds and the two officers’ use of pepper spray did not subdue him.”

  Leslie was five feet, nine inches tall and weighed 232.5 pounds, as previously noted. Chief Dotson reported this information as fact, rather than checking the validity of what he had been told. When I first talked to Chief Dotson on the telephone, he told me that no pepper spray was used. Since the chief was not on the scene when Leslie died, I suppose he also received that information from the liars on his staff.

  Excerpt #5: “An ambulance was called while officers scuffled with Mr. Prater, but before he lost consciousness. The decision to call the ambulance was due to the fact that something was obviously wrong with Mr. Prater, from either a medical or mental standpoint. Also, because of his size, it was going to be difficult to transport him in the back of a patrol car.”

  It was a blatant lie that an ambulance was called because he was too large to travel in a patrol car. According to eyewitnesses and the deposition from one of the officers, when Leslie stopped moving at the scene, he was dead. The ambulance was called because, as a dead person, he could not walk to the patrol car. It is also interesting that there are probably numerous police officers in Chattanooga who are much larger than Leslie was, but they manage to ride in patrol cars. In the deposition given by one of the officers holding Leslie facedown, he admitted to having a weight and height that exceeded Leslie’s size. Does anyone know of a policy dictating a size or weight threshold for riding in the back of a police cruiser? In Chattanooga, are ambulances part of the police department fleet of vehicles, designated to transport in-custody persons weighing 232.5 pounds or more? I never heard of such a ridiculous rationale for calling an ambulance. Why not use their “paddy wagon,” which is an enclosed van used to transport prisoners? Certainly, using the “paddy wagon” would be more logical than the valuable resource of an ambulance for transporting very large citizens after an arrest.

  Excerpt #6: “When Mr. Prater passed out, an officer took an automatic defibrillator from his patrol car and was preparing to use it when paramedics arrived and began performing CPR.”

  Mr. Prater did not pass out. Mr. Prater died. The misinformation fed to the media did not stop with the chief’s initial interview. With every news item that we read, there were false statements. Family and friends provided us with copies of all of the local Chattanooga newspaper stories and some recordings of the local television news reports about Leslie’s death. Dwight and I read everything and watched the recordings. After we arrived in Chattanooga, we saw some of the television news stories in real time. After viewing those reports, I was convinced that someone needed to speak on Leslie’s behalf. The family would have to let the public know that there were lies being reported about Leslie and how he died. I recalled from a communications class I took that when something is repeated at least three times, it can be perceived as fact. A year after Leslie’s death, one of his classmates contacted me because she heard a rumor that he had died. I confirmed that his death was a fact and explained the circumstances. She had heard about that situation of a man being killed by the police but felt the reports were of
someone else. She said, “The description of the man didn’t fit Leslie.”

  Television reporters wanted to talk to the family. It seemed that they all wanted to get the first “exclusive” interview. Initially, they didn’t realize that Leslie’s parents were no longer residents of Chattanooga, especially since we still owned a home there. In trying to contact us, the reporters had merely looked in the telephone book and began calling people with the last name of Prater and asking if they were Leslie’s parents. We know this to be true from the Prater relatives who were contacted. This was during the time when, in addition to cell phones, most households still had a land line, with the telephone number published in the local telephone book.

  All of the national television networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—have local affiliates in Chattanooga. Their reports were very one-sided, featuring the information that was being fed to them by the police. Only one station, in my opinion, attempted to present Leslie as a human being, rather than as some inanimate menace to society. I began to realize that, in addition to reaching out to the media, we would be subjected to unwanted media attention. In situations like this, families cannot avoid media attention.

  I walked through that week as though I was acting in a play, because this could not possibly be happening to us. This only happens to people you read about in the newspaper or see on the evening news. Could all of this be real? I was sick of hearing the television reports with all of the misinformation received from the police department. I felt I had to discredit some of that and fight back. I agreed to talk to a reporter at one specific station, because that reporter seemed more humane than others at the competing networks.

  In my opinion, the ABC affiliate station was the only local news station that did not report Leslie as a villain. There seemed to have been sensitivity in its reports. Because I wanted the community to know that Leslie was a human being, with a family who loved him, I contacted the ABC affiliate and agreed to talk with its reporter. That reporter had been the most genuine and fair in reporting Leslie’s death. Also, talking on camera would allow me the opportunity to stress the fact that Leslie was nonviolent and unarmed when he was brutally killed by police officers. He was not a monster and posed no threat to the health and safety of those police officers or any other citizens.

  Both Dwight and I went to meet the reporter, but we had already decided that I would speak on behalf of the family. Because of my years of teaching and public speaking engagements, including giving television interviews, I had more experience with reporters. Of the utmost importance to us was that the public should have the opportunity to be made aware that Leslie was a real person, and not just the object of a news story. I took pictures of him to share with the reporter. I described the activities featured in each picture and the relationship of Leslie to others in those photographs. In all of the pictures I shared with her, Leslie was flashing his signature smile.

  I appreciated the professional manner in which the interview was conducted. From my observation of the reporter’s body language, she seemed sensitive to our situation. I didn’t sense any judgmental attitudes, as I had sensed from some of the other reporters’ accounts viewed on competing networks. She was objective and open to my expressions. I got the feeling that she sincerely wanted to know how we had been affected by the sudden death of our son, as well as the reactions of others who loved Leslie. Reporters are different too. Yes, they are in professional positions, but they also have biases. This is not an indictment of that profession or any other; it is just that we all have internal biases that can cloud our judgment. The difference is that some people are in critical positions of influence, while others are not.

  Most of us have witnessed several breaking news stories where the loved ones of a victim, especially mothers, appear to be very emotional and totally in shock. The mother may be the only parent present, surrounded by other relatives, friends, and neighbors. She may be screaming, unable to speak coherently, disoriented, or barely able to stand without assistance. Perhaps her child’s body is stretched out on the pavement. That is when a reporter puts a microphone in her face, with the cameras rolling, and asks, “How do you feel?” How can family members coherently respond to that question?

  I understand that journalists have a job to do. They are people too, with varying degrees of compassion. Like everyone else, their behavior may be impacted by their own personal experiences and attitudes. When they get home after those reports involving sudden death, are they distressed? In those in-custody death situations, we are talking about the end of a person’s life. Unfortunately, it is beginning to seem that in-custody sudden deaths and other homicides, especially from firearms, are the “new normal.” Even when natural disasters cause one to lose a home, without any loss of life, the homeowner interviewed may state, “We can rebuild; at least we have our lives.” It is a very different story when death occurs. Is sensitivity training a part of the orientation for a career in broadcast journalism? If not, it should be. We were fortunate in being able to avoid immediate interviews. That time lapse provided the time to absorb some of the emotional shock before arriving in Chattanooga. Many families don’t have that option.

  The best thing a family can do is to schedule a rebuttal press conference or take the lead in the interview to combat the negative newsfeed provided by police personnel. If no family member feels comfortable doing this, recruit someone else for that role. The longer the police version is the only one spread across the airwaves, the more difficult it is to reverse the attitudes created. Families must protect their interests. Otherwise, there is an attempt to portray the deceased as a villain or as someone not deserving to remain on earth. I want you to think about this.

  Notice that when police officers kill an unarmed citizen, there seems to be an immediate follow-up story of the victim’s arrest record, if one exists. Police departments also express that police officers have to make split-second decisions. At the time of that split-second decision, officers likely know nothing about a person’s past. They don’t have a toxicology report at their immediate disposal. My question is, why does the past of the victim matter? In that split-second decision, in situations where the lives of police officers or others are clearly not in danger, what was the rush to use force? Why is it necessary to bring up the person’s past? What does that person’s background have to do with that particular incident at that point in time? In situations in which the same officers seem to be involved in these in-custody deaths and injuries, why is the background of those officers not investigated and immediately reported? The questionable background of Officer Betty Shelby, with a past history of illegal drug offenses and assaults, was not reported immediately, in contrast to negative reports about Terence Crutcher, the unarmed citizen she killed. Both sides of the case were reported by Bill Whitaker on the April 2, 2017, segment of 60 Minutes.22

  Drug tests are a common a part of the investigation for the deceased, but not for the officers involved in the deaths. Why are there not drug tests for all involved? Police officers are not immune from the disease of addiction. These are questions that should be asked. We, as citizens, need to resist the manipulation of the facts that are focused on dehumanizing the deceased. Demand the facts and a fair process in investigating these in-custody deaths, especially those of the unarmed. Question the standard process of the police investigating themselves.

  5

  Fueling a Legal Battle

  After a wrongful death tragedy, the one overriding thing that can fuel a legal battle is anger. It is an emotion that occurs over the lifespan and is part of the grief process. With anger, one may not realize what is beneath the surface, such as feelings of grief, helplessness, frustration, and feelings of being attacked or overwhelmed. We can receive instruction on alternatives to responding with anger, such as the choices taught in anger management classes. But it appears that such negative responses are natural, passively waiting stimuli to arouse those feeling.

&nb
sp; The Albert Ellis Institute in New York is the host for the Anger Disorders Treatment and Research Center that provides assessment and treatment for people with anger and aggression problems.1 Dr. Raymond DiGiuseppe, the institute’s leader, is considered one of the outstanding experts on anger in the world. The late Albert Ellis, an American psychologist, developed Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy in 1955. He proposed that people’s beliefs strongly affected their emotional functioning. The therapy is based on the assumption that human beings are born with a potential for both rational and irrational thinking.2

  Homicide is not an event that is easy to accept. When the death of an unarmed citizen occurs at the hands of one charged to serve and protect, it is even more abhorrent. The anger of family members is fueled to such a degree that a legal battle becomes their only rational recourse. Beyond that, there is only the irrational: an eye for an eye, or using more violence to match the violence, such as in gang wars, when one member is killed and the reaction from that gang is to kill a member from the opposing gang.

  All too often, we hear news reports of people, probably motivated by irrational anger, killing strangers for no apparent reasons. Sadly, on July 8, 2016, twelve Dallas police officers were ambushed, resulting in the deaths of five officers from gunshot wounds. Those officers had devoted their lives to serving and protecting. They had families who loved them. They were complete strangers to the killer, with no prior contact with their assailant or his family. The killer told police negotiators that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers. The killer was upset about nationwide police shootings of black men, although he had no personal connection to any of the black male victims.3