Our family members were angry, very angry at the time of the killing, as family members of other wrongful death victims have been. But in no situation, of which I am aware, has there been a desire for physical retaliation against police officers. I have heard relatives say that the officers should be fired or that they should be behind bars. Those are sentiments shared by my family as well. Numerous times, I have stated that I want everyone to live, including police officers who kill unarmed citizens. There are alternative methods of punishment that preserve life. Anger, sometimes escalating to rage, can surface when there is no accountability for such a death. Even persons indirectly affected by those wrongful homicides display anger. This is evidenced by the thousands of people who come out and march against these horrendous acts, such as in the protests in New York City, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Ferguson, or in Washington, D.C. The deceased were strangers to most of the protestors. The participants were marching for justice.
Unfortunately, some marches like these begin peacefully and end differently. I agree that it is amazing that persons would destroy their own neighborhood as a demonstration of anger. The Los Angeles riots that began on April 29, 1992, occurred after the acquittal of four white police officers of assault and three of the four of using excessive force in the videotaped beating of unarmed African American Rodney King.4 Mr. King’s plea of “Can’t we all just get along?” is still a question for 2017. A documentary on the History Channel included interviews of some of the riot participants.5 One man talked about just “getting caught up in the moment.” When viewing some of the tapes from the riots, he expressed shame for his involvement of looting stores. In explaining why people would burn business establishments in their own neighborhood, it was said that people did not feel ownership of the neighborhood or compassion for the business owners. Some were still angry, because on March 16, 1991, a female Korean store owner shot and killed Latasha Harlins, a fifteen-year-old unarmed African American girl. Although Latasha’s killer was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, she served no prison time. For shooting Latasha in the head, the killer was fined $500 and sentenced to five years of probation and four hundred hours of community service. The beating of Rodney King occurred on March 7, 1991. The beating of King, closely followed by Latasha’s homicide, served to compound the anger of persons living in South Central Los Angeles. It seemed that the escalation of anger overshadowed the rational thought process of how they and their neighbors would be negatively impacted. The rioting destroyed or damaged more than one thousand buildings in the Los Angeles area. Many of those establishments were gone forever from that community.6
But in the United States there is legal recourse and a rational alternative to violence. In this chapter, I will give the details of the personal experiences of our family in the legal process. Details of our situation will vary from those of other families, but some experiences are common. The overall experience of how families of victims of police brutality are treated is not unique to us. It appears that police officials often deliberately try to anger family members. I was angry before arriving in Chattanooga because I was aware of the lies being circulated from the department; I was also still angry about what the police chief had said to me: “I’m glad they didn’t shoot him.”
As mentioned previously, days passed after Leslie was killed before family members were allowed to see the body. I couldn’t understand why the police wanted to “hide” the body from family members. Dwight and I were finally allowed to identify the body on Monday morning, January 5, at the funeral home. Secretly, I kept hoping that there had been some mistake. Because we did not know what to expect or what our reactions might be, Dwight and I decided it was best to go to the funeral home without other family members. Our son Stefan had not arrived back in Chattanooga from Chicago. He was still in shock and emotionally and physically unable to travel.
Upon our arrival at the funeral home, the owner greeted us. He then said, “I can’t let you all see the body.” His words ignited more anger. He explained that Leslie’s body was still split open from the autopsy, and it was unwise for us to see the body in that condition. I immediately responded that we needed to see the body that was supposed to be our son Leslie. I stressed that no family member had seen the body. Family members were not allowed to see the body at the hospital. We were not allowed at the forensic center to identify the body. Now the funeral director was telling us that we couldn’t see the body at the funeral home. Three days had passed, and no family member had seen the body. We were further frustrated and confused by the news reports that described the physical attributes of the deceased as more than six feet tall and more than three hundred pounds. That description did not fit Leslie.
The funeral director sensed my urgency, anger, grief, and other emotions even I could not identify. With his years of experience, he must have known that we were not leaving the funeral home without seeing the body stored in the basement. He immediately proposed a solution. He suggested that we give him and his staff some time to prepare the body for us to view. They would wrap the head and cover the body with sheets, but we would be able to see the face. We agreed to that compromise. He left the room and we remained in his office, anxiously awaiting his return.
Within an hour, he appeared in the doorway and told us that the body was ready. We were ushered down a narrow stairway into a small, dimly lit room. The body was on a gurney. I walked over to the body and immediately knew that it was Leslie, although only the space between his chin and forehead was exposed. Dwight was holding me up, but I think that I was steady, because nothing seemed real. I just stared at the body. I noticed that Leslie’s beautiful eyes were partially opened. It looked like he was resting, but he was very still. I just kept standing there, staring at him. My passive and unemotional demeanor was interrupted by a question posed to us from a staff member, a high school classmate, and the only other person in the room. He had the responsibility of embalming Leslie’s body. He asked, “Did you know that his shoulder was broken?” We responded, “No.” We were further angered by this news and could now understand why officials did not want any family members to see the body. Surely, if family members had been allowed to see Leslie’s body at the hospital, they would have noticed the bruises and other injuries.
A police department representative had given an interview reported in the metro section of the Chattanooga Times Free Press under the heading “Autopsy finds no excessive force used.” There were other misleading and false statements reported in that article, including “Hamilton County Medical Examiner Dr. Frank King examined Mr. Prater’s body Saturday and could find no obvious cause of death.” Because of the limitations imposed upon us by the funeral home director, we could not see any other body parts to determine the extent of Leslie’s other injuries. Weeks later, we were provided with the autopsy reports, which detailed the numerous injuries to his body. The article also included a false statement from Chief Jimmie Dotson, who said, “While officers were scuffling with Mr. Prater, he lost consciousness and later died at Erlanger hospital.”
The Chattanooga Police Department requested and scheduled a meeting with the family on January 5, 2004, the Monday evening after Leslie was killed. The meeting was held at the Police Services Center. This was another stressful event on that day, but I sensed that it was more dreaded by police officials than by family members. This meeting also occasioned a series of statements from police officials to further intensify our anger. It was an enlightening experience. We were looking forward to their facing us with an explanation of Leslie’s death, because we were still quite perplexed.
We informed our family members in Chattanooga about the arrangements for the meeting. Twelve family members attended. The only exception was the attendance of the pastor of the local Second Missionary Baptist Church, in which our immediate family still held memberships, including Leslie. The pastor, a former Hamilton County commissioner, was there to extend spiritual and emotional support to the family
. Otherwise, he was primarily an observer. If he had not been known and respected community-wide, because of his religious and political affiliations, I’m not certain the police chief would have allowed his attendance. The pastor only asked one question, which was in regard to the dispatching of the ambulance. He stated that the timing of dispatching the ambulance seemed odd if early accounts given by the police officers were true. As you recall, police claimed that Leslie was too large to fit into a patrol car and that an ambulance was needed in order to arrest and transport him.
I think the police officials expected that only Dwight and I would meet with them, because the meeting was initially scheduled to occur in a rather small conference room. But in many black families, ours included, when one requests the presence of family, it includes extended family as well. There were approximately a dozen police officials there. Among those in attendance were the police chief, selected detectives, the deputy chief of Uniformed Services, the deputy chief of the Investigative Division, and a department public relations person. When family members began to enter the room, it became obvious that the conference room was too small. Chief Dotson immediately announced that the meeting would be moved to a larger room. If the meeting had remained in that room, it would have been standing room only, with barely enough floor space for people to stand.
The alternate location was more of a modest theater setting, but large enough for everyone to be seated comfortably. There was an elevated platform facing rows of auditorium-style seating. The police officials all sat on the platform, towering over the lower section, allowing them, I suppose, a sense of power, since they were perched above us. Family members were seated in the lower front sections, facing police officials. Chief Dotson facilitated the meeting and began with introductions of those sitting with him. Dwight interrupted him by asking if the officers who had killed Leslie were on the platform; otherwise the introductions were of little relevance to him. Chief Dotson’s response was “No.” Dwight said, “Then introductions are not necessary.”
That verbal exchange was followed by Dotson’s “speech,” which seemed very rehearsed and phony to me. He expressed a canned statement about being sorry for our loss and that he was committed to a full investigation into what happened on that night. I don’t think he expected some of our responses. We were not swayed by his empty words of compassion and empty promises, perceived by me to be insincere. Although he had a reputation as the “Bible-carrying” chief, I was not impressed. His words added fuel to the “fire” of our anger. The following is Chief Dotson’s statement:
Thank you for coming this afternoon. I would like to make a few statements, then will entertain questions. The investigation into the death of 37-year-old Leslie Vaughn Prater is still in the early stages. I would like to extend my sympathies to Mr. Prater’s family. The Chattanooga Police Department certainly wishes this incident had ended differently. As is always our procedure in incidents such as this, complete and thorough investigations are being conducted by the Chattanooga Police Department’s Major Crimes Division, the Internal Affairs Division, and by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. When those investigations are completed, the results will be shared with you, as has been our practice.
Investigations have so far not determined what might have motivated Mr. Prater to take off his clothes and create a disturbance in the 800 block of Central Avenue. It is hoped that an autopsy underway at this time might shed light on that, as well as determining the cause of Mr. Prater’s death.
Although those issues are still unknown, there are several things known at this point:
Police were first called around 6:47 by someone complaining of a naked man in the streets. According to the caller, Mr. Prater parked his car, got out, stripped, and began running around the area, yelling.
Less than 10 minutes later, officers arrived and made contact with Mr. Prater, then attempted to take him into custody for further investigation.
Officers retrieved Mr. Prater’s pants and asked him to put them on. He refused to be cooperative and resisted being taken into custody.
Two officers did use pepper spray on Mr. Prater, but to no effect.
During the scuffle, officers made the decision to call for an ambulance to respond to the scene. This was before Mr. Prater lost consciousness. I commend the officers for their foresight.
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; an ambulance is much larger and would make transport much easier.
Thirdly, officers recognized that given all the factors in this incident, having medical personnel on the scene would be prudent.
When Mr. Prater lost consciousness, one of the officers on the scene got an AED, an Automatic External Defibrillator, out of his patrol car, but before it could be used, paramedics were on the scene. They treated him there, then transported him the few blocks to Erlanger a short time later. He was pronounced dead at 10:05.
As I stated earlier, the investigations into this incident are just beginning. Our desire is to be as transparent as possible in all cases, especially when someone resisting arrest ends in their death. We will provide you with additional information when we can.
We later discovered that there were several inaccuracies in the chief’s initial statement. Chapter 1, “How Did Leslie Vaughn Prater Die?” identifies some of the false statements. Several statements in the officer’s deposition also refute the account given by Dotson. Leslie’s movements, with four officers pinning his body to the ground, were to resist death, and not arrest. I apologize for repeating myself, but it is difficult to avoid. Their lies were so obvious, consistent, and outrageous that I feel a need to expose them whenever they recur.
The following are a few opposing views to challenge the legitimacy of statements from Chief Dotson that evening:
When the first two officers arrived, they were trying to assess the situation and were not attempting to take Leslie into custody. In one officer’s deposition, he stated that he had not even made a decision to arrest Leslie.
Officers did not retrieve Leslie’s pants and request him to put them on. Officer Chambers and Leslie were walking to his car to get his clothes when backup arrived and took Leslie to the ground, where he died. Leslie was cooperating with Chambers, as documented in a deposition.
Leslie was not too large to get into a patrol car.
Leslie was cooperative and did not resist the directions of officers on the scene. His later struggling was after he was double handcuffed, pepper sprayed, and placed facedown on the ground, with his breathing compromised by the officers’ actions. While facedown, he was held in the “hog-tie” position. At no time did he exhibit any aggressive movements toward the officers. He was just trying to breathe.
Although officially later pronounced dead at the hospital, Leslie died at the scene. The initial document from the hospital emergency room reported that Leslie was dead on arrival. This was also confirmed by eyewitnesses and at another meeting with two police detectives.
The police department was not transparent, but rather was more focused on covering the truth. Officials were uncooperative in providing additional information when requested.
Dwight continued his questioning by asking Dotson for more explanation as to why an emergency vehicle was called to the scene, because there were conflicting reports in regard to that action. The chief gave no clear response to that specific question. Initially, the chief stated that upon approaching Leslie, the officers did not know whether they were dealing with a medical or mental case. Interestingly, their own departmental policy stated that when first approaching someone who they think could be experiencing a mental health episode, they should not touch the person unless that person is in imminent danger or posing an i
mmediate threat to someone else. Neither of these options was applicable in Leslie’s case. He was no threat to anyone. Therefore, they violated their own policy. They did have other options. For example, the Chattanooga Police Department does have a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. Why wasn’t the SWAT team contacted? There was time to make that request and wait for the response from the SWAT team. The officers answering the call were obviously ill trained for an interaction with a person suspected of a physical or mental condition. There was no life-or-death situation that required a split-second “life-saving” decision from them.
Angry family members asked other questions. “When would we receive the autopsy report?” They said that no official reports would be forthcoming for a few months. “Was a Taser used?” We were told, “No, only sergeants carry Tasers, and no one on-site had a Taser.” We found out later that this, too, was false. If they had used a Taser instead of excessive physical force, Leslie might not have died. On the other hand, the use of such devices is controversial. In the interest of the safety of citizens, some police departments have banned them. In a 2013 Dallas Observer article, Amnesty International reported that, over the past dozen years, 540 mostly unarmed people had died after police use of a conducted electrical weapon.7 Unfortunately, the Chattanooga Police Department is not one of those law enforcement agencies. One month and four days after Leslie’s death, the department purchased sixty new conducted electrical weapons. Also, in 2012, the American Heart Association published a peer-reviewed study reporting that the device can cause heart attacks and death.8 Twenty-seven-year-old Nicholas Cody of Marianna, Florida, died after a sheriff’s deputy used a Taser on him during a traffic stop.9 Another case is that of twenty-one-year-old Patrick Lee of Nashville, Tennessee, who died two days after being shocked nineteen times by a Taser.10 In both cases, police officers were cleared of any wrongdoing. It was determined that those young men died from excited delirium. I have to ask: Why is it that excited delirium is only fatal when excessive force from police officers is claimed? Do you think the families of those young men were angry over the death of their unarmed love ones? Wrongful death lawsuits were filed in both cases.
Excessive Use of Force Page 14
