GPD Officer Found Guilty

The News and Record reports officer A.J. Blake was found guilty today in district court.  He was the officer involved in the assault incident at the Police Club.

Ken Free was his attorney.

The News and Record did not indicate in its report that Blake is one of the 39 (or 40) GPD officers suing various parties for racial discrimination. 

Comments

[bran]

Joe Turner and Ken Free sure do work well together. Blake is still with GPD? No domestic violence charges? Is he being discriminated against? I mean, shouldn't he be able to do what he wants, since he IS a police officer?

[Joe Guarino]

Bran, that suspended sentence is surely going to sting. But I wonder if this whole incident will qualify Blake for a promotion to captain or lieutenant.:)

[Ken Hill]

Under Federal law, one convicted of domestic violence is forbidden to possess a firearm. So Blake should be out as a sworn law officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

[Wayne]

I thought Officer Blake was suspended with-out pay until his trial. I would think this goes on, without pay, thru his appeals. If his conviction holds up, isn't he fired?

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, Wayne and Ken, it appears to me he would be out as a police officer if his appeals fail. If any reader has information to the contrary, please correct me.

But on the other hand, if he wins on appeal, who knows what his future would be within the department.

[Ken Hill]

As I read the N&R story again, the charge was "assault on a female". She was his girlfriend. And many domestic violence charges have arisen form such relationships. But if the charge was not specifically "domestic violence", Blake may have dodged a bullet on this one. But he should be dismissed as a police officer.

[Joe Guarino]

Ken, that is a bit unclear to me. This is from the N&R article in the paper today:

"Blake also may lose his ability to work in law enforcement because the N.C. Training and Standards Commission does not allow anyone with a domestic assault conviction to be a law enforcement officer."

Blake was not initially charged with domestic assault when Norman Rankin initially wrote him up. But if my memory serves me correctly, the charge may have been added later. It is not stated definitively in the N&R account of his conviction, however.

Another question is whether the conviction may be a misdemeanor or a felony.

If, in fact, he was not convicted on a domestic assault charge, it would be a bit unusual, because part of his sentence was to complete a domestic violence training course.

But if it turns out that he has dodged a bullet, it would not be surprising. It would be, in fact, more of the same.

[Hugh]

N&R has an article on this. Can't find anything on the News 2 website.

[Wendy Raines]

Joe,

Norman Rankin did not complete the investigative report. He supervised the initial call and then it was handed over to detectives. Calls involving an officer are not handled on the patrol officer, detective or Sgt. level. It is misleading to state or imply that Sgt. Rankin was making decisions related to this call. These decisions were made on a much higher level regarding the charges.

[Joe Guarino]

Wendy, thanks for the clarification. I remember having seen online the initial report with what appeared to be Rankin's signature. What you have stated is not inconsistent with what I stated above, but it does clarify it further.

The circumstances of how and when the call was handled, and also of who made whatever decisions that were made (and on what basis), remain a bit murky. Some of us have been concerned about that. My hope is that the reality of what occurred has not been (and will not be) inappropriately minimized in the courts, or within the GPD.

[Joe Guarino]

Wendy, here is the report of which I speak, which appears to have included a simple assault charge, but not a domestic assault charge:

http://thetroublemaker.blogspot.com/2009/01/aj-blake-incident-report.html

[Wendy Raines]

Joe,

Sgt. Rankin's name is on the report because he is the supervisor. All supervisor's have to approve reports before they go in the system. The patrol officer completed a basic initial investigation (which is what occurs on most radio calls) and a detective was assigned for follow up. So basically, Norman approved a report that was like all basic patrol reports except it involved a police officer. He was out of the process after that night.

I know the facts after the initial police response are murky. Let me assure you though-no Sgt., detective, or patrol officer would ever make decisions in a case involving an officer. I know there have been insinuations about Sgt. Rankin's involvement because he is on the EEOC and black (just like Blake). He just happened to be the Sgt. on duty for the Western district the night of the event. He got a call and had the most experienced officer (I think around 15 years) on his squad complete the report. He made the appropriate notifications and then supervised his officer. That is his job as a patrol Sgt. and he did it.

[Wendy Raines]

Joe,

One more thing. I appreciate you wanting to have the details based on facts.

[Joe Guarino]

Wendy, thanks again for the clarification.

I am familiar with the process of co-signing a report because it happens in medicine as well. For instance, if I were to co-sign an office note written by a physician's assistant, I am taking responsibility for that work. The physician's assistant cannot do his work except as it is under my direction. In fact, I am basically saying that it is my own work, because it was performed by my subordinate, and I am signing off on it. It becomes my office note.

It would seem that a similar principle would be true for a supervising officer signing off in a case such as this.

But since you have knowledge of the case, Wendy, I have a question to ask of you.

Air Harbor Road-- the site of the incident--lies within certain police district. Rankin was usually assigned to a certain district. Question-- is Air Harbor Road part of the same police district to which Rankin was usually assigned?

[Joe Guarino]

There is another question, Wendy. On the report to which I linked, there was no mention of Blake's girlfriend, Sandra Sanchez, being assaulted.

Were Rankin or the other officer aware that night that Ms. Sanchez had also been assaulted by Blake? They reported the assault on Ms. Galloway, but they did not report the assault on Sanchez in this particular report.

[Wendy Raines]

Air Harbor road is Western district. Elm Street west is the direction for the Western district. Yes, Sgt. Rankin is assigned to the Western district. The initial report is probably just for the assault of the other officer's girlfriend. I am assuming the follow up detective investigated the rest of the incident. This is similar to any other call involving a crime. Sometimes a detective will discover more information in the follow up. That is why we have detectives. Patrol officers often deal with what is in front of them. Any lengthy interviews or questioning of additional witnesses is usually left up to a detective. I am speaking in generalities of course but this is the normal, everyday process in the police department.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Wendy.

I still wonder about that initial report. In medicine, we have to document all of our findings and observations contemporaneously. Are we to infer that neither the initial officer on the scene nor Rankin knew about Ms. Sanchez getting assaulted on that date; or that they did not even know about that allegation? And if they knew, should it not have been documented-- or did they document it elsewhere?

I understand the need for detectives sometimes. But this seems like a fairly straightforward allegation. Was it made that night, or was it not? And if it was made, by whom-- and to whom?

[Joe Guarino]

I checked the GPD map online, and it is a bit unclear in the vicinity of Air Harbor Rd. But it appears that the eastern district serves that part of Air Harbor Road east of Bass Chapel Rd. And the western district serves that portion west of Bass Chapel.

[Wendy Raines]

I do not know who knew what at what time that night. I do know that if the case involves a police officer, the administration becomes involved. A serious allegation (again I am speaking in general terms) would insure notifications to the highest level.

[Joe Guarino]

But you see, Wendy, that did not stop them from making the report of Blake's simple assault on Ms. Galloway. A police officer was involved, and they made this report presumably without going to administration.

Or was administration involved that very night?

Also, Wendy, do you happen to know who was acting as watch commander that night? Is it the watch commander who is responsible for assigning supervisors to a given case?

[Spag]

It should have been an assault on a female unless for some reason the District Attorney took it to trial as a simple assault, which makes no sense and I have never seen this happen nor have any clients of mine been ever offered such a deal where they were allowed to plead "not guilty" to an assault on a female.

The State takes those charges very seriously, often to the point of irrationality in my opinion. Personally, I think the assault on a female law is unconstitutional, but in any case if this matter went to trial as a simple assault someone in the media should ask the D.A. why that is the case and whether the D.A. will now be allowing other Defendant's to have their assaults on females reduced to simple assault even when they take a case to trial.

For the record, I cannot tell what the actual charge is from the report on Ben's sight. That is not a charging document, but an incident report. The info is available at the courthouse though.

Seriously, I have never had a case or heard of a case in my 10 years where a man over the age of 18 has assaulted a female and not been charged with "assault on a female" but instead only charged with "simple assault". Add to the fact that this was the guys girlfriend and this case would have been designated as a domestic action. However, if the D.A. is now letting some people avoid that stamp, I wish they would let the rest of us defense attorney's know so we can get in on that deal for our clients.

[Joe Guarino]

Sam, am I correct to infer from your comments that "assault on a female" is not the same thing as a domestic violence charge? The N&R reported this as a conviction for assault on a female, and the judge required Blake to complete a domestic violence course. Does this mean it was designated as a conviction for what you call a domestic action?

Also, is it common that these folks get probation or suspended sentences?

I see your main point, though, Sam. If the initial thought was to try to charge him with simple assault, that would have been a huge break for the defendant. Would it not have been?

[Spag]

The N&R says the conviction was in fact for "assault on a female" and not "simple assault", so that point is cleared up.

Assault on a female may or may not be considered a "domestic violence" crime depending on the relationship between the parties. However, there is no "domestic violence" charge under the law. That is just a classification given to a particular charge based on the facts and will govern how the D.A. is likely to prosecute the case. The D.A. in Guilford County has a "no drop" policy which means they will not dismiss assaults that are considered domestic violence.

This is because of the political push over battered women, many of whom will later try to have the charges they filed dismissed against their husband/boyfriend when the parties reconcile. Because so many women are eventually victims again when they go back to the accused, many D.A.'s have stopped dismissing these cases even when the victim does not want to prosecute.

This "one size" approach can result in some unfair consequences and also can be destructive to the family unit which is why I think these matters should be reviewed for prosecution on a case by case basis (which by the way the District Attorney is required by the oath of their office to do) rather than a blanket "no drop" policy which essentially violates the oath of the District Attorney to investigate and evaluate each case on its own merits to determine whether prosecution is warranted in order to be fair to a Defendant.

Not only that, but I think the "assault on a female" statute is unconstitutional because there is no similar provision for males. If a husband pushes his wife, he is charged with an A1 misdemeanor. However, if she smacks him across the face leaving a mark, she is only charged with a class 2 misdemeanor- two punishment classes lower.

Similarly, if some scrawny 18 year old boy gets the crap beat out of him by a big muscular woman, her punishment would be less than his would be if all he did was push her, much less beat her up.

Unfortunately, because of the political clout of violence against women networks, even our state appellate courts are reluctant to strike down these laws, and most recently with the weakest justification I have seen.

It is simply unconstitutional to punish a man more severely than a woman for the same act. Further, a man who is a victim of an assault by a female will not see his attacker punished as severely- solely because of HIS status. Hardly equal protection when the status of the victim dictates the punishment.

In fact, it flies in the face of the 14th Amendment which was created in part to prevent States from refusing to punish whites who killed/assaulted blacks (lynch mobs) or that made assaults on blacks by whites a lesser offense than an assault by a white on another white or black on a white.

It should be the crime that governs the punishment, not the status of the victim unless it is applied evenly in those cases- such as assaults on children which are punishable the same regardless of the sex of the perpetrator.

Anyway, that's my stump speech and legal lesson for the day.

As to your other questions, it is common and expected that a first offender would get probation and a suspended sentence. And if it was reduced to simple assault (which apparently it wasn't) that would be a break for the reasons previously mentioned.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Sam. That clears up a lot. It appears we still do not know with certainty whether the charge from the DA and the conviction were with a domestic classification. But apparently they could have been-- and in some respects it appears likely they were, in view of your comments, and also in view of Turner's requirement that Blake complete a domestic violence course.

BTW, I agree with you about the "assault on a female" issue. No need to discriminate.

Apparently, Sanchez-- the girlfriend-- did not want Blake to be convicted, so Henderson apparently invoked the "no drop" policy. But this case did arouse public interest, and I don't know if that was a factor.

[Spag]

If the "no drop" had been waived in this case, then I think the defense bar would have been a whole lot more vocal.

[cm]

"I agree with you about the 'assault on a female' issue."

I don't.

[scharrison]

I don't either, Michele.

You guys really think this is an issue of "equal justice"? Or that this "muscular woman beating up a scrawny guy" scenario is a sound argument against reams of data that show the most dangerous place for a woman is in her home? Good grief.

Chew on this: some 30% of women who present with injuries in a hospital got them from being battered, and 42% of women who are murdered died at the hands of their husband or SO.

As far as women "reconciling" with these jackasses, there are several reasons why they may do this, but very few of them are good (healthy) reasons. Economic survival (or the belief of), personal identity issues, fear of retribution, etc.

The psychological hell of abuse is self-sustaining, and those mandatory charges have saved countless lives by taking the responsibility for that decision away from women who are trapped in that world.

[Bubba]

"The psychological hell of abuse is self-sustaining, and those mandatory charges have saved countless lives by taking the responsibility for that decision away from women who are trapped in that world."

So in your mind, that completely rationalizes disparate treatment under the law based on nothing more than the sex of the perpetrator.

"...and those mandatory charges have saved countless lives by taking the responsibility for that decision away from women...."

Amazing.

That's an absolutely stunning revelation of the mindset that rationalizes treatment of issues based strictly upon some warped worldview social agenda.

You will no doubt be unable to see the hypocrisy of your statement.

[Brenda Bowers]

Thank you scharrison! I was about to jump in here with some facts and figures but you did it for me. Joe and Sam I am ashamed of both of you for this. BB

[Joe Guarino]

I think Ahmed Blake should have been prosecuted for what he did. And I think if a woman had done it to a man in a similar manner, she should have been prosecuted just as vigorously. I really don't see a problem with that approach.

[cm]

that's real sad, joe.

[Bubba]

"I really don't see a problem with that approach."

Nor do I.

However, I DO see a problem with people's excuses for rationalizing unequal consideration under the law based on gender.

[scharrison]

"So in your mind, that completely rationalizes disparate treatment under the law based on nothing more than the sex of the perpetrator."

No, Bubba. That part of my commentary was in response to Sam's bemoaning of the "no drop" rule.

But if you want to talk about "disparate treatment", we can do that. There's something like a 19:1 ratio of husbands beating wives (vs the opposite) when cops respond to domestic calls. That's a pretty big disparity right there.

And yes, I do have some "radical" ideas that are part of my "social agenda". But this is not one of them. I am sickened and ashamed that, in this day and age, and in this country, so many women are treated this way. I'm also sickened that so many men I talk to don't think there's that much of a problem.

If women can't get a modicum of sympathy and understanding from those of us who don't beat on them, where in the hell can they go? Is Glenda supposed to float in on her bubble, wave her magic wand, and fix everything?

[Joe Guarino]

This really was not a post about gender equity with respect to domestic abuse charges. But of course there is sympathy and understanding for women in these situations. And of course it is a problem that this happens.

But a well-written law can adequately cover instances of domestic abuse, regardless of gender. Really, legislators are capable of writing such a law with sufficient teeth.

Let's remember-- with the existing law, Blake was not arrested on the night of the crime; and with the existing law, he is apparently not going to see the inside of a jail cell unless he does it again. I think that is a problem, but that is the current state of the law. So we really cannot bang our shoes on the table and claim that we need the existing "tough" law the way it is currently written.

[cm]

"I am sickened and ashamed that, in this day and age, and in this country, so many women are treated this way. I'm also sickened that so many men I talk to don't think there's that much of a problem."

yep. makes me sick, too.

[brandonB]

AJ Blake is a body builder and Police Officer who should be held to a higher standard of conduct in public. He isn't allowed to associate with known felons, but he can beat on girls? He should've been made an example of, but that's not going to happen with Joe Turner, who was "reluctant" to convict. How did that piece of s--t get where he is today? Whatever happend to the schmuck that shot a cop and got his bond reduced? Is he running around the east side tonight? Let em go Joe and Ken Free sure do work well together.

[Bubba]

"I'm also sickened that so many men I talk to don't think there's that much of a problem."

(sigh)

Who said anything on this thread that even remotely suggested that?

This discussion is starting to take on tones of hysterical over-reaction.

[Spag]

Steve, my problem with the "no drop" rule is that it violates the District Attorney's oath to examine each case on the facts to determine whether it should be prosecuted.

Say a guy and his wife have an argument and he shoves her out the way as he leaves the house because she is blocking the door yelling at him. He has just committed an assault on a female. Now suppose the wife later admits that they were both angry and that he has never done anything like that before. Too bad under no drop. The case goes to court and the guy gets convicted. Now he might lose his job such that his wife and his kids are all now screwed over something that should have never made it to court in the first place.

There is a clear difference between this example and what is normally thought of as domestic violence, but in terms of prosecution under no drop, they are the same.

As far as equal protection in terms of punishment, I suggest that some of you read the opinion of the Supreme Court in the U.S. vs. Virginia Military Institute. That was the case the overturned VMI's ban on accepting women. Justice Ginsburg wrote in that opinion that it was unconstitutional to make gender classifications based on "general" characteristics. Just because women are "generally" physically weaker than men does not mean that all women are. Therefore, VMI could not discriminate against all women because some might be able to meet their physical requirements.

This logic should also apply to assaults or not apply at all to anything. There are many scenarios where a female can do just as much or more physical harm to a man.

Further, this analysis has two prongs. The first is that it is unfair to the male who receives a tougher sentence based entirely on his sex. The second is that it is unfair to a male victim who sees his female attacker punished less severely solely because of her AND his sex. He is no less a victim than a woman assaulted by a man. But he is not being equally protected under the law.

I think a man who hits a woman in a manner other than self defense is a low life, but that should be a moral judgment, not a legal one if we are going to live in a society that demands equality. An assault is an assault, it should not matter the sex of the assailant or the motive (which figures prominently in "hate crimes" movements).

[scharrison]

"Too bad under no drop. The case goes to court and the guy gets convicted."

No, the case goes to court and the testimony and evidence are presented to determine guilt or innocence. A conviction is not guaranteed, but a closer look at the incident is, which is why this came about in the first place.

As far as the equality stuff you bring up, again, the statistics show that there is a serious problem with women being battered in this country. While your argument has merit on legal principles, extraordinary measures need to be taken to address an extraordinary problem.

You guys can call that "social engineering" if you want and I'll give you a nod, but we have millions of terrorists walking our streets, and society has been turning up the volume on the tv or looking away from bruised faces for too long.

[scharrison]

"You will no doubt be unable to see the hypocrisy of your statement."

You're absolutely right, Bubba. I can't see it. :)

Just as you won't be able to see the contradiction in saying, "We never suggested it wasn't a serious problem, and stop with the hysterical over-reactions!"

That's good stuff, right there.

[Bubba]

There was no contradiction in what I said.

Oh yes, one other thing.....thanks for validating my opinion regarding your blindness.

[Bubba]

"...extraordinary measures need to be taken to address an extraordinary problem."

Translation: "We reserve the right to be inconsistent hypocritical panderers on any given issue, at any particular time, depending on which affinity group we need to stroke."

[Stormy]

"but we have millions of terrorists walking our streets" - Harrison

"This discussion is starting to take on tones of hysterical over-reaction" - Bubba

I think that Bubba called it right.

[scharrison]

I didn't just make that up, Stormy. Intimate terrorism is one of the three major forms of domestic violence:

Intimate terrorism is the kind of intimate partner violence that involves a batterer who terrorizes and
takes complete control of his partner through the use of violence in combination with other control
tactics such as threats and intimidation, economic control, psychological abuse, isolation, and the
assertion of male privilege. In heterosexual relationships, intimate terrorism almost always involves
a man terrorizing a woman, although in rare cases men are terrorized by their women partners.
Although intimate terrorism is much less frequent than is situational couple violence, it is estimated
that more than two million women are victims of this kind of abuse in the United States each year—
and this is the intimate violence that is most likely to destroy lives.

[scharrison]

I guess html stuff won't work in the comments. Here's the link:

http://www.clasp.org/publications/michaeljohnson_dv.pdf

[Bubba]

"I think that Bubba called it right."

Just one look at the responses shows that clearly, Stormy.

The initial discussion was one of unequal treatment under the law.

It's now morphed into blatant support of a particular domestic social agenda that plays upon people's sense of decency and honor in order to promote automatic discrimination of males, sanctified by law and custom, while doing absolutely nothing to solve the actual problem.

Here's a bibliography of studies which counter the hysteria and the one sided agenda-driven responses we've read above:

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Summary:

"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 247 scholarly investigations: 188 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 240,200."

I think we have a responsibility to challenge those whose worldview agenda always fails to tell the full story.

[cm]

thank you, sch. more than you know.

[Brenda Bowers]

I am well aware of the original post: it is about a man battering a woman (in this case two women!) The first one he knocked down and the second one he grabbed by the throat and shoved. Now how have three of us gotten off subject?

You "zippers" have never been in this position. I was always a big girl and had considerable strength but a puny man could put me down with one punch and you all know that is a fact. It was my Dad who taught me at age 12 how to kick a man in the balls as he knew that was a woman's only defense against any man. And guys, I have had to use it a few times. Ever heard of Date Rape?

Ever known anyone who is suffering under Intimate Terrorism? Most women know at least one women in this situation and it goes unnoticed and unreported because the woman is afraid of the man or dependent upon him for support of herself and her children. She also knows these are the women who are killed because the police can not or will not do anything to help her because the man has to "do something first". This is also why most women feel they can not press charges against their husbands or lovers or even fathers and brothers. Men are more violent than women; it is their nature. They tend to use violence first, last and always whereas women use words. Your illustration of a couple arguing and the husband shoves the women out of the doorway so he can get out Spag is limp. He had no right to lay a hand on her! And the "shove" he gave her was not in anyway equal to the "shove" she could give him.

When speaking of the law you are trying to say must be equal, I say it is. The law simply gave a woman and equalizer! BB

[Bubba]

The organization that conducted that interview is interesting. Read this about them, and tell you what type of worldview this lobbying group is out to promote.

http://www.clasp.org/index.php

http://www.clasp.org/publications.php?id=2

http://www.clasp.org/about.php

And of course, the field of sociology isn't known for any particular political, social, and economic agenda bias, is it?

http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/07/23/why-do-sociologists-lean-left-really-left/

Excerpt:

"What department has the highest average D:R ratio? You guessed it: sociology, at 44:1. Perhaps some of our readers of the sociological persuasion could tell us why, and what this means."

In this case, it's clear: promote the evil male domestic abuser theme above all other possibilities.

[Brenda Bowers]

correction: The law simply gave the woman AN equalizer! BB