by Barbara Shelly, The Kansas City StarJuly 3, 2003
More than three years after Rayford Lee said he had been mistreated by a Kansas City police officer, he walked out of federal court with a $30,000 settlement and a lecture from a judge.
"I think it's certainly right to pursue a grievance," Judge Gary A. Fenner told Lee in open court. "But my guess is that if you would have been cooperative in the first place, nothing would have happened."
Lee's take on that: "What the officer was trying to start as far as humiliating me, the judge was going to finish."
Fenner's courtroom discourse did bring an overdue conclusion to a case that began on Dec. 30, 1999, when two Kansas City police officers stopped Lee, 47 at the time, as he was driving away from his home on Benton Boulevard.
An officer asked Lee: "What house did you come from?"
Lee responded: "What is this about?"
Had he answered the question directly, perhaps he could have, as Fenner suggested, forestalled what happened next.
Or perhaps, as Lee has insisted, a black man alone in a car on a dark street is prudent to learn why he has been pulled over.
Eventually, the officer said Lee could leave. Then the officer's partner appeared, and the situation became ugly.
Before the case got to court, the Office of Citizen Complaints substantiated Lee's complaint.
He passed a polygraph test while the two officers gave answers indicating deception.
Lee's was one of only 22 complaints to be validated out of 366 investigated in 2000.
Lee contended that the partner directed a profanity at him, and he responded in kind. He alleged that the partner, Darrell Govero, ordered him out of the car, punched him in the groin while Lee was handcuffed, threatened him and threw his belongings about his car.
Govero testified that Lee was the one who was abusive, and that Lee tried to thrust a knee into Govero's abdominal area.
Before the case got to court, the Office of Citizen Complaints substantiated Lee's complaint. He passed a polygraph test while the two officers gave answers indicating deception. Lee's was one of only 22 complaints to be validated out of 366 investigated in 2000.
Lee further beat the odds by finding an attorney, David Smith, who was willing to take his case to court.
The case first went to trial in May 2002. On the second day of testimony, the parties agreed to settle, but the agreement later fell apart.
Jurors in the second trial deadlocked on a charge that Govero had assaulted Lee.
The $30,000 settlement was reached before testimony began in the third trial, and that is when Fenner spoke up.
"I can tell you," Fenner said to Lee, "that the police have a very, very difficult job and you didn't make it any easier."
He continued: "That doesn't mean that people should be mistreated...but I do believe that the citizens and the population have some responsibility to be courteous and responsive toward the police, the same as the police have a tremendous responsibility to be courteous and professional in the manner in which they carry out their jobs. But from my impressions about it, you made it pretty hard out there that night."
Fenner did not admonish the police officer. I wanted to ask him about that, but his clerk said the judge would have no comment.
So, after 31/2 years, Lee's grievance ended with $30,000 to split with his lawyer, and a lecture. Govero, who was suspended for seven days after Lee's complaint was substantiated, remains on the force.
Lee has always said that he would not have sued if someone from the Police Department early on would have apologized and replaced his pants, which were ripped in the incident.
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions? We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think. A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
