My friend, Richard Salem, is in prison and needs your help

[Sarge]

Ughh. I'm sorry, I can't support somebody grabbing a cops gun and threatening him with it.

So I would like to ask everyone to please keep any negative comments to your self.

Brian,

I'm sorry if my comment seemed negative. If your accounts of the incident are more factual than the official release then it would appear that my opinion is not relevant in this case. But at the moment it was the only story I had to go by.

I hope you understand,

Kevin

[benos]

I received some additional info regarding the history of Richard's situation from his wonderful girlfriend...

"You might want to suggest that the forum members check out the petition and the petition statement through the petition link on freerichardsalem.com The petition contains a summary of events and the petition statement lists the points of where friends and family feel the officers and the state failed. The Yavapai County press release is by no means a "full story"... it is a press release to support the state's version of the story in order to support their case. I know how much you care about Richard and I appreciate what you wrote."

"When Richard's ex-girlfriend called the police she said that he was a really nice guy. When the officers arrived Richard asked them to please tell him what was going on. They did not and then the Taser was brought into play. As you know Richard has a long term history of panic and anxiety disorder, has been known to have seizures and has been on medication long term for his condition. Pair this with electrocution from a Taser weapon and you get a horrible situation. Why the officers, and there were three officers, introduced a Taser weapon into the situation so early on has been a major point of contention. The officers escalated the violence. Richard did not struggle until after he was tasered and he did so because he was in severe pain from the continued electrocution. Amnesty International considers the Taser a weapon of torture and alot of people agree. The Taser weapon can be a beneficial tool in some situations; this was not one of them. Simple conversation could have quickly resolved the situation. The officers opted not to do that and the Sedona police department's use of force policy came into question."

"Richard never had a gun. The snap on the officer's holster was never opened. The gun never left the holster. Richard was trying to stabilize his body while he was being tasered face down on the concrete. He touched the officer's leg. That got translated to "going for the officer's gun". Richard almost died that night and never received medical attention. Makes one wonder why all the charges were brought against him."

"Hope this information brings additional understanding in this very complicated matter."

"Thanks so much."

[SiG Lady]

"...I sincerely feel that if an experienced officer would have been on the scene, the situation could have been resolved without escalating the way it did."

This is likely the case more often than we can guess.

[benos]

A bit more from Richard's friend...

"The very interesting point about the Yavapai County press release mentioned in the forum is that the information contained therein did not appear in the police reports nor in the testimony during the trial. I found that press release, and another that also contained inaccurate information, online and in local newspapers a few years ago. We address them in the petition statement."

[gm iprod]

The reason he got charged is that the "Police" (not individual officers) are always right. They let the courts sort it out. All the way to the Supreme Court, even when the facts are so obviously ill-stated or do not match what is being said in court.

We have seen far too much of this kind of thing when a step back (by both parties) would have been the best route forward.

Good luck to your friend, he has a hell of a battle ahead.

He is fighting the system and they are using your money to fight back. They get paid whether they are right or wrong.

[twodownzero]

The one thing I find concerning about this particular case is that I was in a courtroom this summer in Indiana with a similar case. The officer testified that it was the most violent incident he'd experienced in his 8 years in uniform, and the judge found that because the case was charged as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, that the fact that it was such a violent incident wasn't even an aggravating factor. I believe the maximum sentence in that case was 8 years, and the defendant received something at the bottom of the range, which should have been around two years.

It's also amazing to me that none of this guy's sentence was suspended, given the other facts of the case.

This seems to me as 1. illustrative that our criminal system is unbelievably punitive in some cases and 2. a terrible case of prosecutorial discretion gone terribly wrong.

The problem with these cases isn't that the police are always right. The real problem is that while a jury ultimately will determine the facts of a particular case, police offers make a lot of decisions at the scene that ultimately will spin the facts for you or against you.

This case, with these sorts of facts, happen every day. The penalties range from probation or a fine or house arrest to several years in prison without many distinguishing factors other than the evidence created by the police at the scene.

I can see both sides of these sorts of cases and I think it's truly unfortunate that those we trust with discretion abuse it this badly. I think that's especially true considering that I have seen violent, repeat offenders get probation when they should have done some time, even in the face of mitigating circumstances.

Trial judges have broad discretion in these cases. The real check on these sorts of mistake is the right to trial by jury, but unfortunately, it just doesn't work that well these days when people watch too much TV and the state has the upper hand from the beginning. Let's face it, strike one is getting arrested, strike two is sitting next to your lawyer at trial, and the jury isn't too hesitant to issue strike three when you're already 0 and 2.

It's truly sad that these cases happen and part of the reason why I want to be a lawyer so badly. That said, I suspect that Mr. Salem's chances are extremely slim. It's just too bad that he didn't have 1. effective counsel at trial and 2. a good plea bargain that for most defendants, would have made this go away with far less harsh penalties than in this case.

The Innocence Project is doing a lot of work on prosecutorial misconduct. As this case illustrates, it's just not as easy to show as one might think.

Sympathetic defendants are hard to come by. Juries should recognize them and act accordingly, but unfortunately, they don't always.

[dirty whiteboy]

What is odd to me: if mr. Salem actually grabbed an officer's gun, and threaten them with it, why would the other officers NOT have shot him? Even after the one officer said "shoot him, he has my gun."

Did the officers trump up the severity of the situation knowing they could have handled it better?

Edited September 22, 2011 by dirty whiteboy

[twodownzero]

What is odd to me: if mr. Salem actually grabbed an officer's gun, and threaten them with it, why would the other officers NOT have shot him? Even after the one officer said "shoot him, he has my gun."

Did the officers trump up the severity of the situation knowing they could have handled it better?

These are discussions the jury should have had in the jury room before acquitting him.

If the facts are as benos says, it's likely that they defied common sense (and the jury instructions) and convicted anyway.

Often, the police can't be wrong. One of the toughest parts of jury selection is finding someone who can take seriously the idea that the police aren't always right, and in fact, they're often wrong if for no other reason than the facts are either different than they thought (perhaps due to no fault of their own, information is just imperfect) or their recollection is flawed.

Lots of blame to go around, but the jury is really who I blame for this crap.

[benos]

What is odd to me: if mr. Salem actually grabbed an officer's gun, and threaten them with it, why would the other officers NOT have shot him? Even after the one officer said "shoot him, he has my gun."

Did the officers trump up the severity of the situation knowing they could have handled it better?

These are discussions the jury should have had in the jury room before acquitting him.

If the facts are as benos says, it's likely that they defied common sense (and the jury instructions) and convicted anyway.

Often, the police can't be wrong. One of the toughest parts of jury selection is finding someone who can take seriously the idea that the police aren't always right, and in fact, they're often wrong if for no other reason than the facts are either different than they thought (perhaps due to no fault of their own, information is just imperfect) or their recollection is flawed.

Lots of blame to go around, but the jury is really who I blame for this crap.

Thanks for all the feedback Tim.

One inside thing on the jury... There was one jury member who was solidly "not guilty." But sadly she was badgered into a guilty vote... "it's getting late ... we need to wrap this up ... it's time to go" - and she finally changed her vote to guilty. She actually came to the sentencing, and she was crying her eyes out, pleading with the court to reverse her guilty decision - but of course that didn't happen.

On his defense attorney, again sadly - to far into the case - Richard's friends and family realized he was completely incompetent. He never got a break any where along the way.

be

[High Lord Gomer]

Any idea how close they are to getting $40K?

[benos]

I haven't heard - I'll check.

be

[BCrane]

As LE in the same state... Something is NOT adding up.

For 10.5 years, SOMEthing is being left out of the story. I've been in fights for my life with prior felons, who only got 2-3 years for the assault..

Edited October 31, 2011 by BCrane

[benos]

I haven't heard - I'll check.

be

From Richard's good friend, Scott:

> Brian,

>

> Sorry to say, not very. There have been some generous donors, like

> yourself, but not nearly enough. The plan at the moment is for Richard to

> file the habeas petition himself, with a motion to get court-appointed

> counsel. It's a long shot, but there aren't too many other options. I'm

> trying to help him with it as much as possible, and his sister, girlfriend,

> and another close friend are also helping tremendously by getting

> him books, and keeping him informed.

>

> That's the short version, but the wheels are still turning. I appreciate

> your help and continued interest (and generous compliment in your forum)!

>

> Take care,

> Scott

[DGeneM]

Have there been any updates to this situation?

[benos]

Sadly, I wasn't able to find out anything from Richard, when I visited him 2 weekends ago. He was moved from Florence to Kingman. Bummer. 3+ hour drive instead of a 1.5 hour drive.

So I get there on a Saturday afternoon - haven't seen him in 5 years (he's been moved all over the country till they moved him back to Florence AZ) - and after about 15 minutes together they made everybody leave the visitation area - because the inmates were all gathering in the yard, threatening a possible riot. So I drove back to Tempe. I'll get back up there after I get through the holiday season.

be

[JKSNIPER]

Sorry Brian.

This guy may have been a great help to you and YOU may know him as a nice guy...that doesn't mean he didn't do what he's accused of.

I had a 17 year old kid break my right wrist and during a protracted struggle attempt to pull my .38 cal revolver from my holster.

He was , by all accounts from his friends and family, a "pillar of the community".

He was a pillar of the community that damm near killed me.

The DA calls me about 6 months later wanting to know if I really care about dropping the charges and "just how serious was this resisting arrest anyway?"

I told him the story and told him if he drops these charges I would tell each and every cop on my job how ADA so and so dropped these charges 'cos he was too lazy to do his job.

Never heard another word about dropping the charges again.

Your friend was ,by news reports, trespassing on his ex girlfriends property, refused to leave, and fought with the cops when he was being arrested....sounds like he messed with the bull and got the horns.

I'm sorry he's a friend of yours and that you feel sorry for him is your right.

Joe "Mad Dog" Sullivan (mob hit man) is still loved by his family despite killing over 20 people here in NY.

I saw them on TV telling everyone how he's a great Dad and husband.

I bet theres 20 families that beg to differ.

[JKSNIPER]

Dirty white boy ,

My brother (State Trooper Sgt) was almost shot by a fellow trooper during a struggle to arrest a guy they had on a traffic stop.

They get the guy out of the car to check him for DWI.

He fails the FST and my brother goes to cuff him.

The guy suddenly grabs my brother hand/arm and spins around while simultaneously reaching inside his coat with the other hand.

My brother wraps him up and down to the ground they go rolling around.

The fellow trooper shoots the guy....the round (they later learn) goes through my brother tie .

Thats how close he came to being shot by a fellow cop. Turns out the guy was reaching for a bag of weed he had on him hoping to ditch it prior to being taken in for the DWI.

When the "fur ball" happens you DON'T want to try and shoot into it hoping to hit the right guy and thats probably what happened here.

[cas]

Even if the cops story is 100% factual….. 10 1/2 years? (and that's the minimum sentence?)

[benos]

Personally, I would appreciate it, if everyone kept their opinions as to what may or may not have happened - especially based on news reports and including allegations regarding Richard's character - out of this thread.

This post is on behalf of a good friend of Richards...

There has been alot of interesting discussion in this forum on this topic but let's be careful not to lump Richard into a negative category based on previous experiences. People can have a pre-conceived idea of what might have happened based on how they think or what one has experienced instead of getting all the information and looking at a situation at least somewhat objectively. Richard was not trespassing on the property. He had never been asked or told not to visit there. His ex-girlfriend had just talked with him at a restaurant and propositioned him shortly before his visit.

The police officers introduced a Taser weapon much to early into their encounter with Richard and the Taser never should have been used in the first place. The Taser weapon was not necessary by logical standards but the SPD had a very aggressive use of force policy. When we met with the mayor, chief of police and city manager after the guilty verdict and sentencing we were informed that the Taser use of force policy was under revision. Oh, so were they admitting there was a problem with it? We asked the city of Sedona if they would help Richard.. they said it would be unprecedented. Also an SPD officer shared with a local resident that the SPD had been criticized for overly-aggressive use of force. Richard's arrest was a bad arrest. They exist. Other residents in Sedona had also experienced alarming encounters with the SPD and their new toy, the Taser weapon, at that time. But people get scared and they do not know how to stand up for their rights.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Richard suffers from a panic and anxiety condition for which he takes prescribed medication. The Taser should not have been used. It is my opinion that the police officers should have recognized a passive confused response to their presence and utilized simple conversation instead of aggressive physical force and electrocution from a Taser weapon. Why use a Taser on someone that is passive and talking to you? Use conversation, not force. There were three officers present and able to cover one another if conversation did not prove effective. Instead, the three officers jumped into aggressive action with a Taser weapon against an unarmed passive man. Was this reasonable?

Richard's medical condition was not appropriately raised in trial due to the ineffectiveness of his trial attorney.

And again.. Richard never had a gun in his hand. The officer's gun never left the holster, the snap on the holster was never open. So how could he have supposedly threatened officers with it if he never had one in the first place? The officers never said Richard had a gun; it was not in police reports and never appeared in testimony at the trial. The County Attorney's office published that lie in a press release to support their case and conviction. And this is fair?

What this situation has shown me is that this country has a really serious problem with our justice system. And it's about county attorneys winning or losing a case instead of properly evaluating the circumstances. The US has the largest rate of incarceration than any other country in the world. And when one is sentenced they do not just get a prison sentence and time away from home. These are real people who are thrown into an extremely hellish environment and we want to blame them so we don't have to stand up and change it.

I had a conversation with a former AZ police officer and he told me that charges were probably stacked against Richard so that he did not sue the city and the state. Justice?

The most severe charges that were brought against Richard tripled because there were three officers involved. The County Attorney wanted 14 years and the judge brought it down to the minimum 10 1/2 years. Arizona has mandatory sentencing laws with certain charges that came into play in this case because of the guilty verdict. Jurors are not permitted to know the sentencing requirements when deciding their verdict. Also, Arizona is a "90% serve state" which means there is no possibility of parole until 90% of the sentence is served. The clerk of the court cried as she read the guilty verdict to the courtroom.

Richard is approaching five years in prison and continues to stay amazingly productive and is utilizing this time to further educate himself in music. He also works as an education aide tutoring others. He is truly a good person and has heartfelt insight and care.

I ask that we not put Richard through trial again on the forum. He's been through enough. If anyone knows of an effective Habeas Corpus attorney that is licensed in the state of Arizona that would like to work pro bono, please let us know. Also, if anyone has any good media contacts that would like a compelling story that could help people, again please let us know. In the meantime, Richard is filing Habeas Corpus himself with the assistance of friends. Thank you for your attention and time.