MORGAN'S CRUELTY OVER $2 BASEBALL CARD

"I really don't see that he has any compassion for his deputies as people.  Nor their families.  He has no respect for his people."  Gabrielle Powell, divorced widow of Deputy Sheriff Ozell Powell, May 22, 2016.

INTRODUCTION

It is rare for civilians to look inside the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and glimpse the internal culture of overt intimidation and the abrogation of constitutional rights of deputy sheriffs by Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines, his chief enforcer.  In this blogpost and the next we will look at three Internal Affairs investigations of deputies Ozell Powell (deceased), Donald 'Buddy' Nesmith (retired), and Jacquelyn Gulley (serving).  This look inside the ECSO is aided by anonymous comments posted on the Law Enforcement Officer Affairs website, communications from confidential sources close to the ECSO, ECSO data released via public records request, and documents filed in the federal Eleventh Circuit District Court.

The legal employment situation of sheriff deputies in Florida is that they are at "at-will" appointees, not "at-will" employees; that is, as Florida is an "at-will" state for all employees, they serve at the whim and pleasure of Sheriff Morgan (and other elected sheriffs).  While the collective bargaining agreement between the ECSO and the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) may have some safeguards regarding procedures for termination, the PBA representatives, who are themselves deputy sheriffs, are subject to the same degree of intimidation and fear of being fired.

Under Florida statute and law, sheriff deputies serve at the pleasure and whim of the sheriff.  Florida State Statute 112.535 on Construction states, "The provisions of chapter 93-19, Laws of Florida, shall not be construed...to limit the right of the sheriff to appoint deputy sheriffs or to withdraw their appointment as provided in chapter 30" [emphasis added].

What this essentially produces appears to be a politicized workforce, a workforce that is risk-adverse, and a workforce that is not likely to counter existing policies with innovative policies.

For example, a thread in the LEO Affairs on "Employed or Appointed?" highlighted these problems.

One commenter noted, "The horror stories you hear are true."

A commenter named Bart casually wrote, "that crap happens every time a new sheriff comes to town. ive never been a fan of elected officials having anything to do with law enforcement. the ideal set up is like the one at miami dade PD. have a chief appointed and he stays there until he fuks up or quits. in addition, every officer from deputy chief all the way to officer is given civil service protection. the sheriff's offices down here need to get with the times.."

A commenter named HCSO511 casually concurred, stating "im with bart. that type of thing has been going on forever. if not dismissed or demoted because of the candidate you supported it can happen because someone getting payback for campaign support wants your job. and if they cant just boot you out of your position they can find a way with a little time and patience. everybody makes mistakes. and the first one a person makes that could be easily overlooked will be used to demote you or let you go."

Another commenter relayed his/her story of a young deputy telling the advice received from older deputies:  "All the old timers said that self-initiated activity only leads to trouble.... If deputies are appointed by an elected sheriff with no employment rights, then their lack of activity equals job security. I think I'm finally starting to get it. The one think I have NEVER done is laugh at old timers because they still have jobs after 20 or 25 years."

An "old timer" commented:  "Being overly proactive always generates complaints. Complaints will always lead to investigations and eventually lead to your pink slip. I've seen it over and over again.  Being overly proactive will put you in harms way more often."

So, we civilians need to understand that the sheriff position, an elected position, creates political dynamics inside a Sheriff's Office.  The sheriff uses his deputies to campaign for him.  They are his or her enforcers in the building.  Deputies who oppose the sheriff keep quiet.  Deputies who do not kow tow to the political line of the sheriff can be fired, and, a reason for firing can always be ginned up.  The schemers, manipulators, back-stabbers, and brown-nosers can gain promotion through accusations against fellow deputies.  Once an Internal Affairs investigation is launched, and it drags on interminably, the life of a deputy is living hell.  Chief deputies become masters at conniving to gain the top position and to destroy or sideline rivals.  A Chief Deputy can create factions, a sort of divide-and-rule strategy to keep hold of his position and to divide the collective bargaining effort.  Golden deputies can step out of line without losing their jobs, while reliable, straight-shooting deputies can be eliminated for one small mistake.  Innovation is not likely to come from deputies because innovation always entails a critique of the status quo--whatever bureaucratic momentum enjoying the favor of the sheriff--at the risk of one's career.  Better simply to survive than to propose an innovative policy or program.  Or, if not survive, leave for a better job.

In that bureaucratic culture fostered by a political sheriff and reinforced by a conniving, manipulative Chief Deputy, a bureaucratic reign of terror is not hard to institute and perpetuate.  You do not need to victimize everyone.  You only need to victimize a few to terrorize the many.

And thus we come to the truly sad and tragic story of Deputy Sheriff Ozell Powell, an Army veteran, a father, a husband, a sufferer of Multiple Sclerosis, and a victim of an unsubstantiated, vicious Internal Affairs investigation instigated by Commander Tharp and backed up by Sheriff Morgan over the non-stealing of a $2.00 baseball card.  Yes, that is not a typographical error.  This kinetic duo of the ECSO supported by the ECSO's General Counsel launched an Internal Affairs investigation over a two dollar baseball card that Deputy Powell had put in his pocket for safe keeping while waiting to give it to Sheriff Morgan.  Deputy Powell would have his heart broken, his stress levels rise, hardship for his wife and children as they would lose their medical insurance, and he would eventually die after resigning.  If you do not know, stress exacerbates and brings on episodes of MS.  Thus, launching a completely unnecessary Internal Affairs investigation of a deputy with MS over a non-crime could be considered a form of unusual punishment, if not torture.

This is a story that does not make the box score, but tells you everything you need to know about Sheriff Morgan's callousness, ruthlessness, and utter disregard for the health and welfare of his deputies.  It seriously calls into question his judgement as the chief law enforcement officer of the county.  If you want to invoke terror, make an example of a sacrificial victim.

THE ILL-FATED ACTION AND REACTION

The termination of Deputy Powell from the ECSO on May 16, 2013, was probably preventable had Deputy Powell and Sheriff Morgan interacted differently.  The sequence of events shows Deputy Powell filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint in April 2013 against Sheriff Morgan; soon thereafter Sheriff Morgan launched an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell accusing him of stealing a $2.00 baseball card; in December 2013, Deputy Powell sued Sheriff Morgan in U.S. District Court in Pensacola alleging that Sheriff Morgan had discriminated against him on the basis of his MS illness.  Such harassment is illegal of a protected person under the Americans with Disability Act.

Deputy Powell's action were ill-advised for two reasons.

One, Sheriff Morgan soon after retaliated by personally directing the Internal Affairs office to launch an investigation of Deputy Powell for stealing a $2 baseball card.  And two, on September 30, 2015, the U.S. District Court in Pensacola determined that "There is no evidence in the record to support Powell’s claim of constructive discharge or any other adverse employment action."  In fact, the Court noted that up until Deputy Powell filed his EEOC complaint, Sheriff Morgan had accommodated all Deputy Powell's requests for leave and accepted all his certificates of fitness for duty.

Furthermore, the Court found that Sheriff Morgan's actions of placing a surveillance camera at the front desk, requiring Deputy Powell to submit two certificates of fitness for duty, and allowing him to work at the front desk in civilian clothes without a badge and weapon "is wholly insufficient to demonstrate an objectively hostile workplace.... Even accepting his statement that he was not allowed to work in uniform or was not given his firearm and commission card, these conditions do not come close to the type of conduct that has been found to create intolerable working conditions. Absent an adverse employment action, Powell cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of disability discrimination."

Regarding the Internal Affairs investigation, the Court found "There is nothing to show that it was based on anything other than as represented—an investigation into a suspected incident of theft. Powell was placed on paid leave during the investigation, and ultimately, the investigation exonerated him of any wrongdoing."

But, a close reading of the Internal Affairs investigation makes it clear that had anyone in a command position thought for one minute, there would have been no investigation.  The factual basis for believing that Deputy Powell had stolen a $2 baseball card is completely lacking.  The facts justifying the investigation are ludicrous.  Given the degree of ludicrousness, the Internal Affairs investigation appears to be clearly an act of revenge by Sheriff Morgan for Deputy Powell's filing of an EEOC complaint.

THE "CRIME" OF DEPUTY POWELL

The essential facts are these: 1) On April 18, 2013, Bobby Marinin brought a baseball card inside a "grimy" envelope marked "from Bobby to Shuruff" to the administration lobby and gave it to Deputy Powell; 2) Deputy Powell put the baseball card in his pocket and the "grimy" envelope either on top of the trash can or in his desk drawer; 3) Bobby Marinin called the Sheriff's office a few times asking if the Sheriff had received the package; 4) Patricia Yvarra, an administrative assistant, finally received the call from Marinin and went to the lobby; 5) Yvarra asked Deputy Powell  for the package; 6) Deputy Powell took the baseball card out of his pocket and retrieved the envelope, put the card in the envelope, and gave both to Yvarra; 7) Yvarra then went upstairs with the card in the envelope and gave them to Anita Brooks-Ingram, Sheriff Morgan's administrative assistant; 8) Brooks-Ingram then went to Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan to relay a story of theft; 9) Sheriff Morgan directed Brooks-Ingram and possibly others to run the theft story past Legal; and, 10) Sheriff Morgan directly ordered an Internal Affairs investigation the next day.

The complainant was Sheriff Morgan.  Sheriff Morgan claimed he was the victim of a crime.

There are some other details that are contested, specifically what Deputy Powell intended to throw away and whether the "grimy" envelope was in the trash can or his desk drawer.  While those facts were never determined by the IA investigators, the evidence suggests that it was the "dirty and grimy" envelope that was going to be thrown away.  That quoted description comes from Bertha Lewis' interview with the IA investigators.  While the description came from Sgt. Pittman, Lewis twice agreed with that description and never contradicted it, having first described it herself as "grimy."  She was standing next to or near Deputy Powell when the envelope was delivered.  She told the investigators (pages 36-37 pdf) that Deputy Powell had told her he intended to call Sheriff Morgan's office to have them take possession of the baseball card and that for the two hours or so since the card had been delivered that Deputy Powell had been "quite busy."  In fact, Lewis' statement indicates that in the scheme of things that day, the delivery of the baseball was trivial.  She certainly did not take special note of it.

In other words, amongst all the duties and tasks Deputy Powell was responsible for, processing reports and other tasks, during a time period when he was "quite busy," he had simply forgotten or been distracted enough not to call upstairs to the Sheriff's office.  When asked by Yvarra to give her the package he readily gave it her without a second thought.  The IA investigators noted that the surveillance camera footage showed that Deputy Powell had never left his duty station and appeared to be busy.  He had certainly not made any furtive movements towards the baseball card.

The following quote is from the original statement of Patricia Yvarra and apparently formed the basis of the IA investigation (page 52 pdf):

"On April 18, 2013 at or around 14:15 hours, I went to the Sheriff's office Administration lobby to pick up a package that was left for the Sheriff from 'Bobby.'  When I got there Officer Ozell Powell Jr. was working so I asked him if there was a package left there for the Sheriff from 'Bobby' he [sic] pulled a baseball card out of his shirt pocket and an envelope out of the trash can or his desk drawer and he said 'I was just getting ready to throw it away.'"

Do you see probable cause that a "petit theft" had been committed?  Who stole the baseball card?  Nobody.  Let's launch an Internal Affairs investigation to confirm that nobody stole the baseball card.

Can you imagine if someone in Escambia County had called the Sheriff's Office and stated exactly what Yvarra stated?  Do you think the Sheriff's Office would have dispatched a deputy to investigate the "theft" of a $2.00 baseball card?  You can almost hear the dispatcher rolling on the floor howling in laughter.

However, on April 19, 2013, Sheriff Morgan directly ordered that an Internal Affairs investigation commence against Deputy Powell.  Sheriff Morgan loves to claim that he has three decades of law enforcement experience.  Yes, it shows.

Sgt. Barnes's Internal Affairs investigation determined that the accusation of "petit theft" was "unsubstantiated." 

But wait, it gets worse.

We do not know what Brooks-Ingram precisely told Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan.  We only know what she under oath told Sgt. Scott Allday with Sgt. Wayne Pittman attending.  And the story she told, sworn to be true, is so stupid that only someone intent on using any pretext for revenge would have acted on it.

Brooks-Ingram told the investigators that she first told Commander Tharp what had happened, that is, her hearsay story of what transpired in the lobby.  Then she told Sheriff Morgan the same hearsay story.  Sheriff Morgan then directed "us," presumably her, Yvarra, and Commander Tharp to go to Legal (see page 21 pdf).

Now, hearsay may not be exactly correct.  Brooks-Ingram did not witness anything in the lobby.  The only thing Brooks-Ingram witnessed was afterward Yvarra being "upset" about Yvarra's interpretation of Yvarra's observation of Yvarra's interaction with Deputy Powell.

The investigators asked Brooks-Ingram how Yvarra had reacted to what had transpired in the Administration lobby.

Here is the exact statement Brooks-Ingram stated under oath that she presumably told Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan of Yvarra's reaction (page 21 pdf):

"Yes she said she was pretty upset and she said uh, I can see, nobody puts trash in their pocket.  Uhm if he had just reached into the trash can and pulled out the envelope with the card in it, she would have thought nothing of it.  But the fact that he reached over to get the envelope out of the trash and then pulled it out of his pocket, the card, she said again that you know people don't just throw trash in your pocket to throw away later."

In closing the interview, Sgt Allday asked Brooks-Ingram if there was anything she wanted to say that he had not thought of asking her (see page 23 pdf).  She told Sgt. Allday that she and Yvarra began speculating about "why would he just put that in his pocket and our first thoughts, both of us, were well I wonder if the card is worth any money."  Apparently, Yvarra and Brooks-Ingram went down to Legal where they spoke with a woman named Carrisa.  Having convinced themselves that Deputy Powell intended to steal the card because it was worth money, Brooks-Ingram told the investigators that "Carissa tried to look it up online and uh saw, uh couldn't, you have to become a member and all like that, uhm, what they did, what she did is pick up the phone and call a card dealer place and uhm they said it [sic] worth about ten or twenty dollars."  Note, on page 17 (pdf) the card is worth $2.00, not $20 or $10 and there is no evidence provided that anyone quoted those higher figures.

And, what did Yvarra tell the investigators under oath?  She was interviewed 14 minutes after the interview with Brooks-Ingram had commenced.  She stated a number of things (see page 29 pdf) of relevance.  She thought it "odd" that the envelope and the baseball card had been separated.  She did not ask Deputy Powell why he had the card in his pocket and she did not ask what he was going to throw away.  So, however "odd" she believed Deputy Powell's behavior at that moment, she had no desire to resolve the question in her mind about the "oddness."  She told Brooks-Ingram "it just seemed odd to me that he pulled the card out of his pocket and the envelope from somewhere else."  She continued (page 30 pdf), "I didn't think anything of it, until he pulled the envelope out of the, from somewhere else.  I didn't understand why the card and the envelope weren't still together."

Sgt. Allday immediately asked Yvarra, "Did you think he was trying to steal it or..." and Yvarra interjected, "No.  That thought never crossed my mind.  It was just odd that it was."

So, the only witness to the "crime" of "theft," Patricia Yvarra, did not think that Deputy Powell was trying to steal the card or had stolen the baseball card.  Her only reaction or interpretation of the event was that it was "odd."

Looking at the bureaucratic culture of the ECSO, what would deputies conclude?  All you have to do is have a secretary believe your behavior is "odd," even if it was not; if you are already a target of the Sheriff's wrath--whether you know it or not--and the "oddness" of your behavior can be twisted and misconstrued into a criminal act, then you will be subjected to an Internal Affairs investigation.  Memo to deputies: do not act odd.

Interestingly, Sgt. Allday then ended the interview with Yvarra and asked no follow-up questions about what Brooks-Ingram had said to Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan, or, what Brooks-Ingram had said to Carissa in Legal, or what Carissa in Legal had done with that information.  Surely, here was an opportunity to possibly impeach Brooks-Ingram's credibility, but the investigators did not take it.  Why?  I can only speculate, but it would take investigators with stones the size of Everest to impeach the Sheriff's own administrative assistant.

In fact, it is not clear that Yvarra witnessed any subsequent conversations that Brooks-Ingram had.  It would appear that she may not have been a witness to what transpired after she told Brooks-Ingram that she had observed something "odd."  After all, if Yvarra did not think that Deputy Powell had intended to steal or had stolen the baseball card, would she not have told her superiors before Sheriff Morgan told Brooks-Ingram to go down to Legal?  In other words, there is no corroborating statement that anyone had tried to determine the value of the card or what had actually transpired in the lobby.  It certainly appears that neither Sheriff Morgan nor Commander Tharp ever asked Yvarra if she thought that Deputy Powell had tried to steal or had stolen the baseball card.

It also appears that the impetus to launch the IA investigation came not from Yvarra, who was a witness, but from Brooks-Ingram who had no first-hand knowledge of the event in question.  Yet, the IA record does not contain the initial statements that Brooks-Ingram told Commander Tharp and Sheriff Morgan.  Sheriff Morgan apparently used hearsay evidence of dubious value to launch an Internal Affairs investigation against a Deputy who had recently filed an EEOC complaint against the Sheriff.

What is clear is that at no time did Sheriff Morgan and Commander Tharp reason that the most probable explanation for the separation of the "grimy" envelope and the possibly pristine or cleaner baseball card is that Deputy Powell, a squared-away troop, did not want to dirty his uniform or clothes.  For all Sheriff Morgan's experience in the U.S. Air Force and whatever experience Commander Tharp has in law enforcement, that simple idea--keeping one's uniform or clothes clean and saving yourself some money at the cleaners--never entered their mind.  These two brilliant law enforcement officials could not fathom Deputy Powell's reason for putting the "grimy" envelope in his trash can or desk drawer and the cleaner baseball card in his pocket.

That Brooks-Ingram's statement is ludicrous is not at issue.  Sheriff Morgan using that ludicrous statement to launch a vindictive attack on Deputy Powell via an Internal Affairs investigation is the issue.

CONCLUSION

Deputy Ozell Powell believed, wrongly it turned out, that he was being discriminated against on the basis of his disabled condition and filed an EEOC complaint against Sheriff Morgan.  Very soon thereafter, Sheriff Morgan used a ludicrous hearsay statement from his administrative assistant who did not witness the event--an alleged theft of a $2.00 baseball card by Deputy Powell--to launch an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell.  The other administrative assistant who interacted with Deputy Powell in taking possession of the baseball card and giving it to Sheriff Morgan's administrative assistant never thought that Deputy Powell had stolen or had intended to steal the baseball card.  On the basis of groundless speculation--it is odd to put a "grimy" envelope in a trash can or your desk drawer and keep the cleaner baseball card in his shirt pocket--Sheriff Morgan launched an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell for theft.  Any rational person would conclude that Sheriff Morgan's action did not reveal sound legal judgement, an efficient use of Sheriff Office resources, and was, in fact, a cowardly act of revenge on Deputy Powell for having filed an EEOC complaint.  Sheriff Morgan may have rightly felt miffed that Deputy Powell had filed an EEOC complaint after Sheriff Morgan had treated Deputy Powell fairly for a couple of years or so.  But, from the point of view of the Sheriff, using Deputy Powell as an example of how easy it is to launch an Internal Affairs investigation, Sheriff Morgan could intimidate his subordinates and instill fear.  He could make them fear that the slightest, most innocuous behavior deemed "odd" by an administrative assistant could be met with an Internal Affairs investigation.  The other message was that if you file an EEOC complaint, it is almost guaranteed that I will make your life a living hell by finding grounds to launch an Internal Affairs investigation.  And, the message it gives to favored officers and deputies, if you harass someone in a protected status and that person is a real or imagined opponent of the Sheriff, I have your back.  Even if the factual basis is ludicrous beyond belief, no deputy could feel safe.  If that is not bureaucratic terrorism, then what is it?

Sheriff Morgan: The Burning of Mr. Keshwon Stallworth's Body Is 'Funny'

Ms. Sheard told me that it was "not funny about his body burning.  They are taking the last vision from me.  There is nothing funny about that all.  It is just shocking what the Sheriff said.  Really shocking.  It makes me feel that they are not really going to investigate his murder; that they really don't care about Keshwon and all the other young Black men who have been senselessly killed."  (April 10, 2015)

"I know somebody knows.  Too many people are talking about it.  Somebody knows who did this.  I just want somebody to say something so I can lay my little brother down."  Keshwon Stallworth's brother, Xavier McShan, to WEAR television report Rob L. Brown, March 13, 2015.

Background to the Killing of Keshwon Stallworth

The late Mr. Keshwon Stallworth, son of Ms. Sheranda Sheard, was brutally murdered in the "early hours" of March 6, 2015.  According to a WEAR written report based on a live report from the family's "candlelight vigil" at a "makeshift memorial," Mr. Stallworth had been "shot and burned beyond recognition."  His killer(s) are not known and there are no suspects.  HERE

According to the same WEAR report, the "Escambia County Sheriff's Office said the killing may be gang related, though they did not say if or how Keshwon may have been involved in the gang."

This statement is typical of the ECSO.  While even the accused are presumed to be innocent, the ECSO considers virtually every homicide of a young Black male to be gang related--leaving the impression that the victim was a member of a criminal gang rather than innocent victim.

Sheriff Morgan thought the burning of Keshwon Stallworth's body was "funny."

Mr. Outzen's written presentation of what Sheriff Morgan said on the radio show reads:  "This young man was involved in criminal activity, drugs.  There was some marijuana measuring devices and scales in the car that were not incinerated.  Here a young man, again, engaged in a very high-risk behavior and paid the price for that.  As you well know, the drug trade is a very violent trade."  HERE

But, that is not really an accurate representation of what Sheriff Morgan actually said.

Starting at the 3:45 mark and ending at the 4:25 mark here is what Sheriff Morgan actually stated (my own transcript with emphasis added):

"This young man [Mr. Keshwon Stallworth] was, I will release this, he was involved in criminal activity, drugs.  There was some marijuana measuring devices and scales in the car that were not incinerated.  It's funny when you have a fire, what burns and what does not burn.  I mean it was obvious that it was in the vehicle, it had been damaged obviously by the heat of the fire.  But there were weights and measures for the distribution of marijuana.  Of course, we want to interview some other folks who were around there.  And so, here a young man was engaged in very high risk behavior and he paid the price for that.  As you well know, the drug trade is a violent trade."

Not only was Mr. Stallworth's body burnt "beyond recognition" "funny," according to the Sheriff, but Sheriff Morgan opened the show with "demonizing" language characterizing Mr. Mr. Stallworth and all young Black males in Escambia County as "Super Predators" (see the accompanying CJ's Street Report).

Ms. Sheard told me that it was "not funny about his body burning.  They are taking the last vision from me.  There is nothing funny about that all.  It is just shocking what the Sheriff said.  Really shocking.  It makes me feel that they are not really going to investigate his murder; that they really don't care about Keshwon and all the other young Black men who have been senselessly killed."

When told that Sheriff Morgan had described her son Keshwon as a "Super Predator," her immediate reaction was, "bullshit."  She said, "Keshwon was not a super predator."  She added, "They don't know Keshwon.  Just because he went to an alternative school for kids with disciplinary problems, they can't judge Keshwon."

A "Super Predator," as explained in the accompanying article is an "urban legend" based upon "junk science" having "no evidence" and amounting to nothing more than "racist speculation."

The only evidence that Mr. Stallworth may have been associated with marijuana is the measuring devices in the car.  But, the Sheriff did not state where the scales had been found in relationship to his body.  The Sheriff presented no evidence that Mr. Stallworth had ever owned or used those particular measuring devices in question.  Maybe someone else had put them in the car.  And, the Sheriff presented no evidence that the measuring devices had anything to do with Mr. Keshwon's murder.  There is simply a correlation that measuring devices, that may or may not have been used to measure marijuana, were in the same car as Mr. Stallworth.

This Street Report compares who Keshwon Stallworth was, according to his family, with who Keshwon Stallworth was according to Sheriff Morgan.

A Portrait of Keshwon Stallworth and a Story of Devastating Loss

Keshwon's sister, Shaquavia Sheard, told WEAR television reporter Rob L. Brown how devastated she was by his murder: "I don't know if I'm happy.  I don't know if I'm mad. I feel empty.  I feel lost.  I feel confused."

Keshwon's brother, Xavier McShan, told Mr. Brown of his own anger and emptiness:  "I know somebody knows.  Too many people are talking about it.  Somebody knows who did this.  I just want somebody to say something so I can lay my little brother down."

And Ms. Sheard told the WEAR reporter, "I'm hurt.  You understand what I'm saying?  That was my baby.... You could've took all my money and my furniture and my materialistic items.  But don't take away what I brought here.... I just want to know why.  Was it worth it?  Was it that important.?"   HERE












On April 10th, I interviewed Ms. Sheard at her home in Pensacola.


Ms. Sheard described her son, whom she nicknamed "Pooh," in a loving and honest way:  "He was an average teenager.  He loved animals, video games, especially football videos.  He loved sports and he was a 'sweet person.'  He was a 'momma's boy.'  He was my youngest child and he would always follow me around from room to room.  We always did stuff together.  My other children used to tease him for tattle talking."  She added that Keshwon "had his own mind" and was "determined."  In other words, he was a typical teenager.

Ms. Sheard did not believe her son Keshwon was selling drugs.  One day before he died, on Thursday (March 5th), he had asked his mother for money because he had none.  She did not believe any of his friends were selling drugs because they played video games in her house.  She told me that she preferred that Keshwon and his friends play in the house rather than being out on the street.

In the last couple of months, Keshwon was applying for fast food jobs using phone apps.

The Criminalization of Normal Human Behavior

I asked Ms. Sheard about Keshwon's schooling.  She told me that he "didn't like school" and that he had been sent to In-School Suspension (I-SS).  She explained to me that I-SS was another classroom where the young teens were sent to do extra work, while being confined to the room to eat their lunch.  As she described I-SS to me, it sounded like solitary confinement for teenagers--locked away from their classmates and neighbors, eating lunch alone, and guarded constantly.

I asked her why her son had been sent to In-School Suspension.  She told me that whenever he was sent to I-SS, the school would call her and explain that he had been "talking out of turn."  I asked her if he had ever been sent to I-SS for violent behavior?  "No."  Had he ever been sent to I-SS for gang-related behavior?  "No."  Had his teachers who saw him every day ever sent him to I-SS for anything that was "drug-related"?  "No," she responded.

In other words, Keshwon was sent to quasi-solitary confinement in school for "talking out of turn."  But, none of his teachers had sent him to I-SS for violence, gang, or drug-related behaviors.

Ms. Sheard said, "He wasn't perfect.  Nobody is perfect."  But, who is perfect?  Nobody on this planet can pass the "perfect" test--not even Jesus who had a Roman criminal record.  (For a discussion of how individual Black male imperfection is used by white Americans as an indicator of Black cultural depravity and proclivity to violence see Joan Walsh, Chauncey DeVega, and Ta-Nehesi Coates.)

But, Keshwon's trouble with the law, if you want to call it that, is really about a society that criminalizes ordinary Black human behavior that is not in any sense criminal.

Keshwon's problems with law enforcement started when he was 11- or 12-years old.  One day Kershwon got into a fight with one of his older sisters, who are six and seven years older than he is.  In other words, at the time, they were bigger and heavier than he was.  Ms. Sheard was not able to stop the fight physically, so she called the Sheriff's Office.  The Sheriff's Office arrested Keshwon.

Now, it is important to put this arrest into the context of what Sheriff Morgan told Rick Outzen on the Pensacola Voice radio show.  Speaking about his anecdotal claim that drug gangs in Pensacola are using younger and younger children to sell drugs, the Sheriff stated (at 5:50 to 6:07):  "You know the courts tend to be very lenient in working towards rehabilitation because our goal is to save young people, not to incarcerate everyone we catch because its not productive to society, it's not only a drain on the criminal justice system, its a drain on taxpayers.  The goal is rehabilitation, not incarceration."  HERE

So, does the Sheriff think that arresting an 11- or 12-year old Keshwon Stallworth for fighting with his sister is consistent with his philosophy of "rehabilitation, not incarceration"?

From this arrest, Keshwon was sent to Probation.  One morning, he overslept and missed a court appearance resulting in a Contempt of Court charge, according to Ms. Sheard.  Then, one night as he walking past a house that had been broken into in the Montclair neighborhood he was arrested by the Sheriff's Office.  His mother bailed him out.  Keshwon adamantly rejected the idea of a plea deal and was going to demand a trial as an adult because he had not committed any crime.

Concluding Observation

Every Black mother I have interviewed for the Street Report or just talked to casually in the community always explains that their son was "no angel" or he "was not perfect," as if being an angel or being perfect is even attainable.  Even Jesus had a Roman criminal record before he died.

Mainstream media, including even the supposedly liberal New York Times engage in this smearing of young Black men who are killed.  Michael Brown was "no angel," according to the newspaper.

Chauncey DeVega, the eponymous founder of We Are Respectable Negroes, wrote that "The news media 'humanizes' white criminals, presenting a narrative of a good person who somehow went wrong.  By comparison, black and brown 'criminals' are monsters.  Thus, there is no effort to psychologize, explain, or understand what would motivate the latter to break the law.... The news media's desire to niggerize Michael Brown is greater than the obligation to locate his life within a broader context.  This is a function of old fashioned racism, implicit bias, and a deep American cultural belief that black people are inherently pathological and dysfunctional."  HERE

Ta-Nehisi Coates, another of the young, insightful public intellectuals writing on race in America's history, laws, and consciousness, noted that "The 'angelic' standard was not created by the reporter.  It was created by a society that cannot face itself, and thus must employ a dubious 'morality' to hide its sins.  It is reinforced by people who have embraced the notion of 'twice as good' while avoiding the circumstances which gave that notion birth.  Consider how easily living in a community 'with rough patches' becomes part of a list of ostensible sins.  Consider how easily 'black-on-black crime' becomes not a marker of a shameful legacy of segregation but a moral failing."  HERE

Tom Hayden, a former state senator in California, wrote in the December 2005 Los Angeles Times of the pernicious effects of the myth of the Super Predator in providing the ideological excuse for the profit-driven expansion of the prison industrial complex and the distortion of public policy preferences.  Hayden wrote that the city budget of Los Angeles "reveals that the priority is to suppress and incarcerate, not to turn troubled lives around.  Fifty-five million dollars go to LAPD gang suppression efforts, a token $12 million to prevention programs for little kids, and a bare $2 million for intervention programs meant to channel teenagers away from violent paths."  HERE

I would be curious to learn if any social scientists in the Pensacola area can document a similar distribution of public money in Escambia County?

What I do know from talking to mothers and activists is that Escambia County does not provide basic things for Black children.  Some of the neighborhoods in the county portion of Pensacola are still waiting for street lights to cut down on crime; for surveillance cameras; for upgraded paved streets; for better schools; for more public transportation and later hours; for clean water; and, for less environmental pollution near communities of color, like in Wedgewood.

And, what of the young mothers and fathers with children working in Escambia County?  They need to earn a living wage of $15 dollars an hour.  They need subsidized day care.  They need an outreach program from local government to get them into the mental health system.

Someone killed Keshwon Stallworth.  But, Keshwon was victimized by Escambia County long before he was brutally murdered.  He was branded a criminal before he even turned 13.

And, in death, the Sheriff is still assaulting Keshwon, suggesting without evidence that he may have been involved in a gang, and, that his being burnt "beyond recognition" was "funny."

And, despite coming from a family who loved Keshwon deeply, who was a "momma's boy" and a "sweet person," Sheriff Morgan chose to deliberately call Keshwon Stallworth a "Super Predator."

In the next article, I will show that this "Super Predator" concept is not only believed by Sheriff Morgan, but that the concept itself is based on "junk science" and amounting to little more than "racist speculation."

Sheriff Morgan Revives "Racist Speculation" "Urban Legend," and "Junk Science," to Smear All Young Black Males in Escambia County as 'Super Predators'

"This was predicted, oh gosh, five, between five and ten years ago and they predicted what's called a 'rise of the super predator.'  And these are children of the generations coming up, you know, you've heard me speak of the 'no faith-family-community nation' type of thing.  And it's, it's on us."  Sheriff David Morgan on David Outzen's WCOA Pensacola Speaks radio show, April 7, 2015, starting at 3:02.  HERE

Sheriff Morgan Sees Keshown Stallworth and All Young Black Males as "Super Predators"

Rick Outzen opened his April 7, 2015, Pensacola Speaks radio show with this comment:

"We're seeing a rise, Sheriff, in more and more young crime committed by teenagers.  Of course, the big story is the one who was shot last month and the car he was in was set on fire.  Forensics were able to identify him this past week.  I've talked to Commissioner Luman May and he's concerned that there just seems to be more, that we have a new, younger, more violent set of teenagers that are coming out on the streets now."  HERE

Given this "softball" opening, Sheriff Morgan dove right in and revealed the racist mind-set he and presumably his deputies have regarding all young Black males in Escambia County.  Importantly, Sheriff Morgan based his department's perspective on criminological information provided by his wife, Susan, an instructor at Pensacola State College.  She earned a Master's degree in 1988 in Police Administration from Eastern Kentucky University and a Master's degree in 1991 in Public Administration from Troy State University, according to her interview with the PMOAA Beacon in June 2014.  HERE

Here is Sheriff's Morgan statement starting at 3:02 and ending at 3:45:

"That's true Rick and its not a surprise to us in law enforcement.  This was really predicted some time ago by the specialists in this area.  One of the nice things about having a wife that's a college instructor is that, who teaches Criminal Justice, is that I get to keep up to date on all the stuff.  This was predicted, oh gosh, five, between five and ten years ago and they predicted what's called a 'rise of the Super Predator.'  And these are the children of the generations coming up, you know, you've heard me speak of the 'no-faith-family-community nation' type of thing.  And it's, it's on us.  It's almost a dissociation from society."  HERE

Now, if Sheriff Morgan really "keeps up to date" on the latest research in criminology because his wife teaches Criminal Justice at Pensacola State College, then he needs a new source of information because the state of her current knowledge is about sixteen years out of date and what she is passing on to the Sheriff is a racist, demeaning, demonizing stereotype rooted in white supremacy.

The Myth of the Rise of the Super Predator

The term "Super Predator" originated in 1995 (not five or ten years ago as Sheriff Morgan claimed) by Princeton professor John Dilulio, along with the conservative academics James Fox (Northeastern University) and James Wilson (UCLA).

Writing in 1998, then PhD candidate in Sociology at City University of New York Robin Templeton explained:  "Much of their work is the functional equivalent of racist speculation about criminality popularized by eugenicists a century ago.  Demography is destiny, the theory goes, and today's press and politicians employ it to keep the suburbs afraid of young men of color in the inner cities.  For its proponents, the beauty of the 'superpredator' concept is its convenient adaptability.  Whether the report of the hour says crime is up or down, whether youth crime rates soar or plummet, the 'superpredator' threat warrants ever-tougher tough-on-crime measures."  HERE

Templeton also explained that even at the time (1998), the theory of the "Super Predator" ignored the consistent finding that the more young people in society, the less violent crime in society.  She wrote that in the previous 25 years, according to FBI crime reports, the correlation between the rate of violent crime and the number of young men aged between 15 to 24 was negative, meaning that "more young people in the population has meant lower rates of violent crime."

Templeton pointed out that according to a June 1997 article in the Wall Street Journal that Professor Dilulio was having second thoughts about punishing youths as adult criminals, though he had not abandoned his theory.

The New York Times, which presented a documentary report produced by the Retro Project called The Superpredator Scare, pointed out that "Murders committed by those ages 10 to 17 fell by roughly two-thirds from 1994 to 2011, according to statistics kept by the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  Mugged by reality, a chastened Mr. Dilulio has offered a mea culpa."  The 10:35 minute documentary is also at this website.  HERE

Steve Drizin, a professor of clinical law at Northwestern University's School of Law, wrote in September 2013 in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin's murder about the theory of the "Super Predator":  "The 'superpredator' was one of the most demonizing words ever used to describe young people in the history of the United States.  In the mind of Princeton Professor John Dilulio, who coined the term in 1995, superpredators were 'subhuman,' 'amoral,' 'feral' creatures ready to maim, rape, and murder Americans without a second's thought" [emphasis added]  HERE

Drizin also pointed out in the same article that in 2001, "the Surgeon General of the United States issued a report declaring that there 'is no evidence' that young people engaged in violence during the 1990's 'were more frequent or vicious than youth of earlier eras.'  The word virtually disappeared from public discourse and the 'superpredator' was relegated to the ranks of 'urban legend.'  But urban legends die hard..."  Or so Professor Drizin thought.

Indeed, this dead "urban legend" is alive and well in the mind of Sheriff Morgan and his Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

Writing one year later, Professor Drizin noted that the "'superpredator' myth was premised on junk science and inaccurate predictions based on demographics."  Commenting on the New York Times film The Superpredator Scare, Drizin noted that "In the film, Professor Dilulio, now at the University of Pennsylvania, issues a mea culpa, admitting that 'demography is not fate and criminology is not pure science.'"  HERE

Concluding Observation

Sheriff Morgan's assertion that his belief in the existence of "Super Predators" in Escambia County is based on "specialists in this area" and that his wife, who teaches Criminal Justice, "keeps him up to date on all the stuff" is pure unadulterated racist nonsense.

Sheriff Morgan's concept of a generation of "Super Predators" that is now "on us" is based on what real experts call "junk science" based on "no evidence" and having the validity of an "urban legend" rooted in "racist speculation."  Reduced to its essence, it is just "scientific racism."

The concept, "Super Predator," wielded by Sheriff Morgan is a term of art meant to demonize and denigrate young Black males living in Escambia County as being "'subhuman,' 'amoral,' 'feral' creatures ready to maim, rape, and murder Americans without a second's thought."  This very characterization is exemplified by Deputy Holcombe's description of the behavior of pregnant Shaquita Middleton and her super-power-walking mother Mrs. Lucille Middleton covered in a previous CJ's Street Report.  HERE

Is it any wonder that the Black community perceives Sheriff Morgan and his deputies as dangerous to their well-being and lives?

Professor Drizin noted that this mentality may have lurked behind George Zimmerman's reflex to kill Trayvon Martin:  "When the adult George Zimmerman saw Trayvon, perhaps he saw a 'superpredator.'... All of these features--the cold, long hard stare, the suspicion of drug use and weapon possession, the hoodie, his age, race, and criminal propensity--fit the profile of Dilulio's superpredator.  But they also fit the profile of many innocent young kids on our city streets, kids who are just walking back from the corner store with cans of pop in their hands and Skittles in their pockets."  HERE  "Furtive movements," anyone?

That Sheriff Morgan sincerely believes and promotes an "urban legend" based on "junk science" containing "no evidence" and amounting to little more than "racist speculation" about the presence and grave danger of the Black Super Predators living in Escambia County should set off alarm bells regarding the temperament and suitability of the Sheriff and his deputies.  Is this Sheriff really intellectually and morally fit to serve a third term?

UPDATE (4/12/2015: 1838h)

At the 9:20-9:25 mark, Sheriff Morgan made a correct statement regarding the decline in juvenile crime.  The Sheriff stated, "Now, contrary to what we believe though, our juvenile crime, and we tend to mirror national averages, has been trending down."

A January 1, 2014, report in the Pensacola News Journal noted that between "2008-2009 and 2012-2013 fiscal years the number of juveniles arrested in Escambia County decreased 32 percent, from 1,923 to 1,311."  Thus, the trend Sheriff Morgan cited and the corroborating data completely undermine his assertion that the "rise of the Super Predator" is "on us" in Pensacola.  But, as noted above, this trend undermining the validity of the "Super Predator" thesis had been present for decades.  This is not a new finding.

However, while there is another trend of less incarceration of juveniles in Escambia County, the fact remains that Escambia County leads Florida, the United States, and the world in incarcerating juvenile offenders as adults.  Again, the trend may be towards less incarceration of juveniles, but Sheriff Morgan's attempt to paint a rosy picture of our goal is "rehabilitation, not incarceration" is again undermined data.

An in-depth report published April 12, 2015, by InWeekly and written by Shelby Smithey, relied upon data and analysis from the Southern Poverty Law Center's Monique Gillum.  Gillum reported that "Florida sends more youth to the adult criminal justice system than any other state."  Smithey reported that "transferring children to the adult system increases recidivism.  Yet, Escambia transfers more of its kids per capita, 4.3 percent, than the state average, 3.5 percent."  Keyontay Humphries, Northwest Florida ACLU organizer, told InWeekly, "Escambia County incarcerates more children per capita than any other county in the state of Florida.... There are children who remain in the juvenile justice system, but then there are also children who are transferred to the adult justice side."  Amir Whitaker, an attorney with the SPLC, told InWeekly that Escambia County "is one of the worst places to be a kid in the state of Florida and in the country."  HERE

Escambia County's high incarceration rate of juveniles compared to all other counties in Florida and all other states in the United States has a devastating effect on our children in terms of losing the right to vote--an essential feature of democracy.  The SPLC's Monique Gillum told InWeekly, "Youth are losing the right to vote before they even have it.  We have to take a real close look at how we are treating our children."

Keyontay Humphries, the Northwest Florida ACLU organizer, told a mid-March 2015 town hall meeting of the Escambia Youth Justice Coalition, that "The U.S. leads the world with a per capita incarceration rate of 336 per 100,000 youth, and Florida is virtually tied with California as the juvenile incarceration 'leader' in the U.S.  This makes Escambia's shameful juvenile prison commitment rate not only the leader in the state, but the U.S. and world," according to a report in The Pensacola Voice.

Are ECSO Deputy Sheriffs Sexual Predators in the Brownsville Area?

“Have a little respect for this woman just because she was doing something you don’t aprove of her lifestyle wasn’t good doesnt mean she deserved to die because she beggd for money .”  ‘DON’T JUDGE !!’  Sending prayers to this family during this awful time, don’t forget she was someones daughter !”  JAS, January 30, 2013, writing about the late Ms. Melissa Midori Townsend, married and mother of two children.

Introduction

Peter Wehner, a writer at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote of Jesus this past Easter:  "The authorities were constantly at odds with Jesus because he hung out with the 'wrong' people'--the despised, the outcast, the ceremonially unclean--and he claimed the authority of God in doing so.  Jesus was condemned for being a 'friend of tax collectors and sinners' and for consorting with prostitutes.  His anger was directed most often against the proud, the hypocritical and the self-righteous.  The powerful hated him, while those who were broked flocked to him."  HERE

Giles Fraser, writing at the liberal Guardian (UK), explained the meaning of Jesus this past Easter:  "Christianity, properly understood, is a religion of losers--the worst of playground insults.  For not only do we not want to be a loser, we don't want to associate with them either.  We pointedly shun losers, as if some of their loser-ness might rub off on us.  Or rather, more honestly, we shun them because others might recognize us as among their number.  And because we secretly feat that this might actually be true, we shun them all the more viciously, thus to distance ourselves all the more emphatically.  And so the cock crows three times." HERE

One indicator of a civilized society is how well it treats those who are sick, poor, defenseless, vulnerable, or otherwise significantly disadvantaged.  How well does society protect them from exploitation, predation, and degradation?  As a Brooklyn-born Catholic, we were taught that the ideal was a society wherein the strong protected the weak and the rich provided for the poor—sentiments in America that are now highly disputed from one certain political-religious persuasion.

One of the vulnerable segments of our society is sex workers.

An article at a law collective stated that sex workers (formerly prostitutes) can be subjected by pimps to “physically, sexually, and emotionally abusive methods” to control their behavior; sex workers can also be subjected to violence from customers.  Sex workers, according to the lawyers, “have felt dis-empowered and alienated from society and their parents all their lives.  Many prostitutes are the project of abusive homes which they runaway from and are not legally qualified to work in any legitimate industry.  They ultimately resort to prostitution as a means of getting by.”  And, because the sex industry is held in low regard by society, usually located a geographical and mental distance from mainstream society, and sex workers are the most vulnerable actors within the industry, the women are the least protected and the most exploited.  HERE

A scholarly article in Medical Anthropology explained that already abused/traumatized women lacking social services “may turn to drug use in an attempt to deal with the harsh realities of their daily lives.  In turn, the need for drugs, coupled with a lack of educational and employment opportunities, may lead women into prostitution.  Life on the street increases women’s risk for physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as well as their risk for HIV/AIDS.  Exposure to traumatic experiences deepens the dependence on drugs, completing a vicious cycle of violence, substance abuse, and AIDS risk.”  HERE

Connie Bookman, executive director and founder of the Pensacola-based Pathways For Change, a faith-based addictions treatment center partnered with over 30 local groups, told the Pensacola News Journal that the vast majority of sex workers are caught in a cycle of using drugs at an early age, selling sex to buy more drugs, or using drugs to cope with the psychological traumas in their lives, oftentimes sexual abuse.  HERE

Thus, sex workers in Pensacola are no different from sex workers in other parts of the country—they are the most vulnerable participants in an industry relegated to the worst parts of town, traumatized from a young age, using drugs to cope with their lifestyle, lacking supportive social and medical services, subjected to violence without recourse to police protection, and alienated from their families and society.

Former Sex Worker Shanal’s Story

To all that trauma and cycle of drugs-sex-violence experts write about, comes the story from a confidential informant who was a former sex worker in the Mobile Highway area of Pensacola.  She contacted me immediately after the first CJ’s Street Report’s post explaining the purpose of the blog went live.  While no longer living in the Pensacola area and no longer operating as a sex worker, she requested anonymity to protect herself from reprisals.  I will call her Shanal.  Her comments have been lightly edited.

Shanal explained that the area of the Mobile Highway in Brownsville is very dangerous and “anything could happen” if you visited.  The area includes parts of Cervantes Street and Lynch Street, the latter a congregation point for sex workers who have sex with their customers either in the Relax Inn, the customers’ cars, or an old house on Citrus Street, which is the continuation of Lynch Street.  At the intersection of Mobile Highway and Lynch Street there is a liquor store, across from which is a bus stop where the sex workers ply their trade.  According to Shanal, “most of the girls have a drug addiction which leads them into prostitution.”  Most of the women work for themselves, while some have pimps.

Shanal told me that she was approached by a male in a certain colored civilian car at the intersection of Lynch Street and Mobile Highway around midnight.  Once she entered the car, the man locked the child-proof locks, identified himself as a sheriff’s deputy and displayed his badge.  Shanal was “terrified” and began asking him questions while learning that he was married, had children, and probably was not a rookie.  Once they arrived at the abandoned house on Citrus Street—a house well recessed from the street so that without headlights the house is essentially invisible—she climbed over the front seat into the backseat.  The ECSO deputy exited and re-entered the car in the backseat, handcuffed her, “and raped [me] anally for about 30 minutes but it felt like hours.  Afterwards he drove me back to the spot he picked me up from.  Days later I began hearing similar stories from the other girls.”

After allegedly being raped, Shanal did not seek medical treatment, collected no forensic evidence, and did not call the Sheriff’s Office to report the rape.  She once encountered the certain deputy sheriff in a completely different social situation and immediately there was mutual recognition, according to her report.  Thus, while she could without a doubt identify the deputy sheriff, lacking physical proof there is no reason for her to pursue a legal case.

But, such a story is not out of the ordinary.  When I worked as a military intelligence analyst overseas, before the U.S. State Department could work with local police forces to stop human trafficking, especially for work as sex slaves, the police departments had to be cleaned up because the police were either the traffickers, protecting the traffickers, using the women for sex, or providing no legal protections if the women escaped from their enslavers.

In mid-July 2014, Sheriff Morgan fired a deputy trainee for having sex with a woman while making an on-duty call.  The fact that even the U.S. Secret Service and the Drug Enforcement Agency used sex workers provided by the drug cartels in Colombia gives Shanal’s story more than plausibility.  HERE

Shanal’s purpose in contacting CJ’s Street Report was to help the sex workers currently operating in the Pensacola area.  She told me, “I got out but I think of all the horrible things that happened to me out there.  I can never forget the faces of evil or the faces of innocent women that need help and what sickens me is that the same people we thought were there to protect and serve are causing just as much pain.  I live with scars for the rest of my life and to this day I’m terrified of all police officers, good or bad.  I don’t trust them especially the ones in Escambia.”

Do ECSO Deputies Murder Sex Workers?

According to Shanal, the women working in the Mobile Highway area “know that the [Escambia County Sheriff’s Office] deputies are abusing and raping them; they are the same ones surveilling them.”  Consequently, the sex workers “only trust each other.”

In late January 2013, Ms. Melissa Midori Townsend was found murdered “in a field behind Alternative Powersports, near Kenmore Boulevard,” according to a NorthEscambia.com report.  She had been there a few days before she was discovered.  No one has been apprehended for the crime.  Ms. Townsend, according to my confidential source, may have been Native American.  HERE

According to my confidential source, after being raped, Ms. Townsend was stabbed.  The sex workers in the Mobile Highway area suspect an ECSO deputy sheriff killed her.  However, this allegation lacks proof.  On the other hand, the belief that a deputy sheriff killed her perpetuates the fear and lack of trust of the ECSO.

Some Pensacola friends of Ms. Townsend’s dislike the fact that she has been forgotten, especially by the local media.

One month after Ms. Townsend was found, a woman named Susan wrote on the NorthEscambia.com webpage, “I met Melisa in 2009.  She was such a sweet lady…. I’m furious that the tv stations are not continuing to put her pic up so someone will come forward.  Have been searching online for new info, but nothing.  Melisa didn’t deserve to die this way, and I am grieved.  I pray that soon her killer will be found.”  HERE

On June 22, 2013, Ms. Toccarra Luckett aka CoCo, a 31-year old Black woman was found shot to death “near the intersection of North ‘S’ Street and Cross Street,” according to the ECSO’s Facebook page.  No suspect has been apprehended for her murder.  HERE

According to Shanal, sex workers “believed she was murdered by an officer for giving him HIV during a rape.  She was also a friend of mine.  These women are being killed off one by one.  Please go out to talk to them.  I wish I were there so I could help just to get this out there.”  Shanal told me that the investigators did not find any shell casings at the crime scene.  She also told me that Ms. Luckett had been the mother of a boy and girl and was married.

Many of Ms. Luckett’s commenters on the ECSO Facebook page were saddened by her brutal murder.

The fact that the perpetrators of murdered sex workers are not apprehended and the cases are forgotten as “cold cases” only fuels this fear and lack of trust.

Shanal told me, “What’s real suspicious is that all these women are being killed and somehow police have no leads in most of the murders.  I know why they did it.  I will try to find more of the girls.  I just hope I don’t see any familiar faces in the news.”

Concluding Observation

Social scientists, medical doctors, lawyers, and social workers know that the women who become sex workers have been abused and traumatized from a rather young age.  They are not only psychologically traumatized, but their mental condition is affected by drugs, their socially stigmatized lifestyle, their alienation from family and society, the lack of medical care and other social services, and the fear of physical violence from their customers.

The sex workers in the Mobile Highway area know that they can be arrested for drugs possession or solicitation for sex by the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office.  That is a business risk they take.  What they did not bargain for is the possibility that ECSO deputy sheriffs would rape or kill them with impunity.  While these allegations are not grounded in physical evidence, belief that these allegations are true nevertheless creates more trauma, less trust in institutions, and ultimately even more withdrawal from society—making them even more vulnerable to predation and exploitation.

I am willing to listen to more stories and publish them, if the sex workers are willing to contact me via email or by cell phone (510-816-3761) or Facebook Messenger/Message.

The sex workers of Escambia County need a voice.  Are residents of Escambia County willing to listen?

Thank you Shanal for coming forward.

As JAS so eloquently stated about her friend, “Don’t forget, she was someone’s daughter!”

In fact, they were all somebody’s daughter or, if they had children, somebody’s mother.

Mr. Blair AMOS, Deeply Loved and Missed, Forgotten by ECSO

Mrs. Lucy AMOS:  "They have not tried to help me from day one; from December 24, 2008, until today." (3/30/2015)

I had a conversation with Mrs. Lucy Amos, a lively, passionate woman who moved to Pensacola from New Orleans in the wake of the devastating Hurricane Katrina.  She is just the sweetest woman, but filled with deep loss and love for her son--lost to senseless gun violence late on December 24, 2008, within an hour of Christmas Day.  Upon hearing the news of the shooting from a neighbor, Mrs. Amos rushed to the hospital and watched for between two and three hours as her son slowly succumbed to his fatal wound.

Within three days of burying her twenty year-old son, Mr. Blair Amos's girlfriend suffered a miscarriage and Mrs. Amos lost a grandbaby.  One week later, Mrs. Amos traveled to New Orleans to attend the funeral of the extended family's two-year old.  The 2008 holiday season was filled grief and disbelief.  A newspaper report filed in January 2009, for which she was interviewed, was unread and filed along with at least a dozen other reports of "cold cases" apparently no longer pursued by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Blair Amos, was killed by gunshot wound while driving near the intersection of Medford and Cranston in the Montclair neighborhood.  In the prime of his life, Mrs. Amos described her son as a "sweet, gentle, loving boy," a good student in high school, and a "respectable boy."  He went to a "good local church" about as often as most Americans go to church--regularly but not every Sunday.  He played in the gym at the church, and while a "quiet boy," was a "leader among his peers."  He enjoyed fishing and family outings.

Mrs. Amos told me that the ECSO tried to characterize her son as a member of gang and his killing as drug related.  The impression I received is that the ECSO considers any loose group of young adults playing in the neighborhood as a "gang."  It is profitable to do so in the War on Drugs.

According to the January 2009 report in the Pensacola News Journal, Detective Tyree told the paper there was no description of the shooter, no gun found, and no fingerprints.  Given the complete lack of information provided Mrs. Amos, her impression is that the investigation consisted merely of sending out  postcards asking for information.  Nearly seven years later it is a "cold case."

Mrs. Amos herself is a deeply religious woman who told me that she is still so grief-stricken that she has "given up and given the problem to God."

How has Mrs. Amos been treated by the Sheriff's Office?

The only detective assigned to her case, Lee Tyree, has never called her and never visited her at home.  She has gone to the Sheriff's Office at least four times to meet with Detective Tyree.  The meetings have lasted around five minutes, ten minutes at the most before she has been asked to leave.

When Mrs. Amos has directly gone to the Sheriff Office to get any public records on her son's case, she has been turned away by a supervisor on the grounds that it was a "cold case" still under investigation.  What, are they waiting for the post cards to return?

Why has Mrs. Amos been treated this way?

Bad behavior by individuals lower in the chain of command is usually the result of bad behaviors and attitudes by higher ranking officers.  I spent twenty years on active duty and the reserves and that is certainly true of the military.  In this case, it is apparently the result of the behavior and attitude of Sheriff David Morgan.

The Sheriff has given the community the impression in public meetings that he believes that the people who fled Hurricane Katrina in fear of their lives have destroyed Pensacola.  He has given the Black community the impression that he does not care about good Black youths, male and female, being killed because it is simply Black-on-Black crime.

At public meetings Sheriff Morgan has had mothers who lost sons to gun violence escorted out of the meeting, including Mrs. Amos, because he "does not want another Jerry Springer Show."  At one meeting, the Sheriff reportedly told his deputies, "Get her out of here."  Sheriff Morgan's secretary will not allow Mrs. Amos to have a one-on-one meeting with the Sheriff.

Mrs. Amos describes herself as a "law-abiding citizen."  She plaintively told me in words that echoes conservative complaints about government, "I'm a taxpayer.  Where is my help?"  I could add, where is the public service and public respect Mrs. Amos deserves?

New Investigative Leads?

There may be some information useful to the Sheriff's Office in this case.  According to a confidential source close to Mrs. Amos, neighbors believe that the her son's killer is known certain white male.  Detective Tyree was told by a known certain woman that she had two sub-sources that knew the name of the alleged killer, but this source would not provide the detective the names of her two sub-sources.

Another piece of information Detective Tyree may or may not be aware of concerns a Black woman who was in the hospital while Mr. Blair Amos lay dying in his hospital bed.  This unknown woman reportedly overheard Mr. Blair's two companions who were in the car when he was shot from behind "contemplating" what they were going to tell the Sheriff's Department when questioned.  It is not known what they were "contemplating."  Hospital records could reveal her identity.

Mrs. Amos is heartbroken.  She recognizes that "some police are very caring."  But, what would increase trust between people like Mrs. Amos and the Sheriff's Office are more multi-cultural deputies who have more empathy for victims' families and far greater communications with the families.

This is just one case among dozens.  If you have any information related to this case, or any other case, contact the Sheriff's Office.  Every mother deserves an answer to a simple question: Why?  No mother deserves to be forgotten--another victim of a "cold case."

PURPOSE OF THIS PENSACOLA BLOG

The purpose of this Pensacola blog is to provide a megaphone for street level voices in Pensacola and the surrounding Escambia County that have been ignored or silenced by the Escambia County Sheriffs Office (ECSO) for many years through deliberate neglect.  As I have traveled around Pensacola several themes have emerged from conversations with leading community activists and ordinary people in Pensacola, especially in the Black community.  One, the Escambia County Sheriffs Office, especially the two-term incumbent Sheriff David Morgan seeking re-election, is disconnected from the Black community.  Two, they feel he has no real, genuine interest in hearing their complaints or addressing the community's needs.  He either refuses to meet with community activists or mothers who have lost their precious sons to violence, or, when he does meet with them his discourse with them makes them feel "belittled."   Three, there is an almost total breakdown in community trust between the ECSO and the Black community.  Black witnesses to crimes do not have enough confidence and trust in the ECSO detectives to provide information.  I suspect that other communities that I will be exploring in greater depth, such as the homeless community, the LGBTQ community, and the migrant farm worker community may very well feel the same way.

This is not to say that every deputy sheriff and detective in the Escambia County Sheriffs Office is unprofessional, lacks empathy, and by words and deeds is perceived to be hostile or uncaring towards the taxpayers of Pensacola and Escambia County.  Some deputies and detectives do receive high praise from members of the community.  But, these overall perceptions are widespread in the Black community and their righteous anger at being abused and neglected is directed foremost at Sheriff David Morgan.  As the head law enforcement officer in the county, he is an elected official and he should be the one closest to the people.  Members of the Black community look to him to set the standards of professionalism and decorum among his deputy sheriffs and detectives.  They look to him personally to build real bridges of trust and confidence.  Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, expect that their local sheriff will take his oath of office seriously and protect constitutional and civil rights.  That as their elected law enforcement representative he will not only spend their tax dollars wisely, but having paid their tax dollars, they expect to receive to services they paid for.

This blog is made possible with the silent assistance of activists and ordinary people who open their hearts and lend us their voices, and my closest collaborators who choose to remain anonymous for their own protection against reprisals.  This blog is not about me.  It is about the community; the community that is justifiably angry; it is about the community that is coming together every day to build solidarity for social change and social justice.  You can ignore me.  But you ignore these community voices at your own peril.  Many have told me that Pensacola is another Ferguson waiting to happen.

Contact me if you have a story, a street report, I should hear and follow-up on.  Send an email to drscaminaci@hotmail.com or give me a Facebook message.