SAN DIEGO — The mother of a 24-year-old man who died after being pinned by two trolley security officers — one of whom kneeled on his neck for roughly six minutes — has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against two San Diego police officers who were summoned as backup. The lawsuit, filed in San Diego federal court Friday, comes about six months after the mother reached a $5.5 million settlement with Metropolitan Transit Authority and its security contractor, Allied Universal, in the death of her son, Angel Zapata Hernandez. The complaint accuses the police officers, Jordan Belchamber and Christin...
Stories Chosen For You
A painting by Irish-born British artist Francis Bacon of fellow UK painter Lucian Freud sold on Wednesday for £43.3 million ($52.5 million, 50.2 million euros), according to Sotheby's auction house.
The price is an auction record for a painting by Bacon sold in London and also for any single panel painting by the artist.
"Study for Portrait of Lucian Freud", painted in 1964, "exemplifies an iconic pairing of two of the most significant painters within the canon of twentieth-century art", said the auction house.
The figurative work depicts a restless, bare-chested Freud, with a distorted face, sitting on a bench.
"The present work is testament to Francis Bacon's capacity to provoke emotion and capture in paint the complexities of the human psyche," added Sotheby's.
The artists were close friends but also artistic rivals fascinated by the human figure and sat for each other on multiple occasions.
Bacon's 1969 triptych "Three Studies of Lucian Freud" sold in 2013 for $142.4 million, and held the record for the most expensive work of art at auction until being unseated by Picasso's "The Women of Algiers (Version O)" in 2015.
Snapped up by a New York gallery, it is composed of three panels or pieces which show the artist Freud sitting on the same chair but painted from different angles.
Bacon died in 1992 and Freud in 2011.
© 2022 AFP
In the wake of Friday's landmark Supreme Court decision to dissolve federal abortion protections, local elected officials in liberal-leaning areas of the state are vowing not to enforce Georgia’s strict abortion law.
The ruling ultimately gave the final say on abortion rights to state lawmakers, creating a patchwork of policies across the country.
But district attorneys in Gwinnett, DeKalb, Chatham, Athens-Clarke, Oconee, Douglas, Burke and Richmond counties say they will not criminalize abortion-related care.
More than 80 district attorneys nationwide signed a letter pledging to push back against strict abortion laws or outright bans anticipated in at least half of states.
“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion," the letter reads, "But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions."
Six current district attorneys from north to south Georgia who penned their names on the letter say they refuse to use their positions to prosecute women seeking abortions and safe abortion providers.
Georgia does not have a so-called “trigger law” on the books so, although the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion is still legal in the state.
State lawmakers passed a strict abortion law in 2019 that bans abortions at around six-weeks of pregnancy — before some women even know they are pregnant.
The law has been temporarily blocked in court, but will now likely take effect. The 11th District Court of Appeals considering the law has asked parties to file briefs within 21 days on the impacts of the Supreme Court's decision.
Those district attorneys who have sworn against prosecuting abortion crimes say they have faced heavy criticism for refusing to enforce state law.
But for DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston, that’s not what she ran for office to do. Boston said she began preparing to act after the bill was passed in 2019.
“There are those at the legislature who feel that a district attorney should just enforce the laws that they passed without any regard to how that could affect the community,” she told GPB. “I am not one of those district attorneys. I believe that the people in my community elected me to make decisions that are in the best interests of the community that I serve.”
‘Victims should be at the forefront’
Prosecutors standing up to Georgia’s pending abortion law argue that it puts further strain on already limited resources to address violent crime and enforcing abortion bans won’t end abortions, but will end safe abortions.
Western Judicial Circuit DA Deborah Gonzalez said that her office is still sifting through a backlog of 500 cases after the pandemic shuttered the judicial system for months — cases that involve murder, child molestation and sexual assault.
“These are things that need our attention right now,” she said. “And it's not something that we need to then take resources from that and put it towards prosecuting women or doctors for basically giving medical reproductive services and for women making private decisions.”
Augusta District Attorney Jared Williams echoed her frustration.
“I fight gangs who kill children in the streets," he said in a statement. "I fight abusive parents who put their kids in the hospital. I fight child molesters who prey on our children. Until our community is rid of violent crime and sexual predators, I will not expend our limited resources to prosecute women and their doctors for personal health care decisions.”
Implications for the justice system go beyond bogging down already overburdened prosecutors. District attorneys also said they are particularly concerned that victims of sexual assault may be dissuaded from reporting.
Georgia’s 2019 law, House Bill 481, includes an abortion exception for victims of rape or incest, but only up to 20 weeks of pregnancy.
“It does concern me that these kinds of measures may, in fact, lead to underreporting, which means that there could be a lot more crime happening in our community and a lot more young women victims than we will ever be able to help,” Gonzalez said.
“The victim should be at the forefront of this conversation,” DeKalb's Boston said.
Although there is an exception for victims of sexual assault, she said, victims should not be forced to immediately report to police and go through the judicial system if they don’t feel ready.
It is widely recognized that victims of sexual assault rarely report right away and it may take years for them to come forward.
“That should not be a prerequisite for victims to have (abortion-related care); that care should be first,” Boston said. “Our first and foremost importance with our victims in the criminal justice system is their mental and their physical well-being.”
But, experts speculate that the actual impact of district attorneys refusing to prosecute abortion crimes would be small.
Georgia State University Law Professor Anthony Michael Kreis said that district attorneys traditionally do have the discretion to prioritize what laws they will and will not enforce.
“But for every prosecutor who said that they won't enforce this or that they won't be aggressive about it,” Kreis said, “There's going to be prosecutors out there that are going to be aggressive and who will look forward to bringing the LIFE Act and all the consequences they can into right into full force.”
The state legislature could sidestep local prosecutors and potentially create a state agency to prosecute abortion crimes. The state also still has the authority to strip a doctor who breaks the law of their licensure, he said.
Still, Kreis explained, district attorneys could make the case that the strict abortion law may be infringing on the Georgia Constitution’s extensive privacy protections.
“There is also a state constitutional right which is at stake and I think that as these things play out, that will also become a part of this conversation,” he said.
City council plays defense
District attorneys are not the only elected officials grasping to protect abortion rights.
The Atlanta City Council is backing a resolution that asks the Atlanta Police Department to make arrests for abortion crimes “lowest priority” and bans any government funds from being used to track where abortions are occurring.
On Friday, Atlanta city council member Liliana Bakhtiari urged cities across the state to take similar actions.
“While we in the city of Atlanta cannot affect state law — because as we know we are preempted — we can set our own priorities and enforcement and do everything we can to protect women, trans and non-binary individuals seeking abortions,” she said.
Bakhtiari said it was “standard practice” for local officials to weigh in on police prioritization and that the resolution would only impact the city's law enforcement agency. She also addressed criticism that state’s largest metropolitan leaders are voted in through non-partisan elections.
“To those of you who think I may be overstepping my boundaries as a councilperson in what is supposed to be a non-Democratic or non-Republican seat: survival is not a partisan issue,” she said. “This is me doing my job. It is our job as public servants to do everything we can to protect people's lives. And that's exactly what this is.”
Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens previously endorsed the city council’s plan and said that Atlanta Police “should not be involved in women's health concerns.”
Georgia has a recent history of state and local entities battling over health care policy.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. Brian Kemp clashed with Atlanta and other local governments, which instituted stricter mask and safety requirements than the Republican governor — although those battles centered around what sweeping powers the governor had.
But Kreis told GPB that while municipalities can take steps to not dedicate resources to investigating allegations of abortion crimes by women or providers, in the end there’s little that they can do to circumvent state law.
“Certainly for most Georgians, I don't think municipal governments are going to be able to do much to fight back,” he said.
This story comes to Raw Story through a reporting partnership with GPB News, a non-profit newsroom covering the state of Georgia.
Former White House senior aide Cassidy Hutchinson revealed some new information to the House Select Committee investigating the attack on Congress and the attempt to overthrow the election.
One question being asked by the New York Times, however, is whether the information she gave was enough to aid in a potential criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Among the things she told the committee was that as Trump went onstage Jan. 6 to speak to the rally crowd he knew that there were people in the audience with weapons, including guns. Instead of trying to deescalate the crowd, she said that he wanted the supporters brought closer and allowed in even if they had weapons that wouldn't normally make it through metal detectors.
"Legal experts said the testimony provided more evidence to support a possible criminal prosecution, as it suggested that Mr. Trump was aware of the potential for violence but went on to urge his supporters to head to the Capitol," wrote the Times analysis.
Trump then called on the crowd to "fight like hell" and told them that he would lead them to the Capitol in a powerful march.
"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down," he said, repeating the phrase. "Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."
The Times pointed that the Justice Department said that it doesn't have an explicit investigation focusing on Trump. There is, however, evidence that the DOJ is moving swiftly on the fake electors' scandal. Meanwhile, Trump legal adviser John Eastman was raided by federal agents, including FBI agents, who took his phone to turn it over to the Justice Department Inspector General. That is an indication that there's an internal investigation happening over the role some lawyers like Jeffrey Clark played in the attempt to overthrow the election.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has captured many of those who came after Congress on Jan. 6 and interviews with them reveal that they're placing the blame squarely on Donald Trump. Some said that Trump called them to Washington and to the Capitol for Jan. 6.
"Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony could place Mr. Trump into a conspiratorial relationship with members of the mob, lawyers said, suggesting that he pushed them into action even though he was aware that they presented an immediate threat," wrote the Times.
Hugo Lowell, reporter for The Guardian, explained that Hutchinson's comments "marked a new degree of apparent consciousness of guilt among Trump’s closest advisers – in addition to that of at least half a dozen Republican congressmen and the Trump lawyer John Eastman – or fear that they might have committed a crime.
He went on to explain that "in raising Giuliani’s interest in a pardon, Hutchinson also testified that Trump’s former attorney may have also been central to a crime with respect to his seeming knowledge of what the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups were planning for January 6."
The idea that the White House knew about the involvement of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys "raised the spectre that the former president's then-attorney [Giuliani] was broadly aware of the intentions of two far-right groups." Many of the groups' members have since been arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy.
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe urged the DOJ to be forthcoming about its intentions to dodge the implications of politicization.
\u201cA word to the wise: I definitely don\u2019t favor leaks from DOJ, but the sooner it becomes publicly clear that the criminal investigation has reached Trump, the harder it\u2019ll be for him, by officially announcing his candidacy, to claim that his indictment would be a political act. \u23f3\u201d— Laurence Tribe (@Laurence Tribe) 1656522214
Founder and executive director of Protect Democracy Ian Bassin noted that the idea of attempting to intimidate witnesses is a potential criminal offense for Trump. If the people relaying the message to Hutchinson and the other witness are investigated for being part of that it's unclear if they will implicate the president.
\u201cRep. Cheney now sharing evidence of witness intimidation. New potential criminal charges against Trump and others. This is serious Mafia stuff.\u201d— Ian Bassin \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@Ian Bassin \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6) 1656442432
Sol Wisenberg, a former deputy to special counsel Ken Starr, told the Times that it's clear Trump has criminal culpability.
\u201cDid Trump commit a crime? "This is the smoking gun," Sol Wisenberg, a former deputy to Ken Starr, tells me about today's hearing. "There isn\u2019t any question this establishes a prima facie case for his criminal culpability on seditious conspiracy charges."\u201d— Peter Baker (@Peter Baker) 1656443137