By Carlos Miller
Knowing that his actions were being recorded, Steven Jackson of the Prince George’s County Police Department grabbed a 24-year-old man out of his car and punched him twice before tackling him to the ground.
But that didn’t stop Jackson from claiming on his report that it was the man who struck him first, then tackled him into traffic.
Jackson not only proved to be a boldface liar, but a dimwitted idiot as well.
After all, he specifically told Shawn Leake that he was being “visually recorded” during the May 25, 2008 traffic stop.
Didn’t he think a defense attorney would subpoena the tape?
After watching the tape, prosecutors dropped all charges against Leake, including assault on a police officer, reckless conduct and failure to obey a lawful order.
Jackson obviously doesn’t think about the consequences of his overly aggressive actions because three months after this incident, he shot and killed an unarmed man for carrying an open container of beer.
In that incident, Jackson claimed that he “feared for his life” – which has become such a cliche in these unjust killings.
But three witnesses, including Espina’s son, say he was not resisting when he was beaten and shot. An autopsy revealed that Espina suffered blunt force injuries to his face and arms.
Jackson is still on paid administrative leave for the August 16, 2008 shooting, suggesting that the Prince George’s County Police Department is a lot more thorough in its investigations than the Miami Beach Police Department, which allowed an officer to return to duty just four days after shooting an unarmed man – only to kill again.
Or perhaps the Prince George’s County Police Department was just hoping people would forget about the controversial shooting.
Little did they know that Jackson would make the news again for the incident in which he pulled Leake over for having illegal tints.
During the traffic stop, Jackson had some type of issue with Leake’s insurance documents and ordered him to step out of the car.
Leake inquired why he needed to step out of the car, which infuriated Jackson.
“Step out of the car now, or I’ll have you out of the car,” Jackson can be heard saying.
“You yelling, but you have to give me a reason to step out of the car,” Leake replied.
When Jackson grabs and starts yanking him out the car, you can hear Leake saying something about his leg being stuck on the steering wheel.
Jackson punches him twice, then grabs him by his neck and tackles him down where they fall out of frame.
However, Jackson claimed in his report that Leake “immediately took a combative stance and struck me with a closed fist uppercut to my face.”
He also said that Leake “continued to fight me and even tackled me to the ground into the next lane of oncoming traffic.”
Jackson was in such a state of denial that after he handcuffed Leake, he accused him of hitting him.
“You hit me in my [expletive] lip,” Jackson says.”I did not hit you, man,” Leake replies. ‘
“I was trying to get out of the car. My leg was stuck to the thing.”
“Dude, it’s all on tape,” Jackson said.
Leake replies, “You hit yourself when you tried to knock me out.
Check out the video here to decide for yourself. The action starts at 3:10.
Popularity: 1% [?]
33 responses so far ↓
1 Christopher Martin // Jun 29, 2009 at 2:44 AM
WTF?
Can someone point me to the land of the free? I’m tired of living under ingsoc.
It’s a damn shame that this guy will be donning a badge again. He belongs behind bars.
2 Jay // Jun 29, 2009 at 3:01 AM
It’s like f*cking Groundhog Day. Change the venue and the cop’s name. When the hell will people speak up and demand these lowlifes lose their badges permanently and be treated like the common criminals they are?!?
Actually they are *worse* than common criminals since they get to do it under color of authority!
Judges and prosecutors are no better since they continually cut renegade LEOs a break for no reason other than they are LEOs.
Can you feel my blood pressure rising?
3 Ariel // Jun 29, 2009 at 6:07 AM
OK, so his report was a fiction to portray the incident as self-defense on his part rather than overly aggressive behavior. This isn’t new, as Jay wrote, it’s like Groundhog’s Day. The FOP rep of course said it was justified since Leake was resisting, the usual crap. Didn’t dawn on the shill that perhaps it wasn’t justified given the DA’s decision not to prosecute.
Now if Jackson had just given Leake a reason, such as “I’m standing in traffic, guy, and I’d really like to talk to you in a safer spot” or any other plausible reason, there likely would have been no incident at all. Guess it was too much for Jackson to think rather than bark. And obviously Leake prefers reasons rather than barked orders, how disrespectful.
Further illustration of how people skills and respect of citizens slowly disappears in a para-militarized police force. I notice he was dressed similarly to how I dressed aboard cutter years ago. Shame it’s going this way.
4 Eric Hanneken // Jun 29, 2009 at 9:23 AM
From the Washington Post article:
Interesting. Why not?
5 jones // Jun 29, 2009 at 9:26 AM
The officer’s actions were fine, the man refused to get out of the car and an officer can order the driver and passengers out of a car and if they don’t get out they are interfering.
The problem is the police report, did the officer lie about being punched or did he just misremember like the EMT in Oklahoma?
Since the officer had no reason to lie because his use of force was justified I think he probably just misremembered.
6 Eric Hanneken // Jun 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM
jones: I am not a lawyer, so I won’t dispute what you say about the officer’s right to forcibly extract the driver from the car. Once that was accomplished, and the driver was standing next to his vehicle, the officer proceeded to punch him twice and tackle him. What was the officer’s justification for doing that?
7 Ariel // Jun 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Eric #6,
Because he can (get away with it, except he forgot the videotape). Notice that jones: 1) sidestepped the issue that the cop could have simply given the man a good reason to get out of the car without resorting to violence; and 2) jones forgot that we have two cops misremembering if he wants to bring up the EMT and the road rage cop. EMTs 1 Cops 2. Of course, the cops misremembering means they get a raise while somebody goes to jail. Good job, make those streets safe by escalating the violence first. Yep, I’m all for that.
jones also sidesteps questions regarding how alcoholism and DV runs higher in LEOs than the general population by about a factor of two. From stats gathered by Injustice Everywhere (and he shows where they come from and how he arrives at them) it seems they run higher in a number of areas including sexual assault, IIRC.
Saw Lakeview Terrace tonight. I think jones would have liked that cop, he used his authority. I had to explain that the good cops in the end only believed the couple because they weren’t LAPD and the good guy tricked the cop into revealing his gun. In real life, with his LAPD buddies responding, the couple would have both been arrested on multiple charges….
Bet that DA really appreciated Jackson’s misremembering, didn’t he jones? Gave him a really good case against Leake.
8 jones // Jun 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Aeriel, he doesn’t need to give him a reason, I told you so is a reason, it’s like when your kid says why can’t I do that and the parent says because I told you so.
I would also like to see the police report myself because from past experience we know articles on this website are usually less then accurate.
Alcoholism and DV? What the hell are you talking about, when did that issue ever come up.
9 xdamousex // Jun 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM
@jones: Punching someone in the face — twice — who has his hands raised in a submissive position is acceptable behavior to you? Why do you hold cops to such low standards?
In any event, I think the idea that a cop “misremembered” that, oh yeah, he didn’t hit me at all, and I tackled him into traffic, is a massive stretch of imagination.
10 Ariel // Jun 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM
jones #8,
It came up on another thread and was directed at you, had to do with innocence and guilt. Just simply pointing out that the police forces in America have a larger percentage of “guilty” people than the general population, but you can’t seem to weed them out well. But you can certainly come up with apologetics. Or sheer blindness.
And, jones, we aren’t your children and you aren’t our parents. But hey next time your children ask “why” just start punching them in the face and see where it gets you.
Jackson could have easily kept the stop from escalating into violence by offering a reason. It’s called “respect”, jones, something police seem to consider a one way street.
And it was the video, not the misremembering, that killed the DA’s case. You see, jones, good people, people who don’t think violence is a first resort but a last, would see that video and wonder why the cop didn’t just give him a good reason like “let’s get out of traffic before we get hit”. Then add the misremembering, and the cop really, really looks bad.
If you’re for police safety, then this wasn’t a good example was it? They both could have been killed.
Procedures need to change.
xdamousex #9,
It most certainly was a massive stretch of misremembering. Got the entire story wrong.
11 NYCPhotorights // Jun 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Jones: This attitude on the part of some cops that they are drill sergeants is what causes a lot of animosity. I am NOT your kid and I am NOT in the military. If cops want to be respected they should also give respect.
“Because I said so” is NOT an acceptable or satisfactory answer ! I do not click my heels and obey unconditionally just because someone tells me to jump!
12 xdamousex // Jun 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Well said. There would be a lot less cases like this if cops just offered the citizens they “serve and protect” a little bit of respect.
13 Scott // Jun 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Who really cares what jones says? He’s already proven himself to be a lunatic.
14 the bulldog // Jun 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM
jones! step away from your computer…cuz i said so!
15 MacK // Jun 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM
In truth the officer does need a reason to have an occupant exit a vehicle during a stop, “because I said so” does not pass constitutional muster. In this situation it is no different then if they knock on your door then order you out of your house “because they say so”.
This site is a perfect example of what is needed just like a cop saying to you “I want to see the photos in your camera” you are under no obligation to do that.
16 MacK // Jun 29, 2009 at 3:21 PM
“After watching the tape, prosecutors dropped all charges against Leake, including assault on a police officer, reckless conduct and failure to obey a lawful order.”
In the article it actually says the prosecution dropped the charges only after the defense subpoenaed the video, because they were hoping no one would see the true events of the stop.
Notice the failure to obey a lawful order charge was even dropped, because the order to get out of the car was not lawful.
17 xdamousex // Jun 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM
jones is not a lunatic, but he does give his fellow officers way too much of a benefit of a doubt.
18 Pinandpuller // Jun 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM
By jones’ logic I’m glad my dad isn’t a cop.
Just because!
19 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM
“misremember”?
So Jones, you believe that this cop could have forgotten what took place even though he likely wrote the report an hour or two after the incident?
If he is that senile, then he has no business carrying a badge and a gun.
20 Zack S // Jun 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM
You’d think it’d be hard to misremember if you got hit in the face verses someone else hitting you in the face.
Maybe he should have jumped straight to the taser, he could have avoided someone questioning whether the order was lawful or not, because hey, get this, not everything a police officer tells you to do is lawful.
http://www.officer.com/interactive/2009/06/17/lawful-vs-unlawful-orders/
http://chicagobikelaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/unlawful-orders-from-police.html
http://bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-583-19000-1,00.html
21 10-8 // Jun 30, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Once again Jones is 100 percent correct. You people still don’t realize you don’t have the right to ignore a police officer. If you don’t think his actions are lawful, comply with the officer then challenge the actions later in the proper forum.
22 Scott // Jun 30, 2009 at 8:28 AM
“You people still don’t realize you don’t have the right to ignore a police officer. ”
Uh, yes you do.
Once again you pigs show you have no idea what the laws that you pretend to uphold actually are. But then, I guess if you were smart you’d do something productive for society instead of extorting individuals for their hard earned money.
23 Michaelk42 // Jun 30, 2009 at 8:27 PM
@10-8 Are you jones’ sockpuppet or just auditioning for the role?
24 Ariel // Jun 30, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Scott #10,
Unfortunately your link doesn’t work unless one signs up to FindLaw, which I may do.
10-8 & Jones,
Once again you both ignore that Jackson still had an option before resorting to violence. Are both of you taught to just escalate violence because your authority should never be questioned, that respect is a one-way street?
While you’re arguing that Leake had no right to ask why, notice that he is free and Jackson is being “reviewed”. Really backs up your argument doesn’t it?
25 jones // Jun 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Aerial, the officer is on PAID leave because of an unrelated shooting.
If by “other options” your talking about a taser I don’t know if he had one. I agree, when he refused to get out I would have given him a warning that he was going to be tased and if he still didn’t get out I would have tasered him.
26 10-8 // Jun 30, 2009 at 10:27 PM
“you pigs show you have no idea what the laws”
Wow, he called me a pig. I’m crushed. Like that’s never happened before. Like I’ve never heard a smartmouth punk who knows nothing about the law use that taunt on me before.
Here’s a cold dose of reality from the real world from someone who both knows and enforces the law: the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the order is unlawful. If you don’t meet that standard, which happens in far more than 99.99 percent of prosecutions, you lose. In the extremely rare occasion when you can successfully show the order was unlawful, more than 99.99 percent of the time, the police officer will be protected by qualified immunity.
So your chances of prevailing on this point are about the same as the chances of holding a winning lottery ticket in your hand while simultaneously being struck by lightning.
If you actually think you can successfully challenge a police officer’s order to step out of a vehicle during a lawful stop as somehow “unlawful” in a pleading, all you have proven is you’ve never stepped into a courtroom in your life.
27 Ariel // Jun 30, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Jones #25,
You are a walking parody. So the only option was another form of violence? How about just give the guy a reason “why” or are you too wrapped up in being violent above all else?
By the way, had Jackson said “for safety” and “I need us off the highway” and Leake had still refused to get out of the car, I’d have no problem with force. Reasonably applied, emphasis on using reason.
The “review” I was referring to, and why it was in scare quotes, was regarding the attack on Leake. It’s in the article, read for comprehension. And you might understand why I used scare quotes.
28 Ariel // Jun 30, 2009 at 10:39 PM
So in other words, 10-8, the system is stacked in your favor, and you know you can do as you please. You don’t have to worry about lawful or unlawful because you are the State. You must be so proud.
Don’t forget to smile for the camera.
29 JoyLeaf // Jul 1, 2009 at 2:01 AM
I believe the officer’s veracity is also under question in the shooting. If he were to testify to what he says he did, in the sure to be filed civil suit, a lawyer could easily use his misremembering this incident to help the jury see that he is a violent bully who escalates when there is no need to and his account of events is not to be trusted.
30 Jay // Jul 1, 2009 at 2:53 AM
The attitudes of jones and 10-8 are astounding and quite frankly, disgusting. This a forum for conversation and the moment either of them feel threatened, they lash out, usually violently.
I really hope they aren’t LEOs.
31 Cherise // Jul 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I have experienced a similar encounter with the police (Los Angeles Sheriffs & Inglewood PD) except it was 5 male officers vs. me (a 110 lb female). I was accused of being the aggressor and the one who attacked the officers causing them to attack me, which is totally false!! I’ve been fighting my case for over 2 years now & I can tell you 1st hand that police are crooked & corrupt & will do ANYTHING to cover up their misconduct!
Please take a look at my story… http://batteredbypd.wordpress.com
and you will read 1st hand what I’ve been going through behind the lies police tell!!!
32 max // Jul 1, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Yeah, I think this is the problem, police officers feeling they are above the law and that they can get away with all their shit because they are police officers and noone to prove them wrong.
They should be the one having to prove all their cases with cameras. There has been so many cases in the news now of police officers lying that we should mandate having recorders on and unless they can prove their case on video their case should be dismissed.
jones and 10-8 seems to be abuser cops like many others. My fiancee was just abused and harassed the other day by transit police officers for no reason and got a ridiculous ticket. They threatened to take her to jail for disorderly conduct for no valid reason. We filed a complain the same day with the internal affair and now it seems that according to our lawyer if we were to drop the complain to the internal affair they would drop the charge against my fiancee… They are very upset we filed a complain. Such BS and abuse of power.
so yeah, I think we should start watching the police and hold them responsible for their actions. The burden of proven civilian people to be guilty should be on the police with hard evidence. There has been enough cases of officers lying and abusing power to warrant saying that their words have no value anymore.
33 David // Apr 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM
I’m beginning to think that 10-8 is a seventy-five pound twelve year old who’s read too many True Detective magazines.
Leave a Comment