December 12th, 2003

929 EMAILS TO THE DA WERE SENT BY OUR SUPPORTERS..
YOUR VOICE HAS BEEN HEARD!

Dear Friends:

The Cobb County DA has responded to some of your inquiries on the Surafel case and the decision of the Cobb County grand jury that necessary force was used on Surafel. We have taken this opportunity to forward you our preliminary response to Mr. Head. We appreciate you continuing support. Over 929 of you have emailed Mr. Head and we thank you for adding your voice to ours in pursuit of justice.

Below please find the District Attorney's comments to our emails and our paragraph-by-paragraph response to his letter.

**************************************

DA's Comment:
Let me begin my saying foremost that I am required to follow the law, both individually, and as the District Attorney for the Cobb Judicial Circuit. Under Georgia law, sheriffs and peace officers may use deadly force when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others.

Our Response:
The key word here is "reasonably". According to the police, they had peppered sprayed Surafel already. He had put up one hand to deflect the pepper spray. That left him with one hand to hold the block of wood. Was it reasonable then for them to start shooting?

DA's Comment:
Therefore, the questions I must first address in any case involving the use of deadly force by a law enforcement official is whether the use of such force was authorized under the law. The investigation in this case showed that Mr. Assaminew did have a device which, when used offensively against a person is likely to result in serious bodily injury, and he did pose an immediate threat of physical violence to the officers.

Our Response:
Key phrase is: "When used offensively". Of course if you start pounding someone with a block of wood, it would cause serious bodily harm. But you would have to stand over them and keep on pounding while the victim offers no resistance. The question is, was Surafel wielding a heavy post with one arm? And was that so threatening that they had no choice but to shoot him? So, here is the scenario, a pepper sprayed man trying to swing a block of wood that would weigh, at least, 18 pounds, with one arm held up to deflect pepper spray? How is that "an immediate threat of physical violence to the officers"? The question is, police are trained to negotiate with people who hold GUNS. GUNS! Are we being told that two trained police officers could not outmaneuver Surafel? There are details missing here, and a minute by minute accounting should be provided.

DA's Comment:
In July 2002, Mr. Assaminew was involved in an incident at a local bookstore where he went into the stock room and made improper contact with a female employee. When she ran out of the stock room, Mr. Assaminew followed after her. When another employee of the store attempted to intervene, Mr. Assaminew threatened him with the leg from a table. Four police officers arrived and they were able to arrest him without the use of deadly force. Mr. Assaminew was charged with aggravated assault, sexual battery and simple battery. When the case was ready for indictment, the employee that had been threatened with the table leg could not be located. The case was transferred to the State Court of Cobb County for prosecution of the misdemeanor offenses and he pled guilty to simple battery and was sentenced to 12 months probation.

Our Response:
Interesting. Here's the other version: Surafel was at the bookstore and was going through another "episode" that is the unfortunate symptom of Bipolar Disorder. He was disoriented. He thought he knew this young woman and approached her to hug her. She, of course and rightly so, resisted. Surafel could not understand her reticence so he kept saying to her, "Hey, it's me. It's me." He did have his shirt open. She got scared and started to cry. This "woke up" Surafel from his disorientation and he stopped in his tracks. Co workers who heard her cries cornered him and police were called. Surafel then did grab the leg of a table to defend himself because he felt attacked. He was pepper sprayed and then tackled to the ground.

Those of you who have seen the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" or those of you who have loved ones afflicted with Bipolar know that when the "episodes" start, it takes a person to a whole other world. The person starts having conversations with imaginary people… starts to think that everyone is after him/her. Those of us who know Surafel KNOW what kind of a person he was. Before he was diagnosed with Bipolar in 2000 he HAD NO POLICE RECORD. He comes from a good family. Read some of his poetry and see if you can conclude that this was a career criminal with a shady past. Read his interviews. That is why we his friends are so passionate about this. If he wanted to intentionally cause this young woman harm, would he do so in a crowded bookstore?? This is what we want to bring across. Surafel was far from the hardened criminal the DA is trying to portray here.

The part that the DA did not mention here is that after his arrest, Surafel was taken to jail and abused for FOUR days. His finger was broken. He was in his cell naked. His wrists bled from the tightness of the handcuffs. For FOUR days the family was not notified of his whereabouts. He was not taking his medication, so his condition got progressively worse. Finally, the Cobb County cops took him to a mental institution where he was given medication and he then called his family. The ordeal of what he went through during those four days is harrowing.

Listen, everyone thinks that his/her friend, son, brother, daughter is always innocent and blameless. But in this case there are layers to the story and each layer needs to be examined not selectively, but very carefully.

DA's Comment:
There were a series of incidents leading up to this shooting, but I will not attempt to put all the details in this response. Basically, this most recent incident started with Mr. Assaminew attacking the manager of a motel that morning with a steel pipe, and then returning to the home where he had been staying and attacking two individuals there with the pipe. When the police arrived Mr. Assaminew had a large four by four and tried to hit the officers with it. They requested that he put the club down several times. They then used pepper spray on Mr. Assaminew in an attempt to subdue him, but it appeared to have no affect on him. As he continued advancing toward the officers he swung the club at the officers several times and they fired their weapon. However, he continued to advance, swinging the club. The officers continued to back up and continued to fire until Mr. Assaminew fell to the ground. There were several witnesses to the incident.

Our Response:
There are several questions that this paragraph raises. In the bookstore case, backup was obviously called since four cops showed up. Did the two police officers here request backup? Initially police had stated that when they came at him the first time, he turned away and was heading to his car. If so, he could have posed NO immediate threat to them, so they could have followed him from a distance and waited for back up. What was the negotiation process like? Again, police negotiate with people who hold hostages at gunpoint. A block of wood is a far cry from a gun. It is also procedure for a supervisor to be called. Was one called on Sept. 16? Did the two police officers know that Surafel had a mental health condition? It was certainly on his record. Did they have that information handy? What are the procedures when police negotiate with a mentally ill individual? Were all the procedures followed?

DA's Comment:
Their statements all indicated that Mr. Assaminew refused to comply with the directions of the officer and that he was attacking the officers with the four by four club. They confirmed that the officers were backing away from Mr. Assaminew when they began to fire their weapons. They also stated Mr. Assaminew was acting irrationally, never said anything, and had a wild look in his eyes.

Our Response:
This last sentence is very telling of a mental illness symptom. What more obvious clue were the police looking for that they were dealing with someone who had mental illness? Are police officers not trained to spot such a glaringly obvious symptom? Surafel did not threaten them, he only refused to do as instructed, i.e. drop the piece of wood. Given the nature of his illness, he did not have the full capability to evaluate and act the way they expected. The bottom line is, WERE THEY SO AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE? That is the crucial question. What does the DA mean by "attacking"? How many times did he swing at them? From what distance? IS IT TRUE THAT initially he had turned around to leave and the police came after him from behind? A minute by minute account of this case will reveal a totally different story.

DA's Comment:
It is the policy of this office to present every case where officers have used deadly force, to the grand jury for their review. If the grand jury determines the use of such force was not justified, then this office would determine whether to seek an indictment against the officer. If the grand jury determines the use of force was allowable under Georgia law, then there is no further action to be taken.

Our Response:
We quote from the support letter Amnesty International wrote on behalf of Surafel: "As you may be aware, Amnesty International is a worldwide non-governmental organization that promotes awareness of and adherence to human rights enshrined in international human rights treaties and instruments. One of the areas of our work concerns the use of force by law enforcement officials.

Amnesty International is concerned that the officers' use of deadly force in this case may have been disproportionate to the threat that Assaminew posed and would thereby constitute a violation of international standards regarding the use of force by police as outlined in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms. These standards provide that officers should "use only the minimum amount of force required for the performance of their duties, and that any force used must be proportionate to the threat posed and designed to minimize damage or injury." The standards further provide that firearms may only be used in self-defense or to defend others against an "imminent threat of death or serious injury" and "only when less extreme measures are insufficient to achieve these objectives" and that "in any event, intentional use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable to protect life."

Amnesty International joins other human rights organizations and more than 5,000 individual signatories calling for a full and open investigation into the shooting death of Surafel Assaminew. We would appreciate knowing the results of such an investigation when they are released, and whether it was determined that a breach of department protocol occurred in this case."

DA's Comment:
This case was presented to the grand jury. Based upon the information provided by the independent witnesses, the physical evidence at the scene showing the officers were backing up as they were firing and their statements, the grand jury determined the use of force was allowable under Georgia law. This was not a verdict, but simply a finding by the grand jury. Additionally, it was not "leaked" to the press but was available to anyone who wanted to know the results.

Our Response:
The finding was in no uncertain terms leaked. It is a classic move. It was first leaked to the editors at the Marietta Journal, and then to the reporter at the Atlanta Journal Constitution. They both got a call FROM THE DA's office a few hours before deadline — about 4:15 p.m. This was not a "leak" it was a LEAK. The office actually CONTACTED the reporters without informing the family at all. It was calculated and standard procedure. In fact, the decision by the grand jury a day after the successful candle light vigil may not be so coincidental. All indications were, based on specific statements to Surafel's family by the Cobb County District Attorney's office, was that the case would NOT be presented to the grand jury until later this month or early in 2004. According to a recent Atlanta - Journal Constitution article, the "county grand jury evaluates all police shootings, and Assaminew's case will be reviewed later this month, said a spokesman for Head. A Cobb grand jury has not indicted a police officer involved in a fatal shooting in at least 25 years. There have been five fatal police shootings in Cobb this year."

DA's Comment:
It is always tragic when someone dies. It is especially tragic when it involves law enforcement and someone who is acting in an irrational or mentally unstable manner. While each of us may have handled the situation in a manner different from the officers on the scene, the analysis of the event by this office must be through the application of existing law, not on what someone else may have done under the circumstances. Based upon the evidence and the actions of Mr. Assaminew that day, it does appear the use of deadly force by the police officers was allowable under Georgia Law.

Our Response:
We are sure the DA will understand if we pursue answers to the million questions we still have and that he will indulge us a little bit more. In talking to the Marietta Journal, DA Patrick Head said something to the effect, "Why can't people drop their weapons when they are told to do so?" This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of mental illness, and we hope our friends at the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill will address his comments. That sentence says a lot more about the DA than he realizes.

So, let's lay out all the details including the track records of the two police officers. The NAACP just this week met with the Cobb County Chief of police to ask about the five fatal shootings by police. In one case the police admitted to actually negotiating with someone wielding a shotgun. What are the details of that case?

The finding raises more questions than it answers, and now that the investigation is over, we are certain both the DA and the police will be able to freely answer all our questions and provide us with all the details.

Remember: Surafel is not another statistic.

Some of you have likewise responded to the DA's letter. Posted below are a few messages. We thank you for standing with us and voicing your strong desire to see justice served...

.................

Sir,
thank you for the prompt reply but you must allow me to differ from you in my conclusions. Shooting an unarmed young man dead is not justifiable by any means. Police officers are trained to cope with difficult situations and to deal with threats of all levels. While I let the allegations you affirm as facts as they are (without agreeing with their veracity) a person carrying a stick cannot present a clear and present danger to armed policemen. It reeminds me of trhe Guniean Diallo shot dead so brutally by the NYPD. I see a travesty of justice here and you are not doing good by denying this. Justice denied is Justice subverted and in the end the truth will out. So, I reject your reply and denounce the cover up. thank you sir.

from: Paris, France

.................

message: Mr. District Attorney,
I am appalled to hear that you and the grand jury can justify the murder of Surafel Assaminew. You say that Surafel was wielding a four-by-four wooden plank and was not responding to pepper spray. He had a "wild look in his eyes." If the officers were able to assess that he did not seem to be in the right state of mind, and they KNEW that all Surafel had was a piece of wood, why in God's name did they feel it imperative to shoot Surafel multiple times at close range? I don't care what his previous offenses were. As officers of the law, they did not shoot to DISARM, as they should have. They shot to KILL. They say that they could tell that he was mentally unstable. Do the police in Cobb County not get trained on how to handle mentally unstable people? Or are they trained to shoot to kill them? Or do the police officers not have the clarity of mind to aim to disarm (that means to shoot a person in the arm, perhaps in Surafel's case, the arm that was wielding the wooden plank) when faced with a dangerous situation? I am truly appalled by the state of the Cobb County police and justice system.

from: Atlanta, GA USA

.................

Now it is Surafel, tomorrow it could be me, then may be you and/or your too. Who know?

Please do the right think, not the right thing to do becuase of the wrong reasons.

Thank you.

from: Centreville, VA 20120

.................

My ancestors immigrated here in the late 1600s. Later, they intermarried among the residents of Cobb County. Some of my relatives were forced upon the infamous Trail of Tears out of your county.

That you would mercilessly shoot down Surafel and then hold unaccountable those who did the shooting is unforgiveable.

from: San Francisco, CA

...............................

Click here to also read the report of a retired police officer/investigator and her encounter with Cobb County police regarding the case of Surafel Assaminew.

...........................................................