IS IT TRUE June 19, 2013

1. The ride-along program has been around for years. There is a liability waiver that has to be signed before anyone can participate in the program.
   Everyday citizens participate in it, people who attend the Citizen’s Academy participate in it, U of E students participate, and so do students who go to USI. USI was one of the organizers of this event. If the folks at USI think it is ok for their students to do a ride-along, then they should not be asking why someone else was allowed to do it.
   People have said there are pictures of the officer beating Fox. Those pictures were sent to the media and posted on FB as the proof of the “beating”. The pictures do not show anything but the officer kneeling on him and then standing with him.
   The ride-along that has caused such “concern” can be clearly seen sitting in the car. The funny part is you can see that he did not even take his seatbelt off during the arrest.
   Once those pictures were dismissed as proof of police brutality, people started talking about all the videos that were taken during the arrest. There has not been ONE single video of the arrest. If there was a video that proved brutality, it would be out by now. There might be video. But just like the pictures, they do not show the officer doing the things Evidon said the officer did. Since they do not show those things, they will never be shown to the public.
   There have been many witness accounts of what happened. Even the witnesses are giving different version of what happened. If they all saw it at the same time, why are they saying different things?
   The original allegation was that a severe beating took place. The beating left Evidon with “extensive injuries”. Those allegations were quickly disputed and photographic evidence was presented that called into question the accuracy of the claims. Some people have said they will believe the person who provides video supporting their version. I think that if you are going to go on FB and make claims the police continually banged your head on the pavement and punched you dozens of times, it is on YOU to prove that it DID happened, not on the police to prove that it did not happen.
   If the only thing you have to criticize the police about after all of that is to question the ride-along program, than I think the EPD does not have too much to worry about.

   • “There might be video. But just like the pictures, they do not show the officer doing the things Evidon said the officer did. Since they do not show those things, they will never be shown to the public.”

     That’s pure conjecture. As for the variations in witness testimony… I see none. Any variations can be attributed to different perspectives seeing the events unfold from different angles and different levels of completeness. You make is sound like one witness is saying aliens attacked in the middle of it, while another said there was a stampede of buffalo, while yet a third saw Mary Magdalene riding a unicorn.

     As for photo evidence of the injuries, Evidon has released some that show the front of face injuries and shoulder injuries, but of course do not show the back of the head injuries he claims to have sustained:

     https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1016154_555707054485418_531817590_n.jpg

     https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1013652_555707057818751_1783720993_n.jpg

     https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1000882_555707051152085_304165547_n.jpg

     • Wow, that looks like a total beat down! Lets get real. If he was punched 30 times, there would be a lot more significant injuries.
       REMEMBER he was shirtless, intoxicated, and had been twirling fire all evening. The road rash to his shoulder would be consistent with the officers account of the incident, not Fox’s.
       Where are all these witnesses and photos and videos we all heard about?????

       • He was ALLEGEDLY intoxicated. No corroborating evidence I know of has been presented to support that claim other than the officer’s word on the matter; furthermore, the fact Evidon had been twirling fire on a stage supports his claim he was not intoxicated, as do all the eyewitness accounts.

         While the road rash in isolation does not prove the officer’s guilt, the road rash on the shoulder does support Evidon’s claim of having been beaten. Your claim this doesn’t support his story is just false.

         As for any lack of video, that’s already been discussed. I don’t know who you heard from who told you there was a plethora of video evidence, but no one I know ever made that spurious claim. I know Evidon’s camp were hoping for some video to surface and were making pleas to the public through their FB page for anyone with such evidence to come forward, but no one ever claimed to have video I know of.

         These rabid and desperate Hail Mary attacks and taunts about lack of video evidence are similar in character and demeanor to the talking points that surfaced after the SWAT team threw stun grenades in the Granny’s living room. Anyone who questioned those actions were subjected to jeers and taunts more appropriate for a frathouse or football pitch than a public forum where public servants have been called into serious question. It’s further evidence some police are more interested in protecting their fraternity than seeking the truth. Chief Bolin’s FB post lends more evidence to the idea there is a poisonous culture of “protect our own at all costs” within the EPD.

       • The ride along program is a great public relations tool used by the EPD for decades. I took my first ride along nearly 40years ago. It is now a joyride, but a tool to expand the knowledge of citizens of how the police department works. The civilian taking the ride along is fully aware of the dangers and signs a waiver. And I was there when an officer was injured. His partner’s response was to be protect the injured officer first. The CCO’s bias is clearly evident.

         • Agreed. I was actually surprised that the editor is so misinformed about the ride along program. Its been in existence for a VERY long time. Very sarcastic in assuming that its some kind of joy ride. Its very educational and people who participate learn a lot about what the job is about. It gives them opportunity to ask questions and observe officers in their daily routines.

         • We do not and did not dispute the PR value of riding along with an officer. What we did question was having a ride along at midnight in Goosetown and what potential liability the City of Evansville may have if the person riding along were caught in some cross fire and injured. It is one thing to go on patrol in broad daylight on the east side. It is quite another to be on patrol on the southside at midnight. And by the way, the ride along partner was the officer’s brother. Do you really think that was a PR activity?

         • Editor, do you think the average citizen desiring to learn about the challenges faced by local LE would get a better feel for the job by riding along during a day shift on the East side or during 2nd or 3rd shift in Jimtown or the South side?

         • Who are you to decide who and when and where these citizens ride to observe what the daily lives of an officer consist of. Are you suggesting that they only observe the east side in the daylight? Is our city so bad that it is considered only safe in the middle of the day and only on the east side????? That’s ridiculous! Many of these ride a longs do so in hopes of some day becoming officers themselves. How do you know what his brothers intentions are?
           As stated before this is a great program and has been very successful for years.

     • You were not there and neither was I. I can speculate, you can speculate, anyone can post anything they want even if they were not there. That has been done hundreds of times by people who were not there but beleive what Evidon says.
       What I do know is that from the very start of this, Evidon and his followers have went on and on about videos that show police brutality, yet they have not shown one single video.
       It is sad that people like your are so quick to judge the officer. Especially when the people who are bashing him can’t even provide the proof they claim to possesss that could clear all of this up in 60 seconds.

       • “What I do know is that from the very start of this, Evidon and his followers have went on and on about videos that show police brutality.”

         Give me an example. Pull a quote from somewhere to support that.

         I don’t mind entertaining the idea that this officer is innocent. If that’s where the evidence leads, then that’s the truth we all must accept. Surely you can admit the opposite must also be true. I have done my best so far to remain on the fence about this and suspend final judgment until all evidence is in and a jury trial is complete. If a jury finds Evidon not guilty of PI and resisting based on the evidence, then this officer’s word must surely be questioned, even by his FOP brothers.

         • Answer this ….. Mr. Linzy.

           WHERE IS MR.EVIDON’S compaint filed? If I would have been falsely arrested, and savagely beaten , I would be in the Evansville Police Department filling a complaint!
           Instead………Cricket, Cricket.

           • It may be right there in the same evidence bag with the breathalyzer test results.

         • Troll, I’m sure his lawyer is advising him on the best course of action there. My understanding is this officer could be liable in civil court if it comes out he was willfully in violation of Evidon’s Fourth Amendment rights. He could file a complaint with the EPD, but I doubt that course of action looks as attractive now that they have sided with their guy publicly and even the police Chief himself has taken to publicly ridiculing the allegations. My guess is, they will settle the criminal trial first and then go from there.

         • Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. If I were the arresting officer and someone drug my name through the mud, you better believe I would be suing in civil court.

           Keep paying toward his fund all the while Mr. Fire Fox isn’t pursing a formal complaint. Keep the money rolling in. Im sure he appreciates everyone paying for his drunken trash talking tirade.

         • From a poster on the Justice for foxfire FB page:
           I’m sure that when you’re getting thrown around, punched, slammed against a vehicle, thrown to the ground, flipped over, and get your head slammed against the curb, it’s difficult to tell exactly how many times you’re “being struck” as opposed to “feeling the car hood/street asphalt/curb slam against you”.

           I know someone who witnessed the whole thing, and he said it escalated extremely fast. Everyone was in shock, and that’s going to make it difficult for someone—including the victim— to give a perfect accounting of each move.

           I look forward to the video I’ve heard about being released, watching Mattingly do his own perp walk, and asshole-in-charge Bolin having to eat his words. And maybe (fingers crossed) being forced to step down.

           It talks about the video that does not exist. The posters passes judgement on the officer even though he admitts he was not even at the festival. This is just one of many posts that give a “witness account” they heard from an unnamed person. The poster calls people names because of something they did not even see.

         • Maybe you should be asking yourself why the cops would be assumed to be in the wrong by anyone. Regardless what happened in this incident, it is clear the EPD has a serious PR problem and aren’t making it any better by choosing to leave the officer on duty, not ask for an independent investigation, and attack eyewitnesses who are credible and respected members of their communities.

           The comment you paraphrase above is just one person’s early, possibly ill-informed, assumption of there being a video. I fail to see how that automatically exonerates Mattingly or proves Evidon’s guilt.

         • You asked for a direct quote and you were given one. Not a paraphrase. That was cut and pasted fro one of the posters for justice for Firefox. If his post in misinformation then they have a responsibility to remove it
           Anyway Mr.Linzy, you’re not interested in the truth you just are interested in the argument. As usual.

         • If it’s a direct quote, quotation marks are an advisable way to reproduce it. I’m interested in the truth. I enjoy a lively debate, but I abhor wallowing in the rhetorical mud with people who can’t tell the difference between arguments which strike at the heart of a matter and those that are so tangential as to be unimportant. A handful of random people expressing hopes to see video or spreading rumors of existing video belong squarely in the latter group.

           Who cares what people think who weren’t there? If you simply try to focus on the eyewitness statements and the stories of the people involved, we might actually get closer to the truth. If you insist upon distracting from the facts by empowering rumors, we’ll get nowhere…but I assume you know that, hence your fixation.

         • Fixation coming from BLO (brad linzy observer) pleeeease!!!! That is actually funny coming from your over opinionated self.

           I guess you have all the time in the world to argue on every subject between guitar sales. For someone who is dripping with so called knowledge, I’m surprised you didn’t have a bigger drive to …… never mind,

   • “There might be video. But just like the pictures, they do not show the officer doing the things Evidon said the officer did. Since they do not show those things, they will never be shown to the public.”

     That’s pure conjecture. As for the variations in witness testimony… I see none. Any variations can be attributed to different perspectives seeing the events unfold from different angles and different levels of completeness. You make is sound like one witness is saying aliens attacked in the middle of it, while another said there was a stampede of buffalo, while yet a third saw Mary Magdalene riding a unicorn.

     As for photo evidence of the injuries, Evidon has released some that show the front of face injuries and shoulder injuries, but of course do not show the back of the head injuries he claims to have sustained:

     https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1016154_555707054485418_531817590_n.jpg

   • https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1013652_555707057818751_1783720993_n.jpg

   • https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1000882_555707051152085_304165547_n.jpg

2. Totally agree!.

3. Poll needs a third option:

   Government subsidies for private business should be abolished. Politicians should not be able to choose favored businesses to support with tax dollars.

   • Agree with the comment about govt. subsidies but I doubt it will ever change.

   • Option two allows for them to equally share in a ZERO subsidy.

4. I agree that the lack of a tax incentive for the privatly developed hotel is wrong

5. Who else was at Mr. McNeely’s meeting at the Democrat woodshed in addition to the 6 City council members referenced above?

6. A political caucus has nothing to do with Precinct Committeemen. It involves the members of a particular governing body. This caucus was perfectly legal and correct. See the attached letter and link.
   http://www.in.gov/pac/files/12-INF-03.pdf

   • Absolutely a caucus is a meeting of the political Party, comprised of the leadership and a delegation of that Party. In local caucuses, that “delegation” is comprised of Precinct Committeemen.

     Maybe the Democratic Party does business differently, but in a Republican caucus, only Republican delegates (PCs or other duly elected delegates) are allowed into the caucus rooms. If people are present who are not members of the delegation, any votes on the caucus business can be called into question.

     Upon reading this PDF, I can only conclude the entire question has been misunderstood. This letter actually SUPPORTS Al Lindsey’s decision to stay away from the meeting.

     • Brad, there is a difference between a caucus of precinct officials called for the purpose of filling a vacancy in an elected office, and a caucus called for the purpose of discussion between elected officials of the same party.

       Two different animals. Two different sets of rules. And the rules apply equally to both Republicans and Democrats in Indiana. That is, Republicans on a city council can have a private caucus to discuss certain matters just the same as Democrat council members can caucus. It happens all over Indiana. Just so there are no “official actions” decided by a majority of what may represent a quorum of the council.

       Read this: http://www.icemiller.com/publications/79/actionlines07-03.pdf

       • I still don’t like it. It smells to high heaven. As Al said there a great chance one agenda/POV or another will be pushed or have peer pressure applied. It should be discussed in a public forum.

         • To both of you:

           I’m not opining on the civic appropriateness or anything else regarding members of one party in Indiana holding a caucus for discussing specifically allowed items related to the council or commission of which they are members.

           I simply pointed out that the caucus that was held last evening, along with many others of the same type throughout Indiana, are not the same sort of caucus, nor are they governed by the same rules as caucuses of precinct officials held to fill vacancies in elected offices. The previous discussions confused the issue by assuming the only caucus is the type attended by precinct officials.

           Also, I am not questioning nor opining on Al Lindsey’s choice or reasons for not attending last evening’s caucus. Actually, I do not assume, as some of you did, that his reason was solely the result of his experience relative to a certain impromptu gathering following a city council meeting in a bar a year or so ago.

           Instead, it may be that Councilman Lindsey may in fact be motivated by his 2011 mayoral running mate’s pledge not to call or host city council caucuses for reasons expressed during that campaign.

           I also am not commenting one way or the other on those reasons … just pointing out what may be the obvious.

         • “I simply pointed out that the caucus that was held last evening, along with many others of the same type throughout Indiana, are not the same sort of caucus, nor are they governed by the same rules as caucuses of precinct officials held to fill vacancies in elected offices. ”

           Agreed. I concede that point.

       • I’m not necessarily siding with the opinion that such a caucus of a Party or coalition is “illegal” or violates Open Door Laws, although that has yet to be really tested in a meaningful way in Indiana, I am questioning its decorum both politically and in principle regardless of the law. I think Al is right to stay away. Besides, he obviously feels he is not within this coalition on this issue, so it’s a smart move to stay away and distance himself from any public backlash that might result from the appearance of insider dealing and impropriety.

         • Repeating, so that the message appears under your post as well.

           To both of you:

           I’m not opining on the civic appropriateness or anything else regarding members of one party in Indiana holding a caucus for discussing specifically allowed items related to the council or commission of which they are members.

           I simply pointed out that the caucus that was held last evening, along with many others of the same type throughout Indiana, are not the same sort of caucus, nor are they governed by the same rules as caucuses of precinct officials held to fill vacancies in elected offices. The previous discussions confused the issue by assuming the only caucus is the type attended by precinct officials.

           Also, I am not questioning nor opining on Al Lindsey’s choice or reasons for not attending last evening’s caucus. Actually, I do not assume, as some of you did, that his reason was solely the result of his experience relative to a certain impromptu gathering following a city council meeting in a bar a year or so ago.

           Instead, it may be that Councilman Lindsey may in fact be motivated by his 2011 mayoral running mate’s pledge not to call or host city council caucuses for reasons expressed during that campaign.

       • Bill

         Please do not encourage the Troll. Ever since his Ron Paul golden dollars were taken from him he has had his libertarian underwear all wadded up

7. Once the policeman says your under arrest, and you don’t do what the police officer said then to me all bets are off..if the person under arrest fight back because he thinks he a bad ass.. then the police needs to put street justice in affect and show them what they can do when your a BAD BOY..maybe the next time your say yes sir officer… they NEED to whip more and talk less..Don’t disrespect out police..

   • Yes, and always take a cop’s word for it over dozens of witnesses. Your passive perpetual sheep scenario could create a scenario where cops could do anything at all. Oh wait….

     • Dozens? This gets bigger and better all the time. I think I have seen 3, maybe 4 people post anything that resembles an eyewitness account. The rest are the ” I heard from my neighbors hairdressers preacher that the officer beat the guy.”

       • I have thus far seen 4 credible eyewitness accounts. One of those, Gretchin Irons’ account on 14 News (which seemed to have been cut unreasonably short in that segment), explicitly states the officer “bodyslammed” Evidon on the concrete, while another, that of Prof. Braysmith, told of the initial “punch” or “elbow” to the face that began the physical melee. There were two others, one of which is useful in corroborating Evidon’s sobriety.

         There may be others who are prepared to testify who are reserving commentary online. I don’t know.

         • Why haven’t there been any eyewitness accounts to defend the LEO? Did I miss them? Surely one of the neighbors who called and complained about the noise, was peeking out their windows to watch and see what happened when the police showed up? Not trying to stir the pot, I just haven’t seen anything about it.

     • Complying with police orders does not mean you’re passive or a ‘sheep’. It means you’re smart. Newsflash: In nearly 100% of cases ratcheting up the rhetoric or attempting to physically engage with a LEO will end badly for you.

       There are myriad ways to address legitimate abuses of LEO authority, up to and including retaining counsel and bankrupting the municipality they work for and getting them thrown in jail. All of these ways should be pursued after the fact, when there is no physical danger to anybody involved.

       If you think you are being treated wrongly or poorly by a LEO, you should be polite, say as little as possible, document the interaction if possible, and comply with orders if at all possible. Then, after the dust settles, game on.

       What you should NOT do is tell an officer to get fucked and then engage in fisitcuffs. It may make you an internet sensation and a legend to all your faceypage fans, but it is NOT smart.

       • I agreed up until your assumption that he told the officer to get fucked.

       • Oh and also you’re wrong. Rodney King went limp and was nearly beaten to death. I don’t believe Los Angeles was “bankrupted.” He actually got a piddly settlement if you ask me and the dirty cops got off Scott free. I’m white if you’re wondering.

         • Are you assuming he did NOT tell the officer to get fucked? If so, why?

           I frequently respond on a professional basis with local LE during the course of my workday, and am constantly amazed at how the general public reacts to a LEO doing their job. Being told to “fuck off” might actually be one of the nicer things that LEO hears during the course of typical day.

           Rodney King clearly does not represent every case of citizen vs. law enforcement, so using him as your baseline example is silly. Besides, he received a $4 million dollar settlement for getting a beatdown that resulted in only temporary physical injury. Maybe you hang in different income circles than I do, but $4 million is a good chunk of change. Not sure if theysuit money is what he used to buy the cocaine and PCP he later overdosed on, but I’m sure if budgeted wisely it could have lasted a long time…

         • And yet he died broke and drug addicted. By the way he got about $3 Million and burned through it in less than 10 years. The cops were very wrong that night but money did not save Rodney King from himself. He would have burned through $100 Million. Some things do not change.

       • Amen, Delta Bravo. This Evidon character and his artsy liberal buddies just want attention.

         • I don’t know if I would go that far, Joe. They are likely just gentle souls, and like most Americans have never really had to tolerate or experience even a modest amount of physical contact or rough handling. To a gentle soul, a very standard officer takedown does indeed look like a ‘body slam’, and an officer using his/her forearm to keep a grounded person from turning around and biting them looks like a horrific elbow smash.

           In reality, officers practice these takedowns and techniques on each other dozens or hundreds of times during the course of their initial training and sustainment training. There may be a few bumps and scrapes, but takedown techniques are VERY low on the physical contact spectrum. A person who was TRULY punched 30 times and had their head smashed into the pavement would be literally unrecognizeable from soft tissue trauma and the resultant bruising and swelling. They would also likely be blind due to retinal damage and ocular fractures, have all or most of their teeth broken out, etc.

           Again, a gentle soul would be privy to none of this information, and might be shocked to their core to witness such a (relatively) minor scuffle. I suspect it is more a lack of understanding about the reality of physical force in our world than any real attempt to garner attention.

         • Well said Delta Bravo. Thank you

         • Typical right wing idiot. Anyone who doesn’t look walk and talk just like you is just a stupid hippie liberal.

8. I am stunned that the editor of the CCO would say that the southside is so dangerous that the only people that should be down there after midnight are the cops and the people that live there.
   If the Sculpt EVV people only knew how bad Haynie’s Corner was at that time if night, they would not have had their event there.
   What makes daytime safer than night time? If I recall correctly, the last police officer in our area to be shot was on Monday. He was shot during broad day light in a small communinty. The last officer to be shot and killed in the line of duty was in the middle of the day in Oakland City. You make it sound like the officers working during certain hours and in certain areas do not face the same dangers as other officers. When was the last time we had a bank robbery and shootout on 3rd shift? Oh yeah, those happened on day shift, too.
   If YOU,Editor, did a ride-along, you might learn some things. And it is about more than PR. They can hand out stickers and talk over a cup of coffee for that. The ride-along is about clarifying years of misinformation obatined from the media and hollywood.
   I have disagreed with things you have said in the past, but this one takes the cake. But hey, at the least the cake eaters are the safe ones.

Comments are closed.