DPD officer charged with felonies for shooting three journalists with rubber pellets

**aj3647** · July-20-20, 06:08 PM

"Felony charges have been issued against a Detroit Police Department officer accused of shooting non-lethal ammunition at and injuring an MLive photographer and two other photojournalists covering police brutality protests in downtown Detroit.

"Detroit Police Corporal Daniel Debono, 32, has been charged with three counts of felonious assault for each victim on Monday, July 20, stemming from an incident that occurred May 31 during the protests in Detroit, according to Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor...-protests.html

In case people were wondering why some feel the need to protest police violence...this is why.

**Meddle** · July-22-20, 03:17 PM

No replies?

**Wheels** · July-22-20, 03:48 PM

Dirty cops do exist and need to be brought to justice but let’s not through the baby out with the bath water!

**birwood** · July-23-20, 10:35 AM

What do we really know about this incident? Not a whole lot has been brought forward by the news media other than the filed charges. It seems the officer has been convicted already by the media and public opinion. But given some thought to it...and...I'm not taking sides.... but....I wonder why no one has bothered to publicly ask any of the following questions. 1.) How long had this officer been on duty out there and been the subject of verbal vulgar obscenities. 2.) Was he the victim of projectiles [[bricks, rocks, railroad spikes, frozen water bottles) from demonstrators that night. 3.) Did these photographers do or say something to add to the agitation, on either side, in order to get a Pulitzer Prize photo depicting alleged police brutality. 4.) How come there is no police body cam footage of this incident, or was this officer sent out with out one? 5.) Was he set up by a commanding officer who he may have previously had a disagreement with....Hmmm? 6.) Due to nature an topic of the protest, is he being charged because of his race, so that the upper level command staff can claim bias within the ranks? Think about it....previously 2 officers ran over demonstrators in SW Detroit with their patrol car, that could have easily caused more serious injuries or even death.....much more than a rubber bullet would have caused. But did the race of the officers in that car cause the Police Chief to support their actions? Hmmm..kinda make you wonder doesn't it. AGAIN..I'm not taking sides .....just asking a few questions

**aj3647** · July-23-20, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by birwood

What do we really know about this incident? Not a whole lot has been brought forward by the news media other than the filed charges.

You could have tried "reading the article", but maybe that was too much effort for you. It's OK, reading is hard.

“The evidence shows that these three journalists were leaving the protest area and that there was almost no one else on the street where they were,” Worthy said in a written statement. “They were a threat to no one. There are simply no explicable reasons why the alleged actions of this officer were taken.”

The three were walking when they encountered Debono with two other officers at Woodward Avenue and State Street. They identified themselves as members of the press and had their hands up, asking to cross the street, Worthy wrote.

As the three began to cross the street it is alleged that Debono fired his weapon at them, striking all three with rubber pellets, Worthy wrote.

The shooting was unprovoked, and at no time did the three complainants do anything to cause the defendant to shoot at them, Worthy wrote.

**JBMcB** · July-23-20, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

No replies?

The problem is when the police do something like this and *don't* get charged with a felony. Anyways, qualified immunity is going to pop up again and the officer will probably be cleared. There are bills to eliminate qualified immunity in the federal house and senate. Write your representative to support them. They will probably go nowhere as there is no spending or pork involved. Trump probably won't sign it. Biden probably won't, either, as he has said he doesn't want to eliminate, but "reform" qualified immunity.

**Meddle** · July-23-20, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by birwood

AGAIN..I'm not taking sides .....just asking a few questions

Dude, REALLY?

**Meddle** · July-23-20, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Biden probably won't, either, as he has said he doesn't want to eliminate, but "reform" qualified immunity.

That's fine. You don't want an officer who justifiably uses force to end a threat to face charges or civil suits. You DO want to more clearly define what is or isn't justifiable and under what circumstances.

**JBMcB** · July-23-20, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

That's fine. You don't want an officer who justifiably uses force to end a threat to face charges or civil suits. You DO want to more clearly define what is or isn't justifiable and under what circumstances.

I agree 100% that officers should be protected from legal action when conducting their job in a regular fashion. That's what absolute immunity is, which officers are already protected by. Qualified immunity is undefined until a court rules the given behavior is unconstitutional, at which point the case against the officer is dismissed and any similar conduct going forward would not be protected by qualified immunity. That's what needs to go away. Reforming qualified immunity means eliminating it and clarifying what constitutes absolute immunity. That's why Biden's position doesn't make sense. Qualified immunity is a very specific legal mechanism whose very structure is causing these problems.

**birwood** · July-23-20, 01:23 PM

aj3647 et all.... Don't get your pubes in a knot...I asked a simple question and right away the insults and name calling starts. BTW I have a Masters in Public Safety from EMU...whats your credentials. If the guys is guilty then he deserves what he gets...all I did was ask a few simple questions. There is always 2 sides to every story....what happened before he pulled the trigger? Simple question?

**Honky Tonk** · July-23-20, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by birwood

aj3647 et all.... Don't get your pubes in a knot...I asked a simple question and right away the insults and name calling starts. BTW I have a Masters in Public Safety from EMU...whats your credentials. If the guys is guilty then he deserves what he gets...all I did was ask a few simple questions. There is always 2 sides to every story....what happened before he pulled the trigger? Simple question?

No need to apologize to anyone, birwood. I had the same questions when I first read the article. They are questions any reasonable person would ask. The story, as written, makes a lot of emotional statements but gives few facts. Unfortunately, there are those on this forum that will spin your legitimate questions into a "racist" profile, to advance their own agendas. I find it hard to believe three people were crossing the street and a cop just decided to shoot them with rubber bullets. If that is indeed what happened, then yes, he should be prosecuted.

**aj3647** · July-23-20, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by birwood

aj3647 et all.... Don't get your pubes in a knot...I asked a simple question and right away the insults and name calling starts. BTW I have a Masters in Public Safety from EMU...whats your credentials. If the guys is guilty then he deserves what he gets...all I did was ask a few simple questions. There is always 2 sides to every story....what happened before he pulled the trigger? Simple question?

Your leading questions were asked from a premise that the officer was the victim of a "set up" or the charges are reverse racism. There was an investigation, and Kim Worthy summarized the results of that investigation. You chose to ignore that in favor of your conspiracy theory thinking and victim blaming, for which you didn't have a single shred of evidence. So in a pathetic attempt to defend this guy, you're going to throw every shit excuse you can possibly think of against the wall and pray something sticks.

But hey, kudos to you for suggesting that any verbal abuse he may have suffered prior in the day would justify assaulting reporters later on. That's the kind of fascist stormtrooper thinking we need in these trying times! "Well if someone called that cop a nasty word, then of course he was justified in taking out his anger on innocent journalists later on!"

**Meddle** · July-23-20, 03:13 PM

That's why I don't respond to the nonsense. WE the people of a discussion board do not need to know all the intricate details. The people making those decisions do and the jury, if empaneled does.

**Richard** · July-23-20, 04:11 PM

It’s like everything else,they show and print what they want you to see,no context.

Lots of video out there where the media is forced just like everybody else to get on the sidewalk and out of the street.

The first thing the miscreants are going to do is yell,how come the media gets a free pass,and we have to comply?

I am also one that finds hard to believe that they were just out there in the middle of nowhere and the cop decided to pelt them for no reason.

They will not print the whole story.

The media may have had special privilege in the past,but they turned that card in when they became biased with an agenda,when the buildings are burning,they may not have lit the flames but they sure do what they can to fan them.

**Ray1936** · July-23-20, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

That's why I don't respond to the nonsense. WE the people of a discussion board do not need to know all the intricate details. The people making those decisions do and the jury, if empaneled does.

Thank you, Meddle. Couldn't agree more. You can just imagine how frustrated this retired copper is from all the stuff I see today.

**cla1945** · July-23-20, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Thank you, Meddle. Couldn't agree more. You can just imagine how frustrated this retired copper is from all the stuff I see today.

i can imagine what you think Ray, because I think the same way. Being a City of Detroit retiree from DFD, having a son who is a Police Officer, and other family members in the DFD and DPD, I get first hand information from all of them. What they tell me and what we read and hear on the news doesn't always gel. According to many people, only their opinion is a viable one and a differing opinion doesn’t count. Police and firefighters take unbelievable abuse from so called non-violent protesters and are told to stand down. When you get frozen water bottles, pvc pipe sharpened into a pointed spear, have urine, fece, gasoline and other accelerants thrown at you, you’re supposed to stand down. Then you are on a run where babies are shot in their beds that same shift and Mothers are screaming for you to get out there and find the [[many many expletives) dirty animal who did this, most of the people on this forum would not, could not comprehend what they go through, no matter how many “degrees” they may have and claim to understand.
People want to defund the police. They want anarchy to prevail. They may get their demands and live to regret it. God help us all.

**aj3647** · July-23-20, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Thank you, Meddle. Couldn't agree more. You can just imagine how frustrated this retired copper is from all the stuff I see today.

If only you were frustrated, even a little, when a DPD officer shoots three journalists in the face with rubber pellets for absolutely no reason whatsoever. That would be a nice change of pace.

**Ray1936** · July-23-20, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

If only you were frustrated, even a little, when a DPD officer shoots three journalists in the face with rubber pellets for absolutely no reason whatsoever. That would be a nice change of pace.

Not looking for an argument, aj. I have no idea what really happened.

**cla1945** · July-23-20, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

If only you were frustrated, even a little, when a DPD officer shoots three journalists in the face with rubber pellets for absolutely no reason whatsoever. That would be a nice change of pace.

I am frustrated. I only get a couple of paragraphs of a one sided story, or 20 seconds of a 3 minute video and all of a sudden there is one sided justice. Not my cup of tea for sure.

**Wheels** · July-24-20, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

That's why I don't respond to the nonsense. WE the people of a discussion board do not need to know all the intricate details. The people making those decisions do and the jury, if empaneled does.

Thank you for emphasizing the reason this country is in the position we are in. Pop offs shouting vague headlines as if they are the whole story on social media without reviewing any of the real facts!

Edit: You sound just like Nancy Pelosi.

**Meddle** · July-24-20, 08:55 AM

^^ We know you don't believe in the integrity of the Justice system and maintaining the chain of evidence to ensure a fair trial.

**Wheels** · July-24-20, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

^^ We know you don't believe in the integrity of the Justice system and maintaining the chain of evidence to ensure a fair trial.

You are the one spouting off without details and claiming not to need the facts! I can at least research both sides off a story and come to my own conclusion not just a sensationalized headline.