On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:33 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com<mailto:abjpd1@gmail.com>> wrote: 4/4/2025 Hi folks: This is the same department (SJPD) that Palo Alto Police Chief Andrew Binder, who is now apparently living in Morgan Hill, 40 miles from Palo Alto, came from. How invested in Palo Alto is a chief who lives 40 miles from the town he claims to care about? Can we reasonably expect Binder to be available to lead first responders 24/7 in a mass shooting incident or other major catastrophe? You be the judge! A police chief living 40 miles from the city he oversees turns the idea of community policing on its head. Time for a change in leadership anyone? Sincerely, Aram James P.S. Please checkout this brutal & extraordinarily violent video of the SJPD in action. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com<mailto:sallen6444@yahoo.com>> Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 4:45 PM Subject: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department on January 10, 2025 To: Paul Joseph <Paul.joseph@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:Paul.joseph@sanjoseca.gov>>, <mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District1@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District1@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District2@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District2@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District3@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District3@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District4@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District4@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District5@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District5@sanjoseca.gov>>, <district6@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:district6@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District7@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District7@sanjoseca.gov>>, <district8@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:district8@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District9@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District9@sanjoseca.gov>>, <District10@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:District10@sanjoseca.gov>>, Jeff Rosen <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org<mailto:JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>>, Dan Okonkwo <dokonkwo@dao.sccgov.org<mailto:dokonkwo@dao.sccgov.org>> CC: Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com<mailto:brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>>, Robert Handa <robert.handa@nbcuni.com<mailto:robert.handa@nbcuni.com>>, Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com<mailto:rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>>, Kiet Do <kiet.a.do@gmail.com<mailto:kiet.a.do@gmail.com>>, LaMonica Peters <lamonica.peters@fox.com<mailto:lamonica.peters@fox.com>>, <eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov>>, <dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov<mailto:dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov>>, Jack Molmud <jmolmud@kron4.com<mailto:jmolmud@kron4.com>>, Sara Stinson <sstinson@kron4.com<mailto:sstinson@kron4.com>>, <damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com<mailto:damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com>>, Richard Konda <rkonda@asianlawalliance.org<mailto:rkonda@asianlawalliance.org>>, Richard Hobbs <richhobbs@msn.com<mailto:richhobbs@msn.com>>, Wendy Greenfield <wgestrella@aol.com<mailto:wgestrella@aol.com>>, Carla Torres <xicanamagic@hotmail.com<mailto:xicanamagic@hotmail.com>>, Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org<mailto:raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>>, Jose Valle <jvalle1800@gmail.com<mailto:jvalle1800@gmail.com>>, Cynthia Longs <cynthia@siliconvalleydebug.org<mailto:cynthia@siliconvalleydebug.org>>, aram james <Abjpd1@gmail.com<mailto:Abjpd1@gmail.com>>, Pat M <p.marshall81@ymail.com<mailto:p.marshall81@ymail.com>>, William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com<mailto:warmali@yahoo.com>>, Rose Lynn <roselynn95035@yahoo.com<mailto:roselynn95035@yahoo.com>>, Seher Awan <firebrand.dr@gmail.com<mailto:firebrand.dr@gmail.com>>, James Staten <jamesastaten@gmail.com<mailto:jamesastaten@gmail.com>>, mike braxton <mbraxton2021@gmail.com<mailto:mbraxton2021@gmail.com>>, Michael Pati <michael.pati@gmail.com<mailto:michael.pati@gmail.com>>, theresa.diola@gmail.com<mailto:theresa.diola@gmail.com> <theresa.diola@gmail.com<mailto:theresa.diola@gmail.com>>, Michael Ybarra <dr.michaelcybarra@gmail.com<mailto:dr.michaelcybarra@gmail.com>>, lasha heard <heardlasha22@gmail.com<mailto:heardlasha22@gmail.com>>, Candice Brooks <brookscandicel14@gmail.com<mailto:brookscandicel14@gmail.com>> April 4, 2025 To: San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph, Mayor Matt Mahan, San Jose City Council Members, City Manager, District Attorney Jeff Rosen, State Attorney General Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Jose Police Auditor Eddie Aubrey From: Sean Allen - President, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP Video of San Jose PD Beating Young Man on January 10, 2025 On April 1, 2025, a video was sent to the San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP, showing three San Jose police officers using unnecessary and unlawful force against a member of the public. The video lasts approximately one minute and 29 seconds. Here’s a summary of what is depicted. It’s important to note that the person who recorded the video was in such close proximity to the incident that the sounds of the officers’ keys can be heard as they ran and engaged in physical activity. You can also hear the clanging of one officers baton while it remained on his duty belt, as well as the officers radio transmissions. When the video begins, it is clear that two officers engage the community member with physical force. There are no audible de-escalation attempts or verbal commands heard. The first officer to make contact (referred to as Officer #1) mounts the community member, while the second officer (Officer #2) initially approaches the citizen’s legs but then turns to threaten the person recording, with his hand on his gun, approximately 6.5 seconds into the video. At around 11 seconds, Officer #1 calls the citizen an “asshole.” Officer #2 continues to instruct the person recording to get back in the car, his hand still on his firearm until about 15.5 seconds into the video. During this time, there are still no verbal commands from Officer #1, who is on top of the citizen, now rolled onto his stomach. At about 20 seconds in, Officer #2 radios in a comment about the “driver.” You can hear the citizen say “hit me,” but Officer #1 does not demand compliance. At approximately 29 seconds, a voice says, “Right here, Mike, get his ass,” and a third officer enters the frame, throwing a series of four to five punches to the citizen’s upper torso. It is suspected that this third officers name is Mike. Notably, both Officer #1 and the suspected Officer Mike encourage the use of force against the citizen, despite a clear duty to intervene and prevent such actions. At around 39 seconds, Officer #1 strikes the citizen with a knee to the torso, holding him down while punching him in the face with his right hand, with Officer Mike (Officer #3) assisting in restraining the citizens upper torso. The citizen is unable to prevent these strikes. At about 47 seconds into the video, Officer Mike can be seen pushing the citizen’s face into the ground while Officer #1 maintains a knee on the citizens back, and Officer #2 also holds him down. At approximately 57 seconds, a fourth officer arrives and draws his firearm, approaching the person recording. The necessity for drawing a firearm appears unwarranted, as the three officers present did not draw their weapons, and there was no threat posed by those recording the incident. A bystander can be heard questioning, “Why are you drawing your weapon?” at around one minute and eight seconds into the video. Meanwhile, bystanders call for de-escalation and criticize the officers for escalating the situation. At about one minute and 25 seconds, it’s evident that Officer #2 has his knee on the back of the citizen’s neck while handcuffing him. At the end of the video, Officer Mike approaches a young African American male. In the background, you can hear other voices identified as juveniles. It is alleged that the same officer used excessive force on one of the juveniles, causing injury to his hearing, which required medical attention. In this entire incident, the citizens and juveniles involved, who are of African ancestry, experienced violations of their rights. This reflects a pattern and practice consistent with the San Jose Police Departments history of disproportionate use of force against people of color, specifically those of African descent. It is crucial to analyze this incident in light of California laws regarding the use of force. California Penal Code 835(a) states: 1. The authority to use physical force conferred on peace officers must be exercised judiciously, with respect for human rights and dignity, acknowledging the sanctity of every human life. Every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law. 2. Peace officers must use deadly force only when necessary to defend human life, evaluating each situation based on particular circumstances and utilizing other resources and techniques if safely feasible. 3. The decision to use force requires careful evaluation, reflecting the gravity of that authority and ensuring compliance with the law and agency policies. Moreover, I want to highlight the policies of another law enforcement agency within the county, which has more comprehensive use of force policies that align with Penal Code 835(a). The policy states: 1. Description: Personal body weapon strikes consist of forceful strikes using hands, fists, forearms, elbows, feet, knees, or shins. 2. Force event: Personal body weapon strikes are authorized in reactive or planned response events. 3. Resistance type: Personal body weapon strikes are only authorized in response to assaultive or life-threatening resistance and to prevent substantial self-harm. 4. Special instructions: Unless deadly force is authorized, employees are prohibited from striking a person with a personal body weapon in the head, neck, spine, kidney, or groin. Different departments within the same county have varying policies regarding the use of force. However, the largest department in the county recognizes that striking certain areas with personal body weapons could be fatal. In reviewing the video, it is evident that Officer Mike strikes the citizen multiple times in the upper torso while he is being held down, at best, passively resistant. Officer #1 then knees the citizen in the torso and punches him in the face while he is restrained. This use of force is inconsistent with Penal Code 835(a). Close-fisted strikes to the head, torso, and spine, like those used in this incident, could cause great bodily injury or death and require immediate assessment from a medical professional. The video does not show that medical care was offered or provided. Additionally, officers are mandated to request medical care after a use of force event. If medical care was not provided, the San Jose Police Department failed to uphold its duty of care. This incident reveals clear violations of state laws regarding excessive use of force and unlawful application of force, specifically violations of Penal Codes 835(a), 149, and 245, as well as federal statutes (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law concerning assault under color of authority) and violations of the United States Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment. The San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP demands a thorough investigation into this incident for administrative and criminal violations at both the state and federal levels, along with complete accountability and transparency regarding this matter. Thank you for your time, Sean Allen - President San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP References: - Performance Protocol - Disparity of Force - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 835a | FindLaw - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 149 | FindLaw - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 245 | FindLaw - Civil Rights Division | Statutes Enforced by the Criminal Section - 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Sent from my iPhone