On the surface, it’s easy to understand the outrage toward the City’s appeal in the civil rights case stemming from the 2017 Stockley protests. After all, retired Air Force National Guard member Brian Baude walked directly into a kettling and was arrested by SLMPD without probable cause and, in a historically cop-friendly judicial circuit, Baude prevailed in the first hurdle to his suit.
This seemingly-innocent narrative has been integral to a public smear campaign against Mayor Tishaura O. Jones and City Counselor Sheena Hamilton, through a coordinated attack in the notoriously misogynoiristic St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis Public Radio, and other local media outlets. The story also seems to forget that no protesters or community activists are even mentioned in this lawsuit, which focuses only on Baude, his arrest, and subsequent 14-hour detention. To be clear, Baude was not a protester or member of the activist community when he left his Downtown loft to ask police how “he could be helpful” in their actions against protesters.
But, after decades of blindly supporting the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the Post suddenly sprouted a backbone and called the City’s appeal “indefensible,” but perhaps the larger issue is their role in misleading the public about a complicated legal action that stands to have an impact beyond a single plaintiff. Compare Baude’s case, for example, to that of former SLMPD officer Luther Hall, who was undercover during the same protests and was brutally beaten by white officers. Hall settled his case with the City for $5 million – not too far from the offer that was extended to and rejected by Baude. That a white man, who was inconvenienced by a 14-hour detention, feels entitled to receive a greater settlement amount than a Black police officer who was physically assaulted by his colleagues merely underscores the “white exceptionalism” the City has been championing for decades.
If left unchallenged, the legal decision could set a dangerous precedent where any plaintiff could force a defendant to pay – even without actually proving that the two parties ever interacted.
Activists and City leaders who previously have considered themselves “allies” to the Mayor protested outside of City Hall on Monday, focused on the generic issue of qualified immunity and their concerns that the Mayor’s administration is attempting to “expand” the legal doctrine. But their position is simply unwarranted.
This decision could impact not just City employees across all departments, but eventually it could be applied to protesters and civilians. Establishing this never-before-seen precedent – that everyone at the scene of an incident could be responsible, without any proof of interaction – opens a legal pathway to, for example, hold everyone who was at the scene of an arson criminally liable, regardless of their actual involvement in the commission of the crime. The City’s first and third points on appeal – missing from the Post’s coverage – examine this very issue.
The City’s fourth point raised in the appeal questions Baude’s claim that the police used excessive force during his arrest, but further notes Baude didn’t actually show evidence of a physical injury to support that allegation. The fifth reason for the City’s so-called “indefensible” appeal challenges the procedure of the case, citing the judge’s use of the wrong legal standard, which typically serves as a checklist of facts that have to be proven in order for a plaintiff to win in court.
“The City of St. Louis is not and will not make any argument to expand qualified immunity,” said Nick Dunne, spokesperson for the Mayor, adding that the City Counselor has asked the court to apply already-existing legal precedents – not create new ones.
—
Alderwoman says homeless cause “increase in crime,” decreases her property value
Last week, Alderwoman Sharon Tyus (Ward 1) introduced Resolution 201, which included a number of ugly statements about the City’s unhoused population. In her proposed legislation, Tyus wrote that “the homeless or unhoused should not have rights that are superior to the housed or property owners,” and that emergency pop-up shelters are “the source of criminal behavior which increases the crime in their neighborhood.” Neither of these claims has been supported by evidence presented by Tyus or anyone else at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen.
Tyus’ self-serving driven ire toward the homeless living in her ward seemingly stems from her own house’s proximity to a youth shelter. Given that this shelter serves unhoused teenagers and young adults, the need to preserve a sense of normalcy for this vulnerable population by placing the shelter in a residential neighborhood should be apparent to anyone. This shelter has been in its current location for nearly 15 years, opening in the Kingshighway West neighborhood and across the street from Tyus’ house during her decade-long hiatus away from the Board.
Most neighbors who live near the youth shelter don’t seem to even know that the facility is there, and public crime reports from the previous three months show that while there was no crime reported on the block where the shelter sits, at least two thefts happened within a block of Tyus’ home. According to the website CrimeReports.com, which collects data disclosed bySLMPD, there were only two crimes reported on the youth shelter’s block from December through February, when winter weather typically pushes the City’s unhoused residents into shelters. Neighborhood crime statistics, however, don’t support Tyus’ attack against the City’s most vulnerable residents, which raises the logical question: what is the real reason for filing this bill?
In Resolution 201, Tyus wrote that “there are often external problems that plague the communities where the homeless shelters and housing are placed that require extra security and policing” and questioned the “legality” of the intentional encampments, directly targeting St. Patrick Center and other providers of homeless services. But rather than join the ongoing dialogue started by some of her colleagues (namely Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia, Ward 6) and community organizers to alleviate the systemic abuses suffered by the City’s most vulnerable, Tyus seemingly has instead rooted her crusade against the homeless in protecting her own property values and profit.
Considering Tyus’ other recent legislative attacks – like attempting to repeal the City’s recently-implemented “approval voting” system and, just last week, tanking a common-sense rule that would have prevented aldermen from legislating while driving – she seems committed to undermine as much progress as possible on her way out.
—
Police unions call for alderman’s resignation after lying about encounter
Alderman Joe Vaccaro (Ward 23) has put himself into political hot water with both of the City’s police unions calling for his resignation as both an alderman and as chair for the Public Safety Committee. Vaccaro was caught red-handed, publicly decrying a recent encounter with a Black SLMPD officer in February and claiming to a TV reporter that the officer was an “a–hole” toward him, used foul language, and coughed on him. The officer’s body camera footage – released publicly last week under a Sunshine request – revealed a much different picture from Vaccaro’s version of the story.
After pulling over to the side of I-44, Vaccaro can be seen in the video exiting his truck next to heavy traffic and walking toward the police officer. The officer politely but firmly instructed Vaccaro to get back into his vehicle, and while Vaccaro did not seem to take that directive personally at the time, his demeanor toward the officer gradually decayed into abusive, threat-laden mumbles. Throughout the encounter, Vaccaro is heard saying that he was going to call the officer’s supervisor and informing the officer of his political office in an apparent attempt to wiggle out of two tickets.
In an interview with KSDK last week, Vaccaro claimed that he called Chief of Police John Hayden to complain about the officer’s conduct. He then falsely stated that Chief Hayden offered to “fix” the tickets for him, an allegation that Hayden has repeatedly and publicly denied. Online Public Records Archives show that Vaccaro pleaded guilty to an amended charge and paid his fines less than a week after the tickets were issued.
Vaccaro’s ward includes the Hampton Avenue union hall for St. Louis Police Officers Association, and he historically has been one of the aldermen most aligned with SLMPD and its agenda at the Board. But as the energy shifts in St. Louis – where crime has decreased as the police budget gets redistributed to crime prevention programs like Cure Violence and Cops & Clinicians — Vaccaro’s doubling-down on his attacks against the officer could not be more confusing. St. Louis Police Officers Association’s public condemnation of Vaccaro may signal a splinter in important political alliances as the “Aldergeddon” election approaches.
SLPOA President Jay Schroeder told the Post in a statement on Tuesday that “No matter the outcome of the [internal affairs investigation] this allegation will permanently stain the officers employment history.”
He asked that the department absolve the officer and clear his file, adding that the alderman should resign.
