Eric Woodlief responded to an urgent call related to a distressed and screaming very young child who was seeking police protection from an abusive parent, throwing the child’s belongings into the street and telling them they were homeless – by aggressively interrupting and mockingly challenging to cite the Penal Code that says mental suffering is a crime.
He did not appear to be familiar with CA law, and in my opinion grossly betrayed his own character, integrity, and the public trust.
Penal Code [PC] Section [§]11165.3): “A situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.”
Danielle Nelson, and several other dispatchers, responded to many similar calls over many years by aggressively and repeatedly interrupting at the beginning of the call with raised and agitated-sounding voices, stating “Emotional Abuse is not a crime!”
Emotional Abuse (PC § 11166.05): “Child is suffering serious emotional damage or is at a substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by states of being or behavior, including, but not limited to, severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior.”
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2014) directs public servants in Danielle and Eric’s positions to:
“Inquire about the history of the abusive situation, as an accurate timeline of events is crucial to the successful investigation and prosecution of all types of child maltreatment.”
Benicia Police Department have consistently failed to take this basic rational, required, step in my experience – to my great dismay and more relevantly, to the dismay of a child suffering long term neglect, abuse, and distress.
Unfortunately it is well documented that Police are not dispassionate or objective instruments of social measurement. “The social organization of policing is informed by and reproduces entrenched racialized and gendered inequalities.”
(Beckett, Nyrop, and Pfingst 2006; Haney 2010; Gilmore 2007; Epp, Maynard-Moody, and Haider-Markel 2014; Lerman and Weaver 2014; Soss and Weaver 2017; Roberts 2012).
I attempted to address BPD’s admitted unfamiliarity with CA Law around child protection (Eric, Danielle, et al.) and nonconformity with US DOJ / CANRA requirements, with Mike Greene. After stating that he would look into it, he instead had the same staff about whom the concern was raised audit themselves – and not shockingly, found that they thought their behavior was acceptable – while Mike admitted he personally hadn’t looked at anything, and had no intention of doing so.
Mike was careful not to respond to my emails in writing, insisting that his follow up be verbal, despite my specific request for a written response.
In my opinion this community requires and deserves a trained department able to faithfully execute assigned legal duties without betraying their integrity, character, or the public trust – and a leader with the courage to hold themselves and others accountable for their actions.
No review comment found