SAN DIEGO, CA – The Department of Justice unsealed a federal indictment on October 20th related to a man charged with pointing a laser at a police helicopter back in late August of this year.
The 38-year-old suspect charged with the alleged offense is now facing up to five years in prison if convicted.
San Diego Man Charged with Aiming a Laser Pointer at Police Helicopter During a Protest: Stephen Glenn McLeod was charged with knowingly aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft on August 28, 2020. https://t.co/ZxUrZAkTlK
— FBI San Diego (@FBISanDiego) October 22, 2020
According to the press release by the DOJ, Stephen Glenn McLeod was alleged to have “knowingly” aimed a laser beam at a San Diego Police Department helicopter on August 28th, 2020.
The incident was said to have taken place during an ongoing protest at the time within the city, and authorities allege McLeod aimed the laser “multiple times” while participating in said protest.
Suzanne Turner, who serves as the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI San Diego outfit, commented on the danger that engaging in said act poses to those operating a helicopter:
“When aimed at an aircraft, a beam of light from a handheld laser can illuminate a cockpit, disorienting and temporarily blinding the pilots. It’s a federal felony that the FBI and our law enforcement partners take very seriously.”
Federal authorities are prosecuting a San Diego man for allegedly pointing a laser at a police helicopter during a Black Lives Matter protest. https://t.co/Xl0dfQQiYl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 24, 2020
U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer noted while commenting on the charges against McLeod that while protesting is certainly a protected activity – aiming laser pointers at in-flight helicopters is not:
“We support everyone’s right to peacefully assemble and protest. Aiming a laser pointer at a police helicopter, however, is highly dangerous and a serious violation of federal law.”
McLeod was arraigned on the charges on October 20th, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Goddard setting the suspect’s bond at $35,000. On top of the five years in prison McLeod potentially faces, he could also be hit with a $250,000 fine if convicted.
Records indicate that McLeod’s next court appearance is slated for November 20th at 1:30 p.m., which he’ll be appearing before U.S. District Court Judge Janis Sammartino.
During the same protest, San Diego Police were said to have arrested four suspects themselves under charges unrelated to the laser pointing incident.
2/2 During the stop a suspect from the crowd sprayed a chemical irritant spray at a line of officers.
In response to the assault, four people were arrested: One for Battery on an Officer & Resisting arrest with violence. The remaining three for resisting/obstructing officers.
— San Diego Police Department (@SanDiegoPD) August 29, 2020
While a traffic stop that was conducted by SDPD officers for running a red light, a person from the crowd of protesters sprayed a “chemical irritant” at a line of police officers stationed during the protest.
One person was arrested for battery on an officer and resisting arrest, while the other three were arrested for resisting and obstruction charges.
The various protests that were erupting in San Diego in late August were seemingly inspired by none other than officer-involved shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Days before the laser incident, a San Diego Police officer suffered a concussion after being struck in the head by an object wielded by one of the protesters during a “peaceful” demonstration on August 24th.
2/2 Officers moved forward to clear the entrance/exit when an officer was hit in the head with a cane. Several officers were punched. One arrest was made for the assault on the officer with a cane and two arrests were made for resisting/obstructing the officers.
— San Diego Police Department (@SanDiegoPD) August 25, 2020
The person alleged to have injured the officer by striking him in the head with a cane is 19-year-old Joseph Austin Gaskins. Gaskins has since been arrested and is facing charges of assault, resisting an officer, and possession of a dirk or dagger.
The officer that was injured was never identified by name following the incident. According to reports, the officer was released from the hospital shortly after the assault and was placed on a temporary medical leave to recover.
San Diego police: officer on medical leave after suffering concussion during protest https://t.co/ThIGvjoALO [Breaking] pic.twitter.com/p0ka2JZmDf
— San Diego Union-Tribune (@sdut) August 28, 2020
Reportedly, several other officers were also assaulted during the violent protest, where an estimated 50 to 55 people had gathered outside the SDPD headquarters building to protest the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
At one point during the protest, police say that those who’d gathered blocked the exit of the building’s parking lot and ignored orders to disperse the area. The officer who suffered a concussion was said to have been clearing out the area when he was attacked by Gaskins.
By the evening of August 24th, the crowd size had increased to roughly 100 people after moving toward the intersection of Broadway and 14th Street. By 11 p.m. that evening, the protest had reportedly fizzled out and people left the area.
There were reportedly two others arrested during the protest, but police sources did not reveal the identities of those arrested or the charges.
Speaking of arrested rioters and protesters, business and property owners have drummed up a lawsuit against people arrested during the riots that transpired in Cincinnati, Ohio in earlier this year for damages done during the riots.
Here’s that report.
_
CINCINNATI, OH – In the fallout of the protests, riots and looting that downtown Cincinnati saw in late May and early June, local business owners in the area have drafted a class-action civil suit seeking compensation for various damages and losses that occurred as a result of the riots.
But this lawsuit isn’t directed at city officials or even the city itself – this class-action suit names the likes of arrestees who were apprehended during those very riots and protests.
A new civil class-action complaint seeks damages against 90 people who were arrested on the nights of the Cincinnati Black Lives Matter protests, aiming to hold them liable for damage to storefronts incurred during those protests. https://t.co/8FEEyLU70k
— WCPO 9 (@WCPO) October 17, 2020
With business owners across the country having lodged lawsuits against cities over the damages and looting that happened during protests and riots, it was only a matter of time before alleged rioters started getting names in lawsuits.
The complaint was filed by Court Street Executive Suites LLC on October 9th, which is said to be representing numerous businesses located in “downtown Cincinnati, Over-the-Rhine, West End, Clifton Heights, University Heights, and Fairview.”
According to the complaint, the businesses and properties represented were “broken into, looted, vandalized, damaged, defaced, or destroyed” during the chaos that ensued between May 29th and June 1st, and 90 people that were arrested during those riots and demonstrations are the named responsible parties.
While it may be difficult to prove that the 90 people specifically named were responsible in part or wholly to various acts of looting and criminal damage, Attorney William H. Blessing alleges that the parties were “engaged in a malicious combination, conspiracy, and concerted behavior to perpetrate, promote, ratify, and execute the riotous conduct.”
Attorney argues, even if the defendants didn’t cause any damage themselves, they “engaged in a malicious combination, conspiracy, and concerted behavior to perpetrate, promote, ratify, and execute the riotous conduct.” https://t.co/svtKJMEzhb
— Courtney Francisco (@CFranciscoWCPO) October 17, 2020
Blessing is seeking monetary respite due to the damages incurred during the riots, as well as punitive damages in an effort to “punish them for their wrongful conduct and to deter each such defendant from engaging in that conduct in the future.”
Further along in the complaint filed, the sentiment that whether directly or indirectly, those arrested during the protests and riots are responsible for the damage done:
“Each of the Defendants connived and acted to encourage, sponsor, ratify, and promote the violence and destruction of property that was perpetrated.”
Howard Froelicher is among those named in the lawsuit, and he claims that the protest was a peaceful demonstration about “George Floyd, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee, everyone having equality.”
Froelicher claims that to “be sued for something like rioting” is “belligerent” and an afront to his First Amendment rights:
“The accusation is that I incited it, or a cohort to that, because I was out there peacefully protesting using what I felt like at the time I could do with the movement.”
Except Froelicher wasn’t peacefully protesting when he was arrested on May 30th. He was arrested for throwing bottles at vehicles and fleeing from officers.
University of Dayton law professor Thaddeus Hoffmeister thinks that this case might run into issues, seeing that courts typically tread lightly around cases that could impede – or at least appear to impede – on First Amendment rights.
Hoffmeister noted that if he were presiding over the case, he’d be most concerned on the precedent this would set for future protests:
“If I were sitting on the bench, I would be concerned this would have a chilling effect on future protests. It may get folks to not go out. That’s what the First Amendment is about: criticize your government. You have the right to do that.”
But what is being lost in the discourse and opposition to this lawsuit is that the civil-action case presented isn’t targeting individuals simply due to their presence at the cited protests: these are all parties alleged to have committed unlawful acts during these protests.
Of the parties arrested during the listed days of unrest in the lawsuit, charges ranged from disorderly conduct, criminal damage, rioting, theft, trespassing, aggravated rioting, breaking and entering and numerous other charges levied against arrestees.
Hoffmeister acknowledges that the business owners in the case are seeking “repercussions for the problems that happened” during the nights of rioting but that they “can’t just go charging a group of people for the crimes one person committed.”
But civil cases are far more unique than criminal cases and the lawsuit brought forth actually presented an example of an extremely similar case that happened in Hamilton County, Ohio back in 1884:
“In 1884, an assembly of protesters marched on the Hamilton County Courthouse. They were angered by systemic corruption in the county’s criminal justice system and specifically outraged by a jury’s lenient verdict in a high-profile murder trial.”
That protest in 1884 resulted in 50 people dying, property damage and a burned-down courthouse.
The citing of the case is material, because no one knew at the time who exactly was the one to start the rioting, but the suit pointed out:
“Each member of the rioting crowd was civilly and criminally responsible, because each encouraged, aided or participated in the riot.
“In 2020, from May 29 through 31, protests against the perceived unfairness of criminal justice in the United States took place in Cincinnati…those who participated, connived, conspired, tacitly consented to, aided, abetted, ratified, or encouraged the rioting are just as responsible for the injuries and damages as are the specific perpetrators.”
This case will certainly be an interesting one to watch.
A case management conference is currently scheduled for December 28th, with Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh presiding over the initial conference.
—
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
