Following the events of January 6, 2021, when supporters of former President Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol, federal prosecutors have indicted at least 35 current or former law enforcement officers for their involvement in the insurrection, according to an analysis by The Intercept.
One of the individuals prosecuted was Alan Hostetter, a former California police chief who carried a hatchet on the Capitol grounds that day. He was sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison last year, one of the longest sentences among the over 1,500 cases related to the events of January 6.
Screenshot: Court filing, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Hostetter, who acted as his own legal representation, promoted various conspiracy theories during his trial, including the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The judge in his case highlighted Hostetter’s law enforcement background and emphasized that no experienced officer could justify using violence to disrupt Congress.
Before his involvement in the insurrection, Hostetter served at the Fontana Police Department for 22 years, a department with a troubling history of racial bias and violence. Our investigation into this culture of policing in Fontana reveals a complex and troubling relationship between law enforcement and the community.
As we delved into the department’s practices and history, we encountered resistance from its leadership, reflecting a broader trend of unchecked authority in small-town police departments across the country. The events of January 6 and subsequent scrutiny of law enforcement misconduct underscore the urgent need for accountability and reform in policing.
Moore, an African American employee at a federal defense contractor, did not mention Hostetter in his email. Instead, he highlighted the pervasive racism that he believed extended to the highest levels of the department’s leadership. Moore expressed concerns that this racism sometimes veered into white supremacist extremism.
The discrimination lawsuit Moore filed against the Fontana PD in 2016 detailed the racism he experienced. He later added a claim of wrongful termination in 2017, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing. The department settled with Moore and another officer, dismissing many allegations of racism as irrelevant. Moore’s email outlined disturbing allegations, including the use of racial slurs by officers and a mock lynching incident involving a Martin Luther King Jr. figurine.
One particularly cruel incident involved a homeless Black man who was found dead outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken shortly after being released from police custody in 1994. He had been choked and stabbed, with a half-eaten chicken wing placed in his hand for a photograph that circulated among officers as a joke.
As Moore became disillusioned with the department’s leadership, he discovered that some colleagues had neo-Nazi symbols tattooed on their bodies or displayed on their badges. The department’s Rapid Response Team even used a Nordic owl, a symbol associated with white supremacists, as its logo.
Despite facing personal costs, Moore continued to speak out against the department’s racism and extremism. He believed that in smaller departments like Fontana, such extremist ideologies could thrive in silence. Moore and his co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, Andy Anderson, faced repercussions for their whistleblowing, leading to a settlement that both parties chose not to discuss publicly.
The Intercept’s investigation revealed a code of silence within police departments that discourages officers from speaking out against misconduct. Moore connected the reporter with officers willing to share their experiences, shedding light on policing practices from an insider’s perspective.
Moore emphasized the need to break the silence surrounding police misconduct and abuse. He offered access to officers who were willing to speak out, highlighting the importance of holding rogue officers accountable.
The article was supported by The Vital Projects Fund and offers a rare glimpse into officers’ candid views on policing, despite their dedication to the institution itself. Can you please rephrase this?
Source link
