The “independent” report of events surrounding Charlottesville’s August 12 Unite the Right rally, has been released to the public.
Authored by former US Attorney, Tim Heaphy, and Hunton & Williams LLP, the controversial 220 page exposé addresses the long-unanswered question of why the Fourth Street crossing with Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall was not blockaded by a stationary law enforcement vehicle.
As reported by The Schilling Show on multiple occasions dating back to mid-August, the intersection initially was manned—by Tammy Shiflett, a school resource officer, under the direction of the Charlottesville Police Department (CPD). Due to worsening conditions at the intersection and fearful for her personal safety, Ms. Shiflett eventually relocated her vehicle away from the intersection—with the knowledge and consent of CPD supervisors—leaving only a wooden sawhorse-type barrier protecting Fourth Street from vehicular incursion.
Ultimately, that street was accessed by James Alex Fields, Jr., whose vehicle struck several assembled protestors, resulting in multiple injuries and the death of Heather Heyer.
From the Heaphy report:
Officer in Distress at 4th and Market
One block to the east, Tammy Shiflett—the school resource officer stationed at 4th Street NE and Market Street—was standing alone with no protective gear. She felt she was in danger. As people started to pass, they made profane and aggressive statements toward her. She smelled pepper spray in the air. Just as Sergeant Handy and his unit arrived at the Market Street garage, Shiflett radioed Captain Lewis and said, “They are pushing the crowd my way, and I have nobody here to help me.” Lewis radioed to Sergeant Handy and instructed him to help Shiflett. Sergeant Handy and Officer Logan Woodzell started to move towards Shiflett’s location, and Handy radioed Shiflett to walk towards them. Woodzell’s body camera footage shows Shiflett leaving 4th Street and jogging to the two officers. But she forgot to lock her car, so Handy instructed her to go back and move her car. Shiflett hustled back to the car, got in, and moved it out of the intersection to Market Street near the parking garage. Officer Shiflett ultimately ended up with Lieutenant Jones as he handled the Deandre Harris incident. Lieutenant Jones told us that he was asked by either Handy or Woodzell to let Officer Shiflett stay with him because she did not have any protective gear. Neither Shiflett nor Jones notified the traffic commander or the Command Center that she was no longer at her assigned post at 4th Street NE and Market Street. As a result, all that remained there was a wooden sawhorse barricade.
Legal ramifications of this revelation for the Charlottesville Police Department and Charlottesville City are unknown, but they are likely to be significant and financially damaging.
Download the entire report: Independent Review of the 2017 Protest Events in Charlottesville, Virginia
Did it say who the officer felt was threatening her? My feeling is that the lady should never have been in that position minus protective gear and means of defense. Anyone paying attention knew this event was going to result in confrontation probably of the violent type. Both sides came prepared to engage. This included a majority of Unite the Right folks and a smaller unknown percentage of anti-rally protesters. Anyone paying attention should also be able to trace the blame back to city hall. Tragically three peaceful souls drawn to the event paid with their lives.
All micro matters designed to deflect. The real story–one that will be ignored because Cville is largely a head-in-the-sand community–is whom the parties were who really planned and gave orders for this “stand down.” Flaherty–who heads the VSP–is a longtime LE professional; he knows how to plan for volatile protests. You have some of the best minds in governmental planning and crisis management teaching at UVa. There was well over a month for this rally to be planned. The governments of both Cville, Richmond (McAuliffe) and UVa saw this protest as an extension of “Trump-ism.” They thought that it would be a perfect metaphor for their warped view of conservatism, a way to shyster the public into believing that the current admin is evil and the “right” admin was defeated last year. Some call it “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
The central question: Why did higher-ups decide to use this volatile situation to push their ideology and who was at the controls?
You could say they succeeded in tying the right wing side of protest to Trump along with his refusal to place 100% of the blame on Unite the Right. All it took was for the left wing media to give their cherry-picked version of events with sound bytes from the likes of McAuliffe, Signer, Bellamy, and Teresa Sullivan to the rest of the nation dependent on these agenda driven news sources and Walla, the 200 or 300 KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo Nazis that showed up suddenly sounded like a great swarm deplorables covered dear old Charlottesville in black cloud. I don’t know who promoted the torch lit march on UVA but it was idiotic and counterproductive. Lots of ignorant, hate filled, and stupid people on both sides of that event. I saw a cool poster in a garage today of the 3 stooges playing poker. It read “Three Joker Poker”. We need one made with Signer, Bellamy, and Szakos.
Just wait until Walker joins the board. We ain’t seen nothing yet judging from the emails and letters she has written in the past.
Populism isn’t conservatism, Forbes, and if you call this administration conservative you must be cousin to Sarah Sanders. Lying about important matters is evil when Clinton does it and when Trump does it too. Trump happens to be president, and he lies every time he opens his mouth. Good people should do what in response, sow wild incoherent conspiracy theories?
But you did not answer the central question (which was obviously rhetorical). If you think this is a “wild conspiracy theory,” then you are denying that this event and the so-called preparation was not political in nature. To quote a great Democrat, “nothing in politics happens by accident.” This was primarily a political issue, secondarily a public safety issue. If you think that the administration of the Commonwealth did not have its fingerprints all over this event and its outcome, then you must also think The Queen merely stumbled getting into that van on a moderate, pleasant early-autumn afternoon.
God save the Queen!
But you did not answer the central question (which was obviously rhetorical). If you think this is a “wild conspiracy theory,” then you are denying that this event and the so-called preparation was political in nature. To quote a great Democrat, “nothing in politics happens by accident.” This was primarily a political issue, secondarily a public safety issue. If you think that the administration of the Commonwealth did not have its fingerprints all over this event and its outcome, then you must also think The Queen merely stumbled getting into that van on a moderate, pleasant early-autumn afternoon.
God save the Queen!
I don’t buy the premise of your question, or your loaded language. Every thoughtful person has a point of view, an “ideology” through which they view the world. To act accordingly isn’t to “push” that ideology, it’s to be consistent – in other words, to be sane. The City Council believes in racial equality and consequently doesn’t like neo-Nazis and white supremacists – do you have a problem with that “ideology”?
Be specific. Answer the obvious questions your malign speculation raises. How would ordering the police to stand down be in anyone’s political interest, as opposed to the city’s best interest? Why would they consider any order not in the city’s best interest in their own political interest, given that they’d be blamed for the harm to the city? The city’s leaders made serious mistakes and should pay for them, but there is no evidence and no logical train of thought to suggest they acted nefariously.
To quote a great Democrat, “nothing in politics happens by accident.”
To use common sense, actions often have unintended consequences. Speaking of politics, you’re politicizing a tragedy.
Ken asked rhetorically, “Why would they consider any order not in the city’s best interest in their own political interest, given that they’d be blamed for the harm to the city?”
They have not blamed themselves. They blamed others. Namely, those who had the law’s protected right to assemble and engage in free speech in a city park. Re-defining such rights as non-rights supposedly would make them blameless.
Were they incompetent? Were they complicit with the degradation of law and order? Could it be a bit of both, do you think, or must it be all one or all the other?