JACC press conference, blog post by John Hoff
Al Flowers, who allegedly BIT an officer who was trying to serve an arrest warrant on Flowers' daughter, (click here for article mentioning THAT) has a long, messy legal history both criminal and civil. Interestingly, mainstream media are only mentioning PART of the history.
About the most glaring example of "half truth" reporting was in a recent Star Tribune article, which contains the following paragraph...
In 2009, he was cited for marijuana possession — a citation that was later dismissed after Flowers denied the drugs were his and sued Hennepin County for seizing his items improperly, alleging that deputies planted his wallet and ID in a room of a house he was visiting that contained marijuana.
Well, that's very interesting, isn't it? But if the Star Tribune is going to mention marijuana charges, then why not mention how in 1999 Flowers was found GUILTY of marijuana possession? (Case 27-CR-99-008364)
Also in 1999 he was charged with resisting or interfering with arrest (same stuff he's charged with now) and pled it down to guilty for disorderly conduct.
One difficulty in digging up the record of Al Flowers is that his son is also named Alfred Flowers, with "Junior" after the name. But the MNCIS online court system isn't perfect, so how to tell for sure if (for example) a support action filed by a woman in Brooklyn Park against Al Flowers is for the senior or the junior Al Flowers?
And what about all those EVICTION actions? Do these involve the father or the son? The Flowers family has a long and troubled history. And some of it isn't even online. The daughter who was wearing the ankle monitor when police arrived is a JUVENILE, so her record isn't online. Plenty of Al Flowers' civil suits are online, though...
Indeed, to some degree it appears Flowers tries to virtually live off lawsuits. So when those police arrived at his door, he didn't see oppression, injustice and/or brutality...
He saw ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
And this is the man some in the community consider their "leader" on issue of, for example, police misconduct?
As the Chief of Police said, this incident is a "distraction." So what will happen with this "distraction?" A quick payout to rid the city of embarrassment, even if the city is in the right and Al Flowers' involvement in city issues actually DAMAGES the cause of the people he purports to "represent?"
Being an "activist" on police misconduct issues doesn't give anybody a free pass to BITE an officer. If Al Flowers had his TEETH clamped down upon some bodily part of an officer (heaven knows WHAT) then it's not a surprise Al Flowers received injuries to his HEAD. If a pit bull is clamped down on your leg, what part of the pit bull are you going to strike? His waggy TAIL?
JNS blog urges criminal charges to be filed against Al Flowers. These charges need to be filed BEFORE Al Flowers files a civil suit, like the colorful stunt he pulled after shoving City Councilman Don Samuels at the JACC press conference.
Oh, wait. There's ANOTHER example of media "half truth" reporting. One television station reported on a payout to the Flowers family (I believe it was the lawsuit filed by his sister, Lisa Clemons) but made no mention of Al Flowers' very UNSUCCESSFUL lawsuit against City Councilman Samuels in the great "toe stepping" assault trial in federal court; a lawsuit dismissed by a jury after incredibly short deliberations.
I say: Nobody should get a free pass to BITE a police officer, no matter how politically embarrassing it is to charge an "activist" for assaulting police.