On Air Now

Listen Now

Weather

cloudy-day
91°
Partly Cloudy
H -° L 73°
  • cloudy-day
    91°
    Current Conditions
    Partly Cloudy. H -° L 73°
  • cloudy-day
    Today
    Partly Cloudy. H -° L 73°
  • partly-cloudy-tstorms-day
    90°
    Tomorrow
    Chance of T-storms. H 90° L 70°
Listen
Pause
Error

News on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Listen
Pause
Error

Traffic on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Listen
Pause
Error

Weather on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Philip Holloway

    Garrett Rolfe is legally entitled to bond following his arrest for murder following the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks. Shortly after he surrendered to authorities, Attorneys for Rolfe filed an “Emergency Motion for Bond.” Under Georgia law, bond in a murder case can only be set by a Superior Court judge. The Superior Courts are the highest-level trial court that exists in the state. According to the Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A. 17-6-1), the defendant bears the burden of proof to establish that he or she is entitled to bail according to the following criteria:  (e) A court shall be authorized to release a person on bail if the court finds that the person:  (1) Poses no significant risk of fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court or failing to appear in court when required;  (2) Poses no significant threat or danger to any person, to the community, or to any property in the community;  (3) Poses no significant risk of committing any felony pending trial; and  (4) Poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice.  Using these factors, and applying what we know about Garrett Rolfe, it appears he is entitled to bond.  First, Rolfe is not a flight risk. He has substantial ties to the community. He is a resident of the metro-Atlanta area, he has many local family members, he voluntarily surrendered himself to custody, and he has retained counsel. All of this suggests Rolfe is not a flight risk and will appear in court when required.  Secondly, there is no reason to believe Rolfe is a threat to any person, to the community, or to any property in the community. Rolfe has no known criminal history and considering Rolfe was a police officer who passed a background check, it is unlikely there is any criminal history.  >>Below are images of Rolfe’s official emergency motion for bond. The same analysis suggests Rolfe poses no risk of committing any felonies while awaiting trial and that he is not a risk to intimidate any witnesses or to obstruct the administration of justice.  The real question is what would a bond for Rolfe look like? What amount is appropriate? Would any conditions – such as a curfew or ankle monitor - be attached? Judges have wide discretion on these points. Considering that Rolfe is presumed to be innocent and that bail is not supposed to be punitive in nature, the defense may argue for a signature bond (meaning no actual money posted) with few, if any conditions. The District Attorney has publicly stated he is opposed to any bond. So even though there is a strong case in favor of the granting of a bond, this is a question left to the discretion of one Superior Court Judge.
  • Indigent defense is a complicated issue. Criminal defendants have an absolute constitutional right to be represented by competent counsel and the government has to provide counsel for defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. It doesn’t stop there, however. There is more to indigent defense than simply paying the lawyer. A lawyer without resources for investigators and even expert witnesses is like a captain without a ship. As far back as 1957 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained:   Furnishing … a lawyer is not enough: the best lawyer in the world cannot competently defend an accused person if the lawyer cannot obtain existing evidence crucial to the defense, e.g., if the defendant cannot pay the fee of an investigator to find a pivotal missing witness or a necessary document, or that of an expert accountant or a mining engineer or chemist. It might indeed be argued that for the government to defray such expenses which the indigent accused cannot meet, is essential to that assistance of counsel which the Sixth Amendment guarantees …. In such circumstances, if the government does not supply the funds, justice is denied the poor—and represents but a upper-bracket privilege. Most counties in Georgia have a public defender’s office. The Georgia Public Defender Council (GPDC) was created in 2003 and is funded by taxpayers to handle the majority of indigent defense in Georgia. Some indigent defense happens outside this system however. The Grinstead murder trial is one such instance. Ryan Alexander Duke is scheduled to stand trial in Irwin County, Georgia for the murder of high school teacher and beauty queen Tara Grinstead. Duke was arrested with great fanfare in February 2017 for the 2005 alleged murder of Grinstead. He was represented for the next year and a half or so by the public defender’s office for the Tifton Judicial Circuit. He later elected to accept the volunteer services of three Atlanta-area lawyers. His defense is a complicated one and the evidence in the case appears to be extremely voluminous, hyper-technical in some ways, and convoluted. Among other things, the defense is alleging his incriminating statements to investigators qualifies as a “false confession.” For these reasons, the Duke defense team has asked the court to provide funds to pay for defense resources such as investigators and expert witnesses – the sort of resources that any lawyer, prosecutor or defense attorney, needs to properly prepare for and conduct a trial of this magnitude. So far, this funding has been denied. Mr. Duke is of course presumed to be innocent and he is clearly indigent. His election to accept pro bono services of three private attorneys has not changed his indigency. Ironically for Duke, because he accepted the services of volunteer lawyers of his own choosing, he may have to defend himself without the resources he would have had if stayed with the public defender’s office. This illustrates a broader problem with indigent defense in Georgia: How does an indigent defendant level the playing field when represented by private counsel? The Georgia Public Defender Council as an independent state agency and by law is “responsible for assuring that adequate and effective legal representation is provided, independently of political considerations or private interests, to indigent persons…” In 1986, The Georgia Supreme Court held that an indigent defendant has a right to state funds to pay for expert witnesses as related to “critical evidence” that might be open to interpretation among experts. Specifically, the Georgia Supreme Court said that a trial court shall order payment of these funds from public coffers. Every year the legislature funds the GPDC so the GPDC can do its work and pay experts and investigators as needed. The legislature has not made the same provision to fund indigent defense when it occurs outside the framework of the GPDC. So, if the GPDC doesn’t agree to pay these costs, who does? There can be only one answer: the county where the case is pending. But what if the county simply can’t afford it? What if there is a case so big and so complicated that any given county just doesn’t have the money? What if due process and the right to effective counsel demand monies to be paid yet a county – or a court – refuses? Prior to the creation of the GPDC the procedure for obtaining public funds for experts was fairly simple. It was outlined by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1988. Defense counsel – usually court appointed – files a sealed motion with the court explaining what was needed and why. These requests were / are routinely approved so long as the price tag was reasonable. The creation of the GPDC did not abolish this procedure and it is still the norm in many counties in Georgia where indigent defendants are represented by counsel outside of the public defender system. Now back to the earlier question - What if due process and the right to effective counsel demand monies to be paid yet a county – or a court – refuses? Well, in the event of a conviction an appellate reversal may occur. If a trial was expensive the first time around it will be extra costly the second time around. It’s more important to get it right the first time. Judges are obligated to ensure that due process happens in our courts so if the state won’t provide the necessary resources counties are just going to have to step up – and pay up. Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. 
  • From a court watcher’s perspective it’s apparent to most that the upcoming trial of Ryan Duke, charged with the 2005 murder of South Georgia high school teacher Tara Grinstead is sure to be nothing short of a spectacle of epic proportions. We got a preview of things to come during - of all things - a bond hearing where Duke asked, for the first time in two years, to be released on bond. It wasn’t the denial of bond, nor the fact that Duke asked for bond that is particularly noteworthy. It’s what the bond hearing devolved into that raised eyebrows. Despite losing the motion, the defense unexpectedly was able to depose the lead GBI investigator on a wide range of topics in a dress rehearsal for what promises to be a most controversial trial.  To start, let’s have a look at what a bond hearing is supposed to be.  It’s uncommon for bond to be set in murder cases but it’s not unheard of. Courts are supposed to consider the following factors in making bond decisions and the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he:  Poses no significant risk of fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court or failing to appear in court when required;  Poses no significant threat or danger to any person, to the community, or to any property in the community;  Poses no significant risk of committing any felony pending trial; and  Poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice.  Probable cause is not an issue and of course neither is guilt or innocence. A bond hearing is not a trial.  The Duke bond hearing started out as most bond hearings do. The defense called Duke’s brother to testify regarding each of the factors set out above. But then it started a downward spiral into the surreal when the prosecutor called the lead GBI case agent as a witness - presumably as a rebuttal to the defense. A state’s witness, such as an investigator, can occasionally testify - to a point - about “what happened” because that’s relevant - to a point - for the court to determine whether the person poses a danger to the community. But in this case, the testimony was literally all over the place and went into minute detail about many things that have never been heard before. The “bond hearing” was effectively transformed into a deposition - a legal luxury not normally available to a criminal defendant in Georgia.  So just what did we learn from this “bond” hearing? We learned that DNA from the bodily fluid of a police officer was mixed with the victim’s blood on some bedding and that “touch DNA” from Grinstead and Duke (along with DNA from at least two other people) was on a latex glove found outside her residence. “Touch DNA” has its own share of problems in terms of reliability and we can safely expect the defense to explore those problems at trial. Some of that other unidentified DNA from the glove could have come from Bo Dukes - the person accused of helping cover up the murder - and who the defense claims is the actual killer.  We learned there were many investigative steps that could have been taken to verify statements made by both Duke and Dukes. The defense will argue that these follow up steps point to a biased investigation. This could have a huge impact in a trial where the defense will claim that the defendants confession was a false confession.  We learned the GBI, in a breach of protocol and constitutional law, interviewed / talked with Duke twice after he had a lawyer. These interviews were undocumented in the GBI case file. They were not recorded. The DA apparently was unaware at the time that this tactic was being employed by the GBI until the defense raised it with them. The agent didn’t even sign in at the jail. We can only speculate as to why not.  On top of all this, an abundance of otherwise inadmissible evidence consisting of hearsay and innuendo managed to come out publicly at a bond hearing. Most of this wouldn’t have seen the light of day at a trial. As the prosecution correctly pointed out “hearsay” may be admissible at a bond hearing, but it still has to be reliable evidence - not a regurgitation of all the salacious rumors from 2005. And it must be relevant to the issue of bond. It may turn out that the DA made a great tactical mistake by calling their lead case agent to testify and turn this bond hearing into an evidentiary free-for-all with no apparent boundaries. At a minimum it was surely heartbreaking for friends and family of the victim to have to re-live all the pain of the last 13 years by having old wounds reopened in such painful detail.  I’ve previously written about why the venue for this trial really needs to be changed. Now more than ever the jury pool is really tainted - as if it weren’t already. Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. 
  • Irwin County Superior Court Judge Bill Reinhardt appears set to attempt to seat a jury of Irwin County residents in the trial of Ryan Alexander Duke. Duke is charged with the 2005 murder of Irwin County High School teacher and beauty queen Tara Grinstead. The defense asked for a change of venue, the State did not oppose the change, yet the judge has declined. In my view, this is a mistake. This is a case I have followed closely since the beginning. Way back in what seems like another lifetime I was a police officer in the tiny South Georgia town. I grew up in the area and have even practiced law there. Things are just different there. There's really no other way to put it. It's a great place to live and work but it simply has its own unique character. And the same thing holds true for the local legal system. But a unique local 'flavor' can't outweigh due process and absolute right that a defendant has to a fair trial nor can it outweigh the public's strong interest in a process that yields a result that it can have confidence in. In Georgia, criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be tried in the county where the crime is alleged to have occurred. Defendants can waive this right however and seek a trial elsewhere if a fair and impartial jury can't be seated in that county. At any given time, the population of Irwin County is only about ten thousand people. This case touched nearly every person in Irwin County – personally – in one way or another. It was the local citizens who went door-to-door and field-to-field conducting searches for Tara Grinstead in the days, weeks, and months following her disappearance. It's the local citizens who talk about the case day in and day out in homes, restaurants, offices, and other gatherings. It's the locals who read the local paper when leaked excerpts from the GBI case file were published that described Ryan Duke's incriminating statements to law enforcement on the day of his 2017 arrest. It was the local community that loved their high school history teacher. It's the local community that's locked in a continual debate about whether the authorities have charged the right person. On top of all this, the pretrial publicity has been – and will continue to be – extreme and pervasive. Opinions are strong. The bottom line is that nearly everyone in Irwin County has likely heard of the case and surely a great deal has actually been personally affected by it in some way. Besides helping to ensure a fair trial, there are practical reasons why moving the trial just makes good sense. Chief among those practical reasons is this: in the event of a conviction, the issue of venue will be a major part of the appeal and changing venue removes that consideration. This is a strategic reason why the DA most likely did not oppose the change of venue. He doesn't want to have to try this case twice. In the event of a conviction, the DA needs as few appellate issues to deal with as possible. Moving any trial is no small feat. Logistically it's been described as more difficult than taking a three ring circus on the road. It's expensive too. Irwin County just doesn't have the financial resources that a larger jurisdiction has and moving a trial the likes of this one could cause major financial and other upheaval in terms of government resources. None of these considerations outweigh the right to a fair trial, however, and none of them outweigh the public's right to have confidence in the integrity of the process. Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.  
  • Police use of force, deadly or otherwise, has been a particularly hot topic in the news in recent years. In this age of social media and near real-time access to cell phone and other video of law enforcement activity it's inevitable that police work, which has always had an element of violence associated with it, would come under an unprecedented degree of scrutiny. Traditionally, nearly all police work occurred 'out of sight' and accordingly was 'out of mind' - at least to the general public. But those days are over and the police and the public are having to adjust to this 'new normal.'  When I went to the police academy in 1989, I remember being taught in no uncertain terms that deadly force was authorized to stop a fleeing felon. In other words, we were told we could shoot someone who was a felon if they were running away from us. Fortunately I was never in a position to test that dubious training. Police training in all subjects is now light years ahead of where it was then. Training in the area of use of force is even further ahead in my view.  So what is the law in this area? Can an officer lawfully use lethal force against a felon who is merely running away? The answer of course is no. But unfortunately most examples are not that clear.  When we look at any police use of force, there is one word in the English language to consider. That word is: reasonableness  In 1989 the Supreme Court of The United States decided the landmark case of Graham v. Connor and the precedent set by Graham has been the foundation of police training on use of force ever since.  Graham provides that any use of force incident -deadly or otherwise - must be 'objectively reasonable' under the totality of the circumstances and that '[t]he 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.' It also clarified 'the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.'  The State of Georgia adds to the federal standard. In two ways. The first way is by the statutory law. Georgia’s self-defense law is Georgia Code 16-3-21 states that: “(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force… [and] a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Georgia law also addresses police use of force specifically in code section 17-4-20. That law says “peace officers … may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm” The second way is grounded in police training. At least once per year, all officers must undergo training in use of force and de-escalation. That training centers around the federal and state laws that apply to the use of force as well as agency-specific policies. The key points of this training on deadly force are that police may use deadly force in any of the following scenarios: A suspect possesses a deadly weapon; or A suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or The suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm So the next time we see a viral video of a police shooting or other use of force incident try to apply the apply the Graham standard to it and you'll find that it can be extremely difficult to immediately decide whether it was 'justified.' In fact, the Graham case tells us that these things require a careful, deliberate, and thorough investigation into all the facts and circumstances before deciding that issue. Rarely - if ever - are knee jerk decisions based on a single video or social media post helpful. It's worth noting that under the Graham analysis, the presence or absence of a weapon doesn't prove anything either way. The presence of absence of a weapon is merely one factor that must be considered along with the totality of all other circumstances.  Police work can be - by it's very nature - quite ugly and violent. It's never like it is on TV or in the movies. But it is real life and involves real people. We demand that our police swear to support and defend the constitution and laws so we must in turn judge them - and their actions - according to the constitution and laws as interpreted by the courts. Unlike the court of public opinion or social media, courts and investigators don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of the constitution to apply - in these cases they must follow the Graham analysis to wherever it leads - even if it leads to an unpopular place.  And by the way, it turns out that the 'Fleeing Felon Rule' - which I was taught about in the police academy in 1989 was an old rule, grounded in the old English common law that was largely done away with in 1985 when the Supreme Court decided Tennessee v. Garner and held that the police could be sued for shooting a 15 year-old who was merely fleeing and who otherwise posed no lethal threat. In other words, shooting Garner was not 'reasonable.' Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
  • Holloway is the legal analyst for WSB Radio. 

News

  • Two suburban Denver officers were fired Friday after they took a photograph showing a chokehold in front of the memorial for Elijah McClain, who died after a confrontation with officers from the Aurora Police Department, officials said. McClain, 23, was pronounced dead on Aug. 27, 2019 -- a few days after he went into cardiac arrest following a struggle with officers from the Aurora Police Department, KUSA reported. The third officer involved resigned on Thursday, the television station reported. Police said photos they were investigating showed officers reenacting a chokehold used on McClain before he died, The Associated Press reported. “I speak for all men and women of APD we are ashamed and sickened over what we have to share with you,” Interim APD Chief Vanessa Wilson said at a news conference. According to documents released by the Aurora Police Department (APD) on Friday, the photos were texted to Officer Jason Rosenblatt, who responded with “HaHa.” Rosenblatt is one of the three officers who responded the night of McClain’s death, and Williams said he has also been fired.  The officers depicted in the photos were identified by APD as Erica Marrero, Kyle Dittrich and Jaron Jones, who resigned from the department on Thursday. Check back for more on this developing story.
  • A recently released study by the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan suggests that the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine helps lower the death rate in hospitalized coronavirus patients. An analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized with coronavirus between March 10 and May 2, 2020, found that 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died as compared to 26% who died that did not receive the drug, according to The Detroit News. The mortality rate for hospitalized patients ranges from 10% to 30% globally, while the overall in-hospital mortality for the study was 18.1%. The study, which was conducted at six hospitals within The Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan, was published Thursday in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. “The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Dr. Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration said the drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating the coronavirus. Citing reports of heart complications, the FDA said the drugs’ unproven benefits “do not outweigh the known and potential risks.” In a separate announcement, the FDA also warned doctors against prescribing the drugs in combination with remdesivir, the lone drug currently shown to help patients with COVID-19. The FDA said the anti-malaria drugs can reduce the effectiveness of remdesivir, which FDA cleared for emergency use in May. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are frequently prescribed for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and can cause heart rhythm problems, severely low blood pressure and muscle or nerve damage. The agency reported in June that it had received nearly 390 reports of complications with the drugs, including more than 100 involving serious heart problems. Read more about the study here and here. https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext The Associated Press contributed to this story.
  • There are new rules in place for the holiday weekend if you plan to rent an Airbnb. The company says guests under 25 years old with fewer than three positive reviews will not be able to book an entire home close to where they live Airbnb didn’t reveal how it defines what is “close.” Airbnb said it wants to weed out any potential problems, specifically unauthorized house parties and feels this is the best way to do so. The company says it’s a nationwide policy, but it is most relevant for a handful of cities. The company says its technologies would block that guest from booking. “No one policy is going to stop all unauthorized parties. We’re also conscious that just because you’re 25 or older doesn’t mean that every single person in that group is booking for the right reasons too,” spokesperson Ben Breit told WSB-TV. Guests under 25 with at least three positive Airbnb reviews and no negative reviews won’t be subject to the restrictions. Airbnb began stepping up efforts to ban “party houses” last November after five people were shot and killed during an unauthorized party at an Airbnb rental in Orinda, California. At the time, Airbnb set up a rapid response team to deal with complaints from neighbors and started screening “high risk” bookings, such as reservations at a large home for one night. In a message to hosts, the company said reducing unauthorized parties is even more of a priority right now as states try to avoid coronavirus outbreaks. “With public health mandates in place throughout the country, we’re taking actions to support safe and responsible travel in the United States,” the company said. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
  • Jillian Wuestenberg, 32, and Eric Wuestenberg, 42, were charged Thursday with felonious assault after pulling a gun out on a Black mother and her children when a confrontation escalated outside a Chipotle in Michigan. Each of them had a loaded firearm and concealed pistol licenses. Deputies seized the two handguns, Sheriff Mike Bouchard said. On Thursday, the couple was arraigned and were given a $50,000 personal bond.  “As part of the bond conditions, they must turn over all firearms, not engage in any assaultive behavior, and may not leave the state,” sheriff’s officials told The Detroit News. The Detroit News first reported on the three-minute video posted online that shows part of the interaction. Takelia Hill, who is Black, told the newspaper that it happened after the white woman bumped into Hill’s teenage daughter as they were entering the fast food restaurant. The video footage [WARNING: Contains graphic language] starts after that, in the parking lot. A woman since identified as Jillian Wuestenberg is heard arguing with Hill and her daughters. Wuestenberg climbs into the vehicle, rolls down the window and says, “White people aren’t racist,” and, “I care about you,” before the vehicle she was in starts to back away. Her husband, who had led his wife to the vehicle, turns to the camera and asks, “Who ... do you think you guys are?,” using an expletive. Then, as someone is standing behind the vehicle, Jillian Wuestenberg jumps out and points a handgun in the direction of a person who’s recording. She screams at people to get away from her and her vehicle. A woman shouts, “She’s got a gun on me!” and urges someone in the parking lot to call the police. Wuestenberg then lowers the gun, climbs into the passenger seat and the vehicle drives off. Cooper, the prosecutor, told The Associated Press that her office viewed the available video and looked at the facts before filing charges. “It is an unfortunate set of circumstances that tempers run high over, basically, not much of an incident,” she said of the initial alleged spark that caused the confrontation. Bouchard said people are “picking sides” and that threatening calls were made to the sheriff’s office dispatch center after the videos were posted online. “We don’t see sides. We see facts,” he said. “There’s a lot of tension in our society, a lot of tension among folks and people with each other. I would just say this, we are asking and expect our police — and rightfully so — to deescalate every situation they possibly can, and we should be doing that. But I would say that needs to happen with us individually in our own lives and situations, that we interact with each other and deescalate those moments.” The Associated Press contributed to this story.
  • The United States Geological Survey reported that a 4.9 magnitude earthquake struck this morning near Puerto Rico around 9:55 a.m. EDT. The quake was felt across the U.S. territory and is the latest in a series of tremors that began in late December and have damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes. Ángel Vázquez, who oversees the emergency management agency in Ponce, said a house collapsed in the town of Lajas. The house was empty and slated for demolition, according to Kiara Hernández, spokeswoman for Puerto Rico’s Department of Public Security. Víctor Huérfano, director of Puerto Rico’s Seismic Network, told The Associated Press that the tremor is an aftershock related to the 6.4-magnitude quake that struck in early January, killing at least one person and causing millions of dollars in damage. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
  • With The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Peachtree Road Race postponed this year, the Atlanta Police Department warned people against running or walking the course on the Fourth of July. APD noted in a tweet Friday that the course will not be closed to car traffic on Independence Day. With hashtags including #MyPersonalPeachtree and #APDCares, the police department said in the tweet that people should avoid running or walking the course on Saturday for safety reasons. >>Read MORE on AJC.com. [Summary]