GUEST COLUMN: Witnesses dismiss anonymous cop's claims

Joseph Joseph We would like the opportunity to respond to the commentary of the anonymous University Police officer regarding the beating of College freshman Bill Sofield on the night of October 30. We feel it is important that people realize we, the witnesses, the students, have nothing to gain by standing up and speaking the truth except what is just and right. None of us personally, nor the house, has been implicated in this incident in any way. We need not to clear our names or save ourselves. Rather, we have set ourselves up for attacks on our character and endangered our personal safety on campus. The other party involved, the University Police Department, though, has much to lose through the uncovering of the truth. More specifically, the image and integrity of their department and the security of their jobs. Ask yourself, who has the incentive to lie? Who should fear the truth? That said we will take the time to point out the various untruths unveiled by the University Police officer in the front-page DP article on Monday, November 10, ("Cop rejects charges of brutality," DP, 11/10/97) who despite claiming to tell the truth, chooses to hide behind the safety of anonymity. 1. The officer claims that Bill Sofield pushed the Philadelphia police officer who was one of the first to try to arrest him for disorderly conduct. This simple statement is untrue in three ways. Firstly, Bill Sofield never said one word, made any movements, or fought back in any way whatsoever. Why would he? Bill was surrounded by approximately 20 officers and had grown up respecting law enforcement (his father is a lieutenant detective with the Long Beach Police Department in New York). He was well aware of police procedures. Sef Idly, the officer that initially approached Bill and pinned his throat to the wall was a University officer, not a Philadelphia officer as claimed. Is the University Police Department trying to cover its back by shifting the blame to another department? Thirdly, the officer states Bill was to be charged with disorderly conduct. We find this hard to believe. Initially Bill was handcuffed and charged only with resisting arrest. He spent two nights in jail before the police decided to charge him with disorderly conduct. Why was he arrested in the first place? It is evident from the above mentioned chain of events that even the police who beat and handcuffed Bill did not know why. 2. The officer then stresses that officers did not punch Sofield while bringing him to the ground and never kicked him. In his very next sentence the officer admits he could not see if officers were punching or striking the freshman after he was on the floor. Are these statements not contradictory? And beyond that point, how does one suffer a concussion, sore neck, black eye, bruises to the face, ribs, back, wrist and elbows (which are all medically documented) without being physically assaulted? 3. The anonymous source then goes on to say a police officer did raise his nightstick to a position near the chin of a witness who was allegedly trying to prevent the officers from entering the house. We find it extremely ironic that the witness who was harassed by the officer was actually the student who used his key to open the door and allow the officers into the house. Furthermore, he claims that although the officer put the nightstick in the students face he did not threaten him. How does one raise a weapon to someone's head and not threaten him or her? Would you find a nightstick in your face to be threatening? 4. In response to the denial by the officer of the fact that this same officer raised his club to strike a non-resisting Bill Sofield, we ask you to consider this. If this officer so easily raised his nightstick to the witness (in unprovoked harassment), then what would stop him from threatening to use this force on the supposed suspect? Nothing. The officer did indeed raise his nightstick to strike Bill and was only stopped through the intervention of another officer. This is fact. 5. The police maintain that Bill Sofield "fled" into the house after his older brother Rick (a 28-year-old U.S. District Attorney) had been arrested. This statement is also very difficult to believe. Bill entered the house at approximately 10:10 p.m., while his older brother was not even arrested until around 10:30 p.m. Bill was inside the building well before his brother was handcuffed and read his rights. Bill Sofield had no reason to flee as the true timeline will prove. 6. In the Monday, November 3 front-page article in the DP concerning this issue the police stated that the officers had used only pepper spray in subduing Bill Sofield, ("Frosh, two others charged with bloody assault," DP, 11/13/97). This is a lie. The officers did not use pepper spray. Rather, they beat Bill to the point of unconscious. The anonymous officer makes absolutely no mention of the use of pepper spray in the article this Monday. The department has gone from denial of the incident to admitting it happened, but that witnesses accounts are "greatly exaggerated." Why has the police version of the story changed over the course of the week? Hopefully it is becoming more and more evident that a gross injustice occurred on this campus approximately two weeks ago. Every student should be concerned with such issues. If it happened to an innocent Bill Sofield then it could happen to anyone. This is not an isolated incident. Police abuse of power on this campus is a recurring phenomenon with this as a culmination. In closing we would like to outline our main points. Bill Sofield is innocent of any wrongdoing on the night of October 30. He had nothing to do with the incidents that occurred behind our house (the alleged assault of officers). Nine students witnessed the police beat Bill to the point of unconsciousness and have stood up to tell the truth behind the situation. We have nothing to gain but what is just and right. The other involved party, though, has a lot to lose. We do not fear the truth. It seems as if the other party involved does. We thank you for your time and concern. We also thank The Daily Pennsylvanian for its unbiased reporting. We are confident that the truth will be known.