Thursday, May 25, 2023

Missouri Supreme Court to decide whether school districts can jail parents for absent students

By Annelise Hanshaw

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over whether two single mothers should have been sentenced to jail time because their children missed more days of school than the local district allowed.


The case centers on Missouri’s compulsory school attendance law, which states that a parent must ensure their child attends “the academic program on a regular basis.”

(Photo- The Supreme Court of Missouri in Jefferson City, as photographed Wednesday morning- Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)

Assistant Attorney General Shaun Mackelprang, representing the state, argued that the definition of “a regular basis” means attending school every day on the district’s schedule.








“Do I have to go to school everyday? The answer is yes,” he told six Supreme Court judges Wednesday morning. “You have to go to school every day that the school is in session.”

Ellen Flottman, a public defender representing Caitlyn Williams and Tamarae LaRue, argued the law is unconstitutionally vague and inconsistently applied.

“The state’s position is anti-parent. Most of the school districts are not prosecuting these parents,” Flottman said Wednesday. “Schools have to work with parents; they have to have policies because they want the kids to go to school.”

“But this is a kindergartener and a first grader. Is missing one day in November and one day in December going to hurt this kindergartener’s education that much?”

Case background

Williams and LaRue’s children attended school in the Lebanon R-III School District, about an hour outside of Springfield.

The district has a 16.1% poverty rate, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, compared to Missouri’s 12.7% poverty rate.

During the 2021-2022 school year, Williams’ six-year-old daughter missed 16 days of school before the district filed a probable cause statement. A Laclede County Circuit Court judge sentenced Williams to seven days in jail and added a misdemeanor to her record.

Williams called her daughter out from school sick for six of the absences, but the school counts these as “verified” but not “excused” and tallies the hours and minutes of missed instructional time toward her percentage.

The district’s handbook, which parents check a box that they have read when they register online, says parents must notify the school of absences but it does not clarify the difference between “verified” and “excused” absences, such as those with a doctor’s note.

“My clients were not acting knowingly…. They’re being misled by the school handbook and the school administrators,” Flottman said Wednesday.

The handbook also says: “The state mandates that students maintain 90% or higher attendance each year in school and that continued and valuable learning cannot take place without regular attendance.”

State statute does not mandate a 90% attendance rate, though students who maintain this level of attendance contribute greater to school accreditation, Mackelprang said Wednesday.








Mackelprang argued in a filing in the case that high attendance contributes toward a school’s funding.

“Daily attendance, even down to the hour, has important consequences for schools and, by extension, all of the students at a given school,” Mackelprang wrote.

LaRue’s six-year-old son was absent 13 days, according to Flottman, and LaRue called the school with explanation for six of those absences. The district says his attendance, based on the number of hours present, is just under 80%.

Court documents say LaRue gave the following reasons for her son’s absence: Doctor appointment, fever, at dad’s in Iowa, another appointment, overslept and sick. Documents mention siblings and that the family contracted COVID-19 during the school year.

LaRue was sentenced to 15 days in jail by a different Laclede County Circuit Court judge than Williams, but the sentence was changed to two years of probation.

The arguments

Flottman’s argument was three-pronged: The parents didn’t know that they were violating the rules because the handbook didn’t state that absences without doctor’s notes are unexcused; the circuit court failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the children’s absences were beyond regular attendance; and the state statute is “unconstitutionally vague” by failing to define what “regular” attendance means.

She opened the arguments by saying she attends church “on a regular basis,” although she missed a service recently and has a vacation planned.

“The state has argued that regular means every day,” she said as Judge W. Brent Powell interrupted her.

Powell said he liked her church analogy but asked if the nonattendance rules were like the speed limit, where not everyone that gets caught breaking the law gets a ticket but officers have discretion on what is too far.

Flottman responded by using an example introduced in Mackelprang’s brief, the Wisconsin compulsory school attendance law which says children should attend school “regularly.” The Wisconsin Court of Appeals defined “regularly” as “constantly and uniformly,” Mackelprang wrote.

Flottman said the state’s argument also helped her clients, for Wisconsin’s law has a “specific schema,” she said Wednesday.

“Missouri doesn’t give that kind of guidance to parents,” she said.

Judge Mary R. Russell inquired Mackelprang about why Missouri lawmakers didn’t include more specificity in the attendance law.

“Why would the legislature choose to write it this way instead of in a way that is more articulate?” she asked.

“They just have to write it in a way that is adequate,” Mackelprang said.

“So, is the legislature leaving it up to local school districts how to enforce this word?” Russell asked, inquiring about the definition of “regular attendance.” “How to interpret this word?”

“There probably is some discretion of when they are going to go to the prosecutor with it,” Mackelprang said.

Flottman said she was worried about this leniency allowing schools to apply different standards to students.








“The students that take a day off to go deer hunting or their parents who take their children out of school for a week to go to Disney World are not being prosecuted for this. So there’s a difference between prosecutorial discretion and arbitrary enforcement,” she said.

Judge Robin Ransom asked if she would make the same argument if it were not a criminal case.

“I do think the criminalization of this certainly has to do with it. We’re talking about the liberty of people who are just trying to do the best they can,” Flottman said.

She said she would argue that the state should get involved to provide services to get the children to school.

Mackelprang said the statute is not “anti-parent.” He said parents are in control of young children and have options to homeschool or enroll them in private school.

“Women make the decision to enroll them in a public school, like the parents did in this case,” he said. “They’re subject to the terms of this statute.”

The judges can’t base their decision on violations of the school handbook, for the state’s case is that Williams and LaRue broke state law.

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Arkansas man sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison for actions during D. C. insurrection


(From the Department of Justice)

An Arkansas man was sentenced today in the District of Columbia on felony and misdemeanor charges for his actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Breach. 

His actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

Richard Barnett, 62, of Gravette, Arkansas, was sentenced to 54 months in prison, 36 months of supervised release, and a $2,000 fine, following a sentencing hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper scheduled a sentencing hearing for May 3, 2023. 








Barnett was found guilty, on January 23, 2023, of all charges including: obstruction of an official proceeding, interfering with a police officer during a civil disorder, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a dangerous or deadly weapon, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds with a dangerous weapon, all of which are felonies. He was also found guilty of entering and remaining in certain rooms in a capitol building, disorderly conduct in a capitol building, theft of government property, parading or demonstrating in a capitol building.

According to the government’s evidence, U.S. Capitol Police learned that an individual had entered the restricted office area of the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and was photographed with his feet propped up on furniture. Those photos were circulated on numerous news media platforms which identified the individual as Barnett. A search of law enforcement databases confirmed that the individual in the news photographs did in fact appear to be Barnett.

Evidence established that Barnett carried a Zap Hike ‘N Strike Walking Staff with spike electrodes with him as he traveled through the Capitol, and that he exposed those spike electrodes as various points that day, including during a face-to-face encounter with a Metropolitan Police Officer. During that encounter, Barnett threatened to call in the mob and push through the line of officers if the officer did not go and retrieve Barnett’s flag, that he had left in the officers of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.






 

This case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia with valuable assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

This case was investigated by the U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI’s Little Rock, Arkansas and Washington Field Offices, with the assistance of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

In the 28 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,000 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 320 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.

Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.

Grand jury indicts Carthage man who told undercover FBI agent he wanted to abduct, rape child

A federal grand jury indicted a Carthage man on child pornography charges today.

According to the indictment, James Allen Beam, 35, received and distributed child pornography between January 1, 2021 and April 20, 2023.

Beam has been held in the Greene County Jail in Springfield since his April arrest.

According to the probable cause affidavit filed in April after his arrest, attention was focused on Beam after a KIK discussion he had with a Fresno, California FBI undercover agent in which Beam said he a sexual interest in children.








Beam suggested a meeting with the undercover agent, so he could have sex with the man's niece, according to the affidavit. He told the agent he had a 1-year-old daughter who lived with her mom.

On April 14, 2023, the target informed the UC (undercover agent) of his intent to abduct and "rape" a child. The target advised there were several old houses in the country near him that he could take the child to. He indicated that his preference was girls "7 and up."

Feeling there was an imminent risk of harm to a child, the agent contacted KIK and received Beam's e-mail address.
Beam sent the agent a photo of a fully clothed young girl he identified as his daughter. Using facial recognition technology, the agent was able to identify the girl, a Lamar resident who was not Beam's daughter, but who was a relative, according to the affidavit.








On April 14, Beam forwarded a 20-second video to the agent showing a naked underage girl with an adult male and told the agent the video had been sent to him by another KIK user.

After that, Beam sent a 9-second video showing an adult male in a red shirt, khaki shorts and dark colored sneakers masturbating. The man had a distinctive tattoo on his left arm.

A photo on Beam's Facebook page indicated he had the same tattoo on his left arm.



Preliminary hearing scheduled for alleged Third Thursday kidnapper


The bond hearing for alleged Third Thursday kidnapper Johnny Arehart, 28, originally scheduled for this morning, has been moved to 10 a.m. June 8 in Jasper County Circuit Court. The preliminary hearing will be held the same day.

Online court records indicate the change was made because the public defender who will represent Arehart just entered the case.

According to a news release from the Joplin Police Department, the alleged kidnapping took place at 3rd and Main with Arehart grabbing the child and attempting to carry her away. As the child's mother pursued them, other Third Thursday attendees joined the pursuit, stopped them and rescued the child who appeared unharmed.


Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Ten years ago today, I made C. J. Huff cry


Ten years ago today, the Joplin R-8 Board of Education heard what a horrible human being Randy Turner is.

My termination hearing came more than six weeks after I was removed from my classroom at East Middle School after a four-minute interrogation by HR Director Tina Smith in which she mainly asked me if I had written a pornographic book called No Child Left Alive (I said I wrote the book but I disagreed with her description) and if I had written a book called Scars from the Tornado.

After I saw where her interrogation was heading, I asked if I could explain.

She told me I would get my chance, but I never did.







Joplin Police Department Officer Rick Hirshey, who was our resource officer at East, was told to escort me from the building and he did. Tina Smith timed it so I would be removed just as the final bell was ringing, so the students and my fellow teachers could see me.

For the next several days, I stayed in my apartment. I did not want to have to explain to anyone why I was out and about on a school day (not that anyone would have asked). Tina Smith had instructed me not to talk to any teachers or students and I didn't.

When word got out that I had been removed from the classroom. A couple of my former students, who at the time were attending Joplin High School, organized a group to support me.

I finally received the charges against me and the charges were wild. I not only wrote a "pornographic" book, but I assigned it to students.

I had never even told any of them about the book.

I was also accused of publishing Scars from the Tornado, a book that included stories written by the students about their tornado experiences, without receiving permission.

During that time, I received a phone call from Joplin Globe reporter Emily Younker who asked me about my situation. I told her I couldn't talk to her on the record, but I offered to tell her off the record so she could understand what was going on.

She wasn't interested.

Joplin Globe reporters don't do that, I was told.

Annie Smith of NEA tried to get Superintendent C. J. Huff to hear my side because there were so many things that were wrong with the charges, but he was not interested.

She told me my best bet was to look for a job in another district and that was what I decided to do. I probably would have been hired for another teaching position and quietly resigned from Joplin were it not for C. J. Huff (or someone from his administration) and the Joplin Globe.

The Globe published an article about my suspension, dutifully quoted Huff who said he could not talk about it since it was a personnel matter- but then from out of nowhere, the Globe mentioned that I had written a "sexually graphic" novel. 

How else would the Globe reporter have known what my suspension was about? At the time, No Child Left Alive was only an e-book and I had not even really been promoting it. After all, it was essentially about a group of high school teachers in a dysfunctional school district that had extremely poor leadership at the top administrative level.







After that, my prospects at landing a new teaching position vanished and I was forced to go through with the hearing. My only chance to continue teaching was to get the board to back me over the superintendent who inspired Joplin after the tornado.

That was why I finally wrote about it in the Turner Report, revealing that during my interrogation with Tina Smith, while I turned off my phone as requested. I used an iPod in my pocket to record all four minutes of it. I also took a photo of the permission slips I received from parents for the use of their children's work in Scars from the Tornado. 

So a few days later, a courier delivered more charges to my apartment.

I had written a pornographic novel called Devil's Messenger and I had violated district policy by recording my interrogation, according to the new charges.

I noted on the Turner Report that Devil's Messenger had been in the South and East Middle School libraries and at Joplin High School for years and had never received any complaints. 

Between my receiving the second batch of charges and my hearing, C. J. Huff visited East to discourage my colleagues from attending by telling them there were "much worse" things that were going to come out about me.

Huff talked to the parents of at least one of the organizers who planned to protest at the hearing on my behalf and said it could keep the student from being accepted at a good college.

The media was told that there would be things said that children shouldn't hear and said children would not be allowed to attend without an adult accompanying them.

Huff also had about a half dozen law enforcement officers at the hearing for security.

The hearing itself was a nightmare. Tina Smith testified that she had talked to a number of girl students and detected evidence of "grooming." When she said that, I took a quick glance at Wally Kennedy, who was covering the story for the Globe. His eyes were rolling. Her evidence of grooming was that all of the girls supported me and did not want to say anything bad about me.

I glanced at the list of students she questioned. It was no surprise that it was only the girls who supported me.

There were no boys on the list- they would have supported me, too.

As the hearing continued, they backed off some of the more sensational claims they had made. I no longer had shared pornographic material with 150 students since they were unable to find any students who had ever heard of No Child Left Alive.

I had made it available to them when I promoted it on my public Facebook page where anyone, even a student, could see the book and buy it.

As for violating district policy by recording my interrogation, the policy I supposedly violated only dealt with recording meetings in which students were involved.

The only people who testified against me were administrators. None of them appeared to be too emotional about it, save one.

C. J. Huff cried and admitted there was no evidence I had ever done anything harmful to a child, but he "could not sleep at night" if I remained in the classroom and he would never want his daughter to have a teacher like me.

Board members were texting and talking with each other like it was a hardship for them to be there. 

After the hearing, a man came up two me and said, "They didn't have a thing on you, Randy."

I thanked him and then introduced the man- Rick Hirshey, the same officer who had escorted me out of the building, to my lawyer.

The board made me wait two weeks before firing me on a 7-0 vote.

The district sent out a news release, giving just the bare facts. I received a call from Wally Kennedy and for the first time I talked on the record to a reporter.

It was a good thing I did. The district did not bother to send out the final written judgment. The news release did not include their conclusion that there was no evidence I had done anything morally wrong. Nor was there ever any effort made to revoke my teaching license.







I violated school policy, the finding said, by making No Child Left Alive available to students through my public Facebook and Twitter accounts, by secretly recording my interrogation by Tina Smith and I did not receive permission from administration to write Scars from the Tornado. The last one was a bit of a shocker since I had been given the O. K. by Principal Bud Sexson to do the book and I kept him updated on its progress. Two witnesses, both parents, told the board that Sexson had been bragging about the book. Sexson, who did not hear those witnesses, testified under oath he had never heard of the book until after it was published.

Wally Kennedy did a good job on the story.

I have always appreciated how Wally handled it, but his newspaper was another story. I discovered months after the hearing that a Joplin Globe editor had tried to talk one of my witnesses out of testifying for me asking her, "How can you support someone who wrote a book like that?

For the next few years, I did my best to land another teaching job, sending out more than 50 applications. I also wrote about the problems in the Joplin R-8 School District and though I don't take credit for what happened, within two years C. J. Huff and all seven board members were gone. I talked with Huff's replacement, Norm Ridder and asked for reinstatement. It was a good conversation, I thought I had a chance, but he never got back in touch with me.

Not only did I not get another teaching job, I was never received an interview. Only one time did a school district check my references.

At times, I had R-8 Board members who backed my reinstatement, but the most encouragement I ever got was that I could apply for jobs in the district, but the final choice would be up to the principals.

Finally, on the last day I could file a lawsuit against the school district before I was barred by the statute of limitations, I filed a lawsuit in Jasper County Circuit Court on June 7, 2018.

I never wanted to sue. I just wanted to be back in the classroom.

Four years later, it was over.







Except for three more things.

Nine months after I was fired for violating a district policy by recording my interrogation, the R-8 Board approved a new district policy that made what I did a violation. 

Second, I suppose I should admit that my headline for this post is misleading- I didn't make C. J. Huff cry.

He can do it on cue.

Finally, of those 50 some applications I sent out, five of the teachers who were hired were later removed from the classroom for having sex with students- including one in the Joplin R-8 School District.

Bond reduction hearing scheduled for alleged Third Thursday kidnapper


A bond reduction hearing is scheduled for 8:15 a.m. Thursday in Jasper County Circuit Court for the homeless man charged with kidnapping a 4-year-old girl during Joplin's Third Thursday activities May 18.

The first court appearance for Johnny Arehart, 28, who is being held without bond in the Jasper County Jail, was held Monday with Arehart entering a not guilty plea and indicating he planned to apply for a public defender.

According to a news release from the Joplin Police Department, the alleged kidnapping took place at 3rd and Main with Arehart grabbing the child and attempting to carry her away. As the child's mother pursued them, other Third Thursday attendees joined the pursuit, stopped them and rescued the child who appeared unharmed.

Judge accepts plea bargain agreement for Joplin man on statutory rape charge


A Joplin man with a lengthy record of sexually abusing children was sentenced to 10 years in prison Monday during a hearing in Jasper County Circuit Court.

Judge Gayle Crane approved the plea bargain agreement the Jasper County Prosecuting Attorney's office reached with David Timothy Gallovich, 57, which reduced the charge against him from first degree statutory rape and child molestation to a single count of second degree statutory rape.







During his plea hearing, Gallovich admitted to raping a girl who was younger than 17 in the summer of 2020, but the probable cause statement said he had been molesting the girl since 2017.

Gallovich had also been accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in 2017 and he had previously been arrested for child sex crimes in Arizona.

Missouri Supreme Court to hear Mercy Joplin's appeal of $1.5 million judgment for shooting victim


The Missouri Supreme Court will hear Mercy Joplin's appeal of a $1.5 million judgment awarded to a Monett man who was shot in the hospital parking lot in 2015.

A Newton County jury found on July 27, 2021 that Mercy was 75 percent responsible and Stephen Harner 25 percent responsible for the shooting, which happened after a woman broke into Harner's car and stole his gun, which he had left in either the glove compartment or the console while visiting his daughter who was in the emergency room.







The jury awarded Harner $1.5 million, agreeing with Harner's attorney's claim that Mercy was aware of the intruder because she had caused problems elsewhere in the parking lot earlier in the evening.

Mercy lost its appeal in the Southern District, with one judge dissenting from the opinion and saying Mercy did not have a duty to warn Harner.

The circumstances that led to Harner's shooting were described in the Southern District Court of Appeals opinion:

Keith (“Keith”) and Elnora (“Elnora”) 4 Wooldridge, an elderly husband and wife, entered Mercy Parking Lot H on December 23, 2015 in their white Ford Focus (the “Focus”). They spent about five hours in the Mercy Emergency Department and returned when it was dark to the Focus, which did not lock, to find a woman [Liska] inside. 

Keith told Liska, “Lady, I think you’re in the wrong car.” 

Liska exited the Focus on the driver’s side without speaking to Keith and ran around the back of the Focus where she nearly ran into Elnora, who was standing by the passenger side of the Focus. 

The Wooldridges saw Liska take from the Focus a carrying case containing Elnora’s prescription medications. Liska urinated and defecated in the Focus and ate peanut butter crackers that Elnora stored in the Focus due to Elnora’s diabetic condition. Liska stayed in the Focus at least 20 minutes.

Liska testified she saw bottles of prescription medication in the Focus and took them, intending to sell them. Keith and Elnora immediately went back inside the Mercy Emergency Department and reported to Mercy employee Dee-Dee Baker (“Baker”) at the Mercy Emergency Department front desk: “[T]hat we had been robbed. That somebody was in our car and we had been robbed.” 

Mercy completed a Case Report related to the Wooldridge report. The Case Report identifies the incident type as “Theft/Larceny: From a Person[,]” identifies the Focus, lists the location of the incident as Mercy Parking Lot H, and lists what was stolen as prescription medicines. 

The Case Report states: Dee-Dee, ER Registrations, called and reported two vehicles have been robbed in the ED parking lot. Officer 14 is making contact with Dee-Dee. Dispatch was asked to review camera footage, I was trying to find video footage of individual around a vehicle in the parking lot, when the call came in of a shooting. Officer 14 has information. 

The Case Report has a section titled “Narrative text,” which states: On 12/23/2015 at 2033 hours,  [O]fficer Meier #14 was dispatched to the ER waiting area to speak with a distraught couple. As we made the introductions, they were quick to inform me that they had been the victims of a theft just prior to them calling security. They provided me with their contact information, a description of the vehicle, a brief description of the suspect, and a short synopsis of what they believed transpired. They were headed out to their vehicle at approx. 2030 hours. 

When they got to the car, Keith opened up the driver’s side door and found the suspect (a woman of petite build, approximately 5’2” tall, with longer than shoulder length dark hair[]) laying down over the seats, rummaging through the glove compartment. 

As soon as the door opened, the female jumped up, grabbed the box of prescription medicine in the back seat, and exited the car at a high rate of speed. Both Keith and Elnora stated that they hardly had time to react and have no idea which way the thief headed. When asked if the suspect had broken into the vehicle, they stated that the doors did not lock. I wrote down as much as I could get and then headed off to do mobile rounds.







Baker called Mercy employee Jody Berry (“Dispatcher Berry”), who worked in dispatch for Mercy’s Security Department (“Mercy Security”). The Wooldridges testified Mercy Security came right away. Keith testified the Mercy Security guard remarked “they had been looking for her” and “they’d been trying to catch her.” 

The Mercy Security guard told Keith and Elnora that Mercy had been “[l]ooking for a person that was getting into the cars.” Keith and Mercy Security guard Officer Ryan Meier (“Officer Meier”) went to the Focus while Elnora stayed inside the Mercy facility. 

Officer Meier viewed the interior and exterior of the Focus. Officer Meier testified he did not talk to any potential witnesses in Mercy Parking Lot H and did nothing else to make sure the person who had been in the Wooldridge vehicle was not still on Mercy property. 

Mercy Security told the Joplin Police Department about the Wooldridge report. A Joplin police officer was at Mercy to investigate the Wooldridge report at the time of the Harner shooting. 

Mercy Security guard Officer Justin Larcombe (“Officer Larcombe”) conducted two rounds by vehicle of Mercy Parking Lot H looking for suspicious people breaking into vehicles after being advised of the Wooldridge report. 

After the last round, he stopped at the Focus to view the Focus and discuss the Wooldridge report with Officer Meier and Keith. Officer Larcombe testified he had been called upon to serve as an escort for Mercy patients or visitors “many times” during his employment as a Mercy guard. 

Officer Larcombe testified he had been notified by Mercy Security dispatch in the past of vehicle alarms going off in Mercy parking lots and had investigated those reports and had checked on the vehicles on those occasions and likewise had checked on vehicles in the past in Mercy lots when he himself had heard or seen vehicle alarms going off. 

Officer Meier testified that, although Officer Larcombe had to carry a flashlight as part of his duties, neither Officer Meier nor Officer Larcombe walked Mercy Parking Lot H to look in each vehicle to find someone entering vehicles. Officer Meier agreed there were fewer than 45 vehicles in Mercy Parking Lot H at the time of the Wooldridge report. 

Tim Wampler, Mercy’s Manager of Security in December 2015, who was not present on December 23, 2015, testified Officer Larcombe should have gotten out of his security vehicle and conducted a ground search of Mercy Parking Lot H. 

Thomas Smith, Mercy’s retained expert, testified it would have taken one person seven to eight minutes to search Mercy Parking Lot H car-by-car in an effort to find Liska. 

 After leaving the Focus, Liska approached Flloyd Bennett (“Bennett”) in his vehicle and requested a ride. Bennett declined, as he had declined an earlier request by Liska for a ride. Bennett did not report either request for a ride to Mercy. 

 Liska then entered Harner’s vehicle, where she remained for about 50 minutes. Harner had arrived at Mercy at about 5:30 p.m. on December 23, 2015 in his vehicle, a used 2007 Jaguar convertible (the “Jaguar”) and parked in Mercy Parking Lot H in what Harner viewed as a safe parking spot by a light pole and next to an empty parking space. Harner was at Mercy to see his daughter, who was receiving treatment at Mercy’s Emergency Department. 

Signage at the Mercy Emergency Department entrance indicated weapons were not allowed inside Mercy. Harner testified he had a concealed carry permit and owned a Ruger LCP .380 (“the gun”), which he carried with him for safety on nightly walks and stored in the glovebox or center console of the Jaguar. 

Harner testified the gun was small, fit in a pocket, had no safety, and was chambered and loaded for an emergency but also had a hard pull so it would not fire if stored in a pocket or dropped. In his First Amended Petition, Harner alleged he left the gun in the Jaguar before going inside Mercy to comply with Missouri statute

That Missouri Revised Statutes section 571.107.1(17), applicable to Missouriissued concealed carry permits, explicitly prohibits removal of a firearm from a vehicle when on the premises of “any hospital accessible by the public.” That pursuant to Missouri Revised Statutes section 571.107.1(17), [Harner] left his Ruger LCP 380 pistol in his vehicle when he went into Mercy Hospital Joplin to visit his family member. Harner could not recall if he left the gun in the Jaguar center console or glovebox before entering Mercy. 

Harner testified both the Jaguar center console and glovebox were unlocked but that he had used his key fob to activate the Jaguar car alarm before entering Mercy. Harner testified that, from the time he had bought the Jaguar in 2012, the Jaguar key fob would activate the Jaguar’s alarm and lock the passenger door but not the driver’s door. If the driver’s door was opened while the alarm was activated, the car’s lights would flash continuously and the car’s horn would sound continuously for about one minute.






 

When Liska entered the Jaguar, Liska set off the Jaguar’s alarm, causing the Jaguar’s lights to flash and horn to honk for fifty-five seconds to one minute. About four minutes later, Liska set off the alarm again, causing the Jaguar’s lights to flash and horn to honk for about twelve seconds. Harner set off the Jaguar’s alarm when he returned to the Jaguar, moments before he was shot by Liska. 

Liska shot Harner in the neck at approximately 9:18 p.m. The bullet injured Harner’s carotid artery and struck his spine, but he survived. After shooting Harner, Liska tried to enter a silver truck parked next to the Jaguar but could not do so. She then entered a black truck parked next to the silver truck before exiting that truck and fleeing Mercy Parking Lot H. Law enforcement later apprehended Liska. 

Liska pleaded guilty to shooting Harner and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. The evidence, consistent with the Case Report, was that Officer Meier instructed Dispatcher Berry to review surveillance video of Mercy Parking Lot H before Liska shot Harner. 

Dispatcher Berry did not review the surveillance video because she felt she did not have time to do so given her other job duties. Dispatcher Berry did not report to Officer Meier or anyone else at Mercy she did not feel she had time to review the surveillance video. There were no entries on Mercy’s internal ReportExec system indicating any additional calls or dispatches between the Wooldridge report and the Harner shooting. 

Dispatcher Berry testified she had just pulled up the surveillance video and started to zoom in when she received notice of the Harner shooting. Dispatcher Berry testified that, before the Harner shooting, she made no attempt to review the video footage to see if she could see someone getting into vehicles in Mercy Parking Lot H. 

Dispatcher Berry testified she changed the Case Report after receiving notice of the Harner shooting and before closing out the Case Report to add “I was trying to find video footage” and that she used “poor wording” in light of what she actually did. 

Dispatcher Berry agreed she “never at any time before [Harner] got shot made any attempt to rewind and go back in time to try to find the person who had gotten into the Wooldridges’ vehicle.” Gary Pulsipher (“Pulsipher”), President of Mercy Hospital Joplin at the time of the Harner shooting, testified Dispatcher Berry lied when she prepared the Case Report with the language about reviewing the video without having reviewed the video. 

Pulsipher agreed putting false information in a security report relied upon by others is a serious matter. Pulsipher testified if Dispatcher Berry was asked to review the surveillance video and did not have time, it was his expectation she would let somebody know. 

Dispatcher Berry agreed the surveillance video shows Liska exit the Focus, approach Bennett, and enter the Jaguar, and that the video also shows the Jaguar’s headlights flash two different times when the Jaguar’s alarm was set off twice. 

Dispatcher Berry testified that she might have had time to see these events in the video in the about 40 minutes before the Harner shooting had she viewed the video when instructed to do so by Officer Meier. Berry agreed Mercy’s security system is a state-of-the-art system with multiple cameras, including at least one focused on Mercy Parking Lot H, and that the surveillance video system allows real-time viewing and rewind and fast-forward by the minute or hour or set to a specific time, multiple speeds of review up to 100 speed and zooming in on areas or objects on screen. 

The evidence was that Mercy was destroyed by a tornado in 2011 and was rebuilt and opened in March 2015. The jury viewed the Mercy Parking Lot H surveillance video, and it was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 107. Dispatcher Berry testified she reviewed the video footage after the Harner shooting and saw 14 white vehicles in Mercy Parking Lot H, including the Focus owned by the Wooldridges.







Dispatcher Berry also testified: 

Q. And if you would have rewound and reviewed the video and you noticed [Liska] doing what [Liska] did, you would have contacted an officer and said, hey, please check out this black vehicle up here. It looks like somebody just got out of this white car, wandered around the parking lot and made her way into this car. Check it out, please. You would have done that, wouldn’t you, if you would have known? 

A. In all fairness, sir, yes. 

Harner offered evidence of multiple Mercy Safety & Security Department Policies and Procedures in effect when he was shot and argued Mercy violated those policies after it knew of  the Wooldridge report. The video footage showed no mobile patrols of Mercy Parking Lot H occurred from when Liska entered the lot until three minutes after Liska entered the Jaguar, and Officer Meier testified this violated Mercy Security written policy.

Watch Live- Joplin R-8 Board of Education meeting at 6 p.m.

 



Monday, May 22, 2023

Some thoughts on the 12th anniversary of the Joplin Tornado


When the 10th anniversary of the May 22, 2011 Joplin Tornado rolled around two years ago the national media used the same old suspects to tell the story.

We heard from Jane Cage, who headed CART (the Citizens Advisory Recovery Team), from Mark Rohr, the city manager at the time, former Joplin R-8 Superintendent C. J. Huff and the so-called tornado mayor Mike Woolston.








They played key roles in the tornado recovery, but as I spelled out in my book Silver Lining in a Funnel Cloud: Greed, Corruption and the Joplin Tornado, much of the recovery happened despite the efforts of these people (though some of them are still telling the story of how Joplin successfully recovered from the worst tornado to hit the U. S. in six decades.

If you are looking for heroes from the Joplin Tornado, look at the first responders or look at the volunteers, both from this area and from far away.

While you are at it, you might consider the teachers and students who had to adjust to makeshift buildings as they continued education in Joplin (and contrary to the legend that has spread ever since 2011, the superintendent's claim that his vow to start school on time inspired the city, there is not a single superintendent I know who wouldn't have found a way to begin school in August 2011).

How about the business owners, who lost their businesses in the tornado, and those who saw their homes left in shambles, but immediately started the rebuilding process and stayed in Joplin.








How about the media? KZRG and the Joplin Globe kept the public informed even though many of those who were doing the reporting had lost their homes or people they knew.

Our leaders did some good things in the months and years following the tornado, no doubt about it.

Their story has been told. Hopefully, the next time a major anniversary of the tornado occurs, the stories of those unsung heroes will be told.