Connect with us

Local

D.C. cop charged with shooting at trans women denied release

Officer indicted for assault with intent to kill and sexual solicitation charges

Published

on

D.C. Superior Court Judge O'Reagan Keary refused to release Officer Kenneth Furr, who is awaiting trial on attempted murder charges.

An off-duty D.C. police officer who was arrested last August for allegedly firing his service revolver into a car in which three transgender women and two male friends were seated was ordered held in jail on Thursday while he awaits trial.

During a court status hearing on Thursday, May 24, D.C. Superior Court Judge Ann O’Reagan Keary denied a request by attorneys representing Officer Kenneth D. Furr that he be released or that the conditions of his bond be changed.

A trial has been scheduled to begin Oct. 15.

Furr, a 21-year veteran of the police force, has been held without bond since the time of his arrest on Aug. 26, 2011 on a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon. A D.C. police arrest affidavit says witnesses saw Furr climb on the hood of a stopped car occupied by five people near First and Pierce Streets, N.W., and fire several shots at the occupants through the windshield.

Two of the women and one of the men in the car suffered non-life threatening gunshot wounds in the incident, the affidavit says. Police and the prosecutor in the case said later that the three could easily have been killed in the shooting.

On March 7, a D.C. Superior Court Grand Jury handed down a 9-count indictment against Furr, which includes six counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, one count of assault with intent to kill while armed, and two counts of solicitation for prostitution.

The affidavit says the incident began when Furr allegedly solicited one of the women for sex at a nearby CVS drugstore and became angry when she refused the offer. During the incident her male friend intervened on her behalf. Furr later threatened the male friend with a gun when the two crossed paths outside the store, according to the affidavit.

The male friend and the other victims followed Furr in their car as Furr drove away from the store, saying they wanted to get his license number and report him to police, the affidavit says. It says Furr stopped his car and pulled out his gun when he noticed the other car was following him. The car driven by the male friend of the trans women then crashed into Furr’s car after the driver ducked for cover when he saw Furr brandishing the gun, says the affidavit.

It says Furr responded by climbing on the hood of the car occupied by the five victims and began firing his gun through the windshield. Police initially charged Furr with driving while intoxicated, saying they determined his blood alcohol level was above the legal limit. Authorities later dropped that charge.

At an earlier hearing, Furr’s attorney said Furr was acting in self-defense, saying he feared for his own safety after noticing that the individuals with whom he got into a verbal altercation at the drugstore were “stalking” him in their car.

Although the police affidavit says Furr solicited one of the two trans women for sex at the start of the incident, the indictment charges him with having “invited, enticed, offered, persuaded, and agreed with [the two women] …to engage in prostitution…”

Transgender activists who know the two trans victims have said the women were not engaging in prostitution and that Furr approached at least one of them for a sexual encounter.

The incident outraged LGBT activists, who said it came at a time when transgender women had been victims of assaults and violent hate crimes in a number of previous incidents.

“This indicates that the prosecutors are getting serious about our (LGBT community) complaints or that a reasonable plea agreement was refused,” said transgender activist Jeri Hughes in commenting on the grand jury charge against Furr of assault with intent to kill while armed.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. brian

    May 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Lanier’s MPD Opts For Politics Instead of Policing and Public Safety…

    I would caution Jeri Hughes not to be too effusive in her praise of USAO-DC prosecutors. Exactly how many anti-LGBT HATE CRIMES in DC has USAO-DC prosecuted– say, in the last three years? Wouldn’t that be a token number when compared to the number of hate crimes reported?

    IMHO, it is MPD’s and USAO-DC’s quiet practice to simply ignore DC’s Hate (“Bias-Related”) Crimes law– if they can get away with it. And if that is true, then such practices constitute, de facto, institutional discrimination, both homophobic and transphobic, of a very high order.

    This was a reckless shooting, an attempted murder by– note well, ladies and gents– an off-duty DC Metropolitan Police Officer! This case was simply way too bold and high-profile a crime for MPD and USAO-DC to bury or soft-pedal, as they do with so many other anti-LGBT hate crimes in DC.

    Moreover, MPD continues to treat DC’s LGBT community with contempt, using MPD public relations speeches as a substitute for real law enforcement of our hate crimes law which better insures LGBT public safety.

    Last week, Police Chief Cathy Lanier’s MPD spokesperson brought the *SPIN* of MPD’s purported ‘hate crimes fighting’ to a new, dishonorable low, when she used the shooting of an LGBT patron at IHOP to perpetrate a LIE upon DC’s LGBT residents and its visitors regarding MPD’s record of not preventing anti-LGBT hate crimes.

    As reported by the Blade last week, MPD’s top officials, including, Asst. Chief Diane Groomes, brazenly touted MPD’s abysmal record of anti-hate crime prevention as one of a police department that “remains committed to combating bias-related crimes in the city.” This was done in a MPD presentation before some 150 people at Capital TransPride in SW DC last Saturday.

    But Chief Groomes’ characterization of MPD’s record could not have been further from the truth.

    Fact is, a growing number of DC LGBT residents recognize that MPD’s emperors aren’t wearing much clothing. And Mayor Gray’s administration, including Jeff Richardson, ought to stop defending their pathetic record with feckless, feel-good prattle.

    DC’s LGBT residents should review this outrageous characterization of MPD’s failed record– apparently BY and FOR the reputation of MPD’s top officials. Quoting the Blade article…
    *****
    “Police spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump further defended the MPD’s approach.”

    “One of the District’s most attractive qualities is that it is open and welcoming to people of all nations, races, sexual orientation and gender identity. Intolerance and hate crimes have no place in our vibrant city,” she told the Blade. “With 100 officers and almost all detectives trained to work with the LGBT community to address crimes of all types, we have more resources dedicated than ever before. This in turn helps us to make arrests, as we did in the recent IHOP shooting, and prevent the next crime and victimization.”

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/05/23/capital-transpride-draws-nearly-150-to-southwest/
    *****

    Seriously, Chief Lanier?

    Should we ask Police Chief Lanier if she ordered Gwendolyn Crump to conveniently leave out the other TWO incredibly violent anti-LGBT hate crimes reported that same week– and with subsequent followup news reports by DC’s LGBT press? …
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/03/14/3-hospitalized-after-spate-of-anti-lgbt-violence/

    How come we haven’t heard MPD touting the investigation and closure of those OTHER TWO hate crimes cases? Indeed, if MPD’s record on hate crimes law enforcement is so good, why did the perpetrators feel free to violently assault LGBT victims THREE times in one week? (Maybe FOUR, if the GA. Avenue victim was assaulted TWICE by two different sets of perpetrators.)

    Many of us have not forgotten those (and several other) hate crimes cases. Why has MPD?

    Does Chief Lanier want us to believe Ms. Crump is just another rogue agent of MPD, acting beyond Lanier’s knowledge and command?

    How many times has MPD’s top brass implied that rogue, rank-and-file officers are part of the ant-LGBT bias problem at MPD? Could not the same be said of MPD’s leadership, their record, their policies and their practices?

    And where do MPD’s brass get off disrespecting and using LGBT victims of an extremely violent, hate crimes assault as example “trophies” in a self-serving MPD political PR speech? That, too, is unseemly, unprofessional police conduct of a very high order.

    The risks of the appearance of a conflict of interest, police intimidation of victims, or simply psychological re-victimization of violent crime victims should be obvious to any law enforcement professional. Just how out of touch is Chief Lanier when it comes to her fundamental understanding of the full impact of anti-LGBT hate crimes upon its victims?

    BTW, why has Chief Lanier and MPD been touting and taking great “policing” credit for closing the case of the IHOP shooting? This was a very easy case to close. Any boob could see its high-profile location, witnesses and multiple video cams did not require a lot of detective work. Wasn’t an off-duty MPD officer there, on the scene, as it was happening?

    Why the exaggerated SPIN, Chief Lanier?

    Is there anything MPD’s won’t do to toot its own horn on this subject? Has MPD now devolved to telling bald-faced lies about anti-LGBT hate crimes through its official spokesperson? What else should we take with a grain of salt from MPD’s HQ and its chiefs?

    Don’t judges instruct jurors that if they believe a witness is lying about one event, they can also discount additional testimony of the same witness as a lie or lies?

    MPD’s chiefs must think DC’s LGBT residents and LGBT visitors to Washington are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Local

Conservatives blame pro-trans policy after assaults in Loudoun schools

‘Gender fluid’ 15-year-old accused of attacking female students

Published

on

The Loudoun County, Va., public school system’s recently adopted policy of allowing students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity has come under fire over the past two weeks by outraged parents and conservative political activists following reports that a 15-year-old “gender fluid” boy allegedly sexually assaulted two girls in different high schools.

The parents of one of the girls released a statement through the Virginia-based Stanley Law Group blaming school officials for failing to put in place safeguards to prevent the boy, who they say was dressed in a skirt, from entering the girl’s bathroom to assault their daughter at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn, Va., on May 28.

The statement accuses Loudoun County Schools officials and the Loudoun County Board of Education of failing to take steps to prevent the same 15-year-old boy from allegedly sexually assaulting another female student at Broad Run High School, also located in Ashburn, on Oct. 6 in a vacant classroom.

School officials acknowledge that the boy was transferred to the second school after law enforcement authorities released him from a juvenile detention facility following his arrest for the first case, in which the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office said he was charged with two counts of forceable sodomy against his female victim. 

“The sexual assault on our daughter and the subsequent sexual assault by the same individual were both predictable and preventable,” the parents’ statement says. “Subsequent to the sexual assault on our daughter, Loudoun County Public Schools formalized the policy regarding restroom use that was easily exploitable by a potential sexual assailant,” the statement continues. 

“Because of poor planning and misguided policies, Loudoun Schools failed to institute even minimal safeguards to protect students from sexual assaults,” says the statement.

Loudoun County Schools Superintendent Scott A. Ziegler apologized at an Oct. 15 news conference for what he acknowledged was the school systems’ mishandling of the two sexual assault cases. He noted that school officials should have publicly disclosed the two cases or at least alerted parents at the time they occurred. But he said a federal civil rights law known as Title IX that mandates how schools must respond to cases of sexual harassment appeared to prevent Loudoun school officials from initially disclosing the two cases of sexual assault until they were investigated by law enforcement authorities.

Ziegler said the school system was revamping its disciplinary procedures and its interaction with the Loudoun Sheriff’s Office to ensure that parents and students are alerted to potential danger similar to the cases where the 15-year-old boy allegedly assaulted the two female students.

Meanwhile, school officials and the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Loudoun have pointed out that law enforcement officials have yet to confirm whether the 15-year-old boy charged in the two cases was actually dressed in women’s clothes during the first incident or whether he is trans or gender fluid.

Equality Loudoun’s president, Cris Candice Tuck, released a statement to the Washington Blade on Oct. 18 that she said was the first official known statement responding to the Loudoun school controversy from an LGBTQ organization.

“In light of the reporting of recent sexual assault allegations, the Board of Directors of Equality Loudoun wishes to extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of these heinous attacks and their families,” the statement says. “Equality Loudoun advocates for due process and justice for the victims regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator was a member of the LGBTQ+ community,” the statement continues. “Such actions have no place in our community, and Equality Loudoun does not condone any form of sexual violence, assault, or harassment,” it says.

“However, the accusations that the alleged perpetrator of these assaults is transgender or genderfluid have so far been unverified,” the Equality Loudoun statement asserts. “Attempts to shift blame of this incident to any individual, group, or policy – other than the alleged perpetrator – does a grave disservice to the victims of these crimes and already marginalized youth in our community.”

The statement adds, “We remind those advocating for change to the laws and policies that the initial assault predated any enactment of Policy 8040 by almost 4 months.”

The Equality Loudoun statement was referring to the fact that the Loudoun County School Board did not vote to approve the school system’s trans nondiscrimination policy until August of this year, more than three months after the first of the two sexual assault incidents occurred. 

The policy, among other things, allows transgender and genderfluid students to use the school bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. The policy also requires that teachers, school administrators and fellow students address a trans or genderfluid student by their chosen name and pronouns.

“Inadvertent slips in the use of names and pronouns may occur,” the policy states. “However, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy,” it states.

The statement says that rumors of a bathroom “pilot” program that predated the official approval of Policy 8040 that would have allowed female trans or genderfluid students to use the girls’ bathrooms “are simply untrue” and were never put in place.

In a separate statement to the Blade, Equality Loudoun’s Cris Candice Tuck challenged claims by some parents and conservative political activists, some of whom are supporting Virginia’s GOP gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin over Democrat Terry McAulliffe, that the trans nondiscrimination policy is placing students at risk for sexual assault.

“The adoption of nondiscrimination policies are in no way endangering students,” Candice Tuck said. “Across the country, sexual assaults have occurred in schools for decades before any transgender inclusive policies were passed,” she said. “And in those counties and states where such protections have passed in recent years, there has been no verified incidence of anyone abusing such policies to commit such attacks in schools.”

Candice Tuck added, “The focus should be on improving systems of reporting, coordination, and investigation, protecting the victims of these attacks, and creating safer school environments by creating modernized areas and bathrooms that increase protection for all students, including LGBTQ+ students who are statistically more likely to be the victim of such a crime.”  

Continue Reading

Local

D.C. rejects request by gyms to lift mask mandate

LGBTQ-owned venues sign letter calling requirement ‘devastating’ for business

Published

on

Owners of two LGBTQ-owned D.C. fitness studios and one gym signed on to a joint letter with the owners of six other similar businesses urging D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Department of Health Director Dr. Laquandra Nesbitt to lift a city mandate requiring patrons of gyms and fitness studios to wear masks. 

The Oct. 4 letter, written by gay businessman Bryan Myers, the CEO and president of a chain of local fitness studios using the trademark name of [solidcore], states that the mask mandate, which applies to people who are fully vaccinated for the coronavirus, is based largely on outdated data pertaining to gyms and fitness studios collected prior to the widespread availability of the COVID vaccine.

“More relevant data to inform decision-making would be to study the data from two, large Northeastern cities that have opted to allow fitness classes to continue with the requirement of vaccination in lieu of a mask requirement,” the letter states. “In both New York City and Philadelphia, which have opted for this approach, we have not seen an increase in the trajectory of the Delta variant,” Myers says in the letter.

In the last week of July, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a recommendation that cities and local jurisdictions with 50 new COVID cases per 100,000 residents per week, which at that time included D.C., should ask residents to voluntarily resume wearing masks indoors. That same week, Bowser announced she would go one step further by mandating the indoor use of masks in most public places, including gyms and fitness spas or studios. 

Bowser and Nesbitt said their intention was to take immediate steps to curtail the spread of the coronavirus so that the city would not be forced to return to the full shutdown mode, including the closing of businesses, that the mayor lifted earlier this year.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced they would ask residents of their states to consider using masks in crowded indoor spaces as recommended by the CDC, but said they would not require mask use. 

In their letter to Bowser and Nesbitt, the gym and fitness studio owners called on the mayor to provide the same exemption to their businesses as the city has provided for restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, which requires masks except when patrons are eating and drinking. 

“While it is true that bars, restaurants, and clubs technically have to follow the same guidelines, we know that in practice, these venues have been granted exceptions by D.C. Health,” the letter says. “On any given night, you can find hundreds of individuals crowded into a U Street bar, at a Capitol Hill restaurant, or thousands at a performance or party at The Anthem enjoying themselves – singing, dancing and physically exerting themselves, shouting – maskless – so long as they have a drink somewhere nearby,” says the letter.

“And to be unequivocally clear, we are not advocating that there is anything wrong with what is happening in other industries or that there be a change to the management of those industries/venues,” the letter continues. “We are simply advocating that we be treated the same as they are.”

The letter adds, “Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the mask mandate for fitness studios and gyms has resulted in devastating financial impact to these businesses – many of which are small locally owned.”

It says patronage has dropped 50 percent for some of the fitness centers and gyms since the mayor’s mask mandate took effect July 29. It points out that the drop in customers comes at a time when many of these businesses have spent thousands of dollars and in some cases hundreds of thousands to upgrade their ventilation and filtration systems and other structural steps to curtail the spread of the coronavirus.

Myers told the Washington Blade in a statement that neither the Department of Health nor the mayor’s office replied directly to the gym and fitness studios’ letter.

Channel 7 News reported that in response to its request for the city’s reaction to the gym and fitness studios’ concerns, the Department of Health released a statement saying, “D.C. Health’s stance is that persons should wear masks in gyms and during this time [we] do not have plans to change our stance on this guidance.”

In his statement to the Blade, Myers said the D.C. gym and fitness studios were frustrated and disappointed that the city at this time is not open to reconsidering the mask mandate for gyms and fitness studios, many of which he said are barely surviving.

“This mandate is directly affecting the livelihoods of residents of the District, many of whom are women, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ in a policy that is simply not equitable, and is steering residents away from services that can help improve the overall health of our community,” Myers said.

Continue Reading

Local

Heather Mizeur congressional campaign raises more than $1M

Former Md. delegate challenging Andy Harris

Published

on

Heather Mizeur, Delman Coates, Montgomery County, Silver Spring, Maryland, Maryland House of Delegates, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade, momentum
Former Maryland state Del. Heather Mizeur is running for Congress (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Heather Mizeur has raised more than $1 million in her campaign against anti-LGBTQ Republican Congressman Andy Harris in Maryland’s 1st Congressional District.

“No candidate in #MD01 of either party, incumbent or challenger, has ever hit the $1M milestone this early in the election cycle,” Mizeur tweeted on Oct. 6.

The Victory Fund in an Oct. 8 press release said 80 percent of this $1 million came from Maryland-based donors, “a sign the district is ready for new representation.” And Mizeur continues to outpace Harris, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that say she raised $717,445 for the cycle ending June 30, while Harris raised $425,288.

“Andy Harris has taken every opportunity to attack and vilify trans individuals, trying to score political points with his base at the expense of the safety of some of his constituents,” Mizeur told the Washington Blade.

In 2014 Harris made the Human Rights Campaign’s “Hall of Shame” for proactively working “to undermine existing legal protections and promote anti-LGBT discrimination.”

“In contrast, the LGBTQ community knows me for my record,” Mizeur said. “And knows I’ll always lead with compassion and stand up for civil and human rights. I think the 1st District will respond to my message of respect and understanding.”

Mizeur, who now lives on the Eastern Shore with her wife, served on the Takoma Park City Council. Mizeur was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates for eight years.

In 2014, she launched a long-shot, grassroots campaign for governor where she finished a strong third in the Democratic primary, despite being outraised by better-known opponents.

But Mizeur also said she is aware of the challenges her team faces in taking on a well-entrenched Republican in a solidly conservative district.

The Cook Partisan Voter Index in 2017 rated the district as R +14, meaning the previous two presidential election results in the district skewed 14 percentage points more Republican than the national average.

“We have over $760,000 in the bank, and we’ve outraised him during our time in the race,” Mizeur said. “We’re raising the money we need to go toe-to-toe with Andy Harris next year.”

The Baltimore Sun in February reported Harris was “flush with campaign cash” mostly due to a 2010 redistricting that “packed” the area with Republican voters to increase Democrats’ chances in other district races.

“Yes, Andy Harris has over $1 million in the bank, stockpiled over a decade in office,” Mizeur said. “But in the short time I’ve been in the race, we’ve cut significantly into his cash on hand advantage.”

Harris has represented the 1st Congressional District—which includes Maryland’s Eastern Shore and parts of Baltimore, Carroll and Harford Counties—since 2011 and easily fended off most challenges with at least 60 percent of the vote. These challengers include Mia Mason, a transgender military veteran, who ran against him in 2020.

The 2010 redistricting made Harris’ seat safe enough not only to donate nearly a third of his war chest to conservative groups and candidates, such as U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), but to openly court controversy himself.

Harris last year openly defended then-President Trump’s discredited efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And in December he signed onto an amicus brief supporting a failed lawsuit contesting the presidential election results.

This year he downplayed the violence of the Jan. 6 insurrection in which numerous police officers were attacked, members of Congress were threatened, and the U.S. Capitol was vandalized.

Mizeur told the Blade that while Harris’ actions regarding the Jan. 6 insurrection were the catalyst for her challenging his seat, she feels the district is changing and he no longer represents their interests.

“Our supporters know he’s been embarrassing Maryland in Congress for far too long, and that some of his actions have shown he’s completely unfit to serve in public office, regardless of ideological views,” Mizeur said. “They want someone who will bring compassionate leadership and innovative thinking back to the first district. And that’s appealing to people across party lines.”

Maryland’s primary election is June 28, 2022, and its general election follows on Nov. 8.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular