Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

Man_of_Teflon: Aug 15, 2003

Zeitgueist posted:

Is there any way there can be consequences for the DA in this, or are we in another "it's not a murder when a cop"

quote:

Cook County State�s Attorney Anita Alvarez, whose office brought charges against Servin, expressed disappointment in the judge�s decision.

�I believe that my office had provided sufficient evidence before the court to not only demonstrate, but also to prove, that Officer Servin�s conduct was clearly reckless in the senseless fatal shooting of Rekia Boyd,� Alvarez said in prepared statement. �Justice was denied today for Rekia Boyd and her family and I extend my deepest sympathies as they struggle to come to terms with this unexpected decision.�

nope

quote:

Servin said he expects to resume working for the Chicago Police Department.

ugh

the whole situation was really hosed up, and it sucks that this is how it's going to end.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-detective-manslaughter-trial-0414-met-20150413-story.html

quote:

Key witness re-enacts shooting at off-duty cop's manslaughter trial

A Chicago police detective on trial for involuntary manslaughter watched Monday as Cook County prosecutors asked a key witness to re-enact the final moments before the off-duty officer opened fire from inside his car, killing an innocent bystander.

Antonio Cross' testimony was a crucial moment for prosecutors as well as Det. Dante Servin's lawyers, who made Cross appear to contradict himself repeatedly under cross-examination. Attorneys for Servin, who is charged in connection with the March 2012 death of 22-year-old Rekia Boyd, have said Cross' actions that night are to blame for Boyd's death.

Prosecutors allege Servin acted recklessly when he fired five shots over his shoulder into a group of four people who had their backs to him in a dark West Side alley. His attorneys have said Servin was in fear for his life after Cross pulled an object from his waistband, pointed it at their client and ran toward his car.

According to trial testimony, Boyd, Cross and two others had left Douglas Park on an unseasonably warm night to go to a nearby store when they encountered Servin, who had called 911 earlier that night to complain about noise from the park.

Cross testified Monday that he was talking to his cousin, Leo Coleman, on his cell phone � Coleman wanted to make sure he didn't forget to pick up chips � when he saw Servin's black Mercedes pull out of an alley near Albany Avenue and 15th Place.

He heard his friend, Mantise Stevenson, say "(expletive) you" and assumed Servin, an Hispanic whom he took for a white man, was looking for drugs.

"I told him we had no drugs so get his crackhead (expletive) out of here," Cross testified.

Cross, who wore a black-and-white plaid shirt that said "Courage" on the back, testified he never pointed his small black cell phone at Servin, demonstrating from the stand while holding the phone how he said he had waved Servin off.

Assistant State's Attorney Bill Delaney then had a chair brought out into the space in front of the bench in Judge Dennis Porter's courtroom. Another prosecutor, Ramon Moore, sat in the chair and played the role of Servin.

Cross testified he was standing about two to three feet away from the open driver's side window when Servin started shooting at him over his left shoulder. The first round struck Cross on the right hand, he testified.

There was a slight pause in the gunfire before Servin aimed at Boyd and another woman, Ikca Beamon, as they ran away and he fired several more rounds, Cross testified.

"It was boom-boom...boom boom boom boom," Cross testified.

Coleman also testified he heard the shots on the cell phone and from where he was in Douglas Park.

Cross said he later spoke to Servin at the scene and learned he was a police officer.

"I said if he was the police, 'Why the (expletive) did you shoot me?'" Cross said. "(Servin) said, 'I thought your phone was a (expletive) weapon.'"

Cross, who spent an hour and 45 minutes on the stand, acknowledged during cross-examination that he had made a number of conflicting statements to investigators. But he told Servin's attorney, Darren O'Brien, that he had never pointed his phone at Servin or thought Servin looked scared.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 04:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 06:29

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

This is the end of it I'm sure. "It's not murder when the prosecutor doesn't want to do his job"

# ? Apr 21, 2015 04:30

Alastor_the_Stylish: Jul 25, 2006; WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

Stereotype posted:

This is the end of it I'm sure. "It's not murder when the prosecutor doesn't want to do his job"

Hope nobody does anything intentionally damaging to a cop causing death because they'll have to try that person for involuntary manslaughter.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 04:41

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

chitoryu12 posted:

I believe this is correct. However, there's some legal gray areas and overlap regarding it. If a crime applies to multiple jurisdictions, it's possible for those jurisdictions to hold separate trials (the most common being federal vs. state courts). The US Supreme Court made a ruling after Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932): following acquittal, the government may bring a second prosecution on additional charges arising out of the same underlying events as the first prosecution so long as both the new crime charged and the prior crime each contain an element of proof that the other does not.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't work here. A lower category of murder has the same elements of proof as a higher one, so if he was acquitted for manslaughter the federal government couldn't just plop him down and put a first or second-degree murder charge on his shoulders. Likewise they couldn't pin a lesser violence charge like assault and/or battery, as both of those are obviously elements of a murder. What they could do is charge him on a totally separate violation, like a weapons violation or violation of civil rights.

Are you sure about this? The ruling wasn't that he was not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove any element that would be common to a murder charge, but because they failed the unique element that differentiates it from murder. It seems to me that should leave the possibility of a murder charge open.

But I am not a lawyer, so I could just be totally wrong. And it would also require a DAs office that actually wanted to prosecute this case, while this office just demonstrated how badly they were willing to tank it to make this go away.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 05:00

treasured8elief: Jul 25, 2011; Salad Prong

pentyne posted:

The judge stated that previous case law dictates that taking a gun, pointing it at someone and firing is not "reckless" but a deliberate act, meaning that he should've been charged as such. Since the DA didn't show "reckless" actions and those were the only charges the judge was forced to dismiss it. He was literally charged with something he could not have done according to the definition of the law and its hosed up but the judge only has so much power in this example.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-detective-manslaughter-trial-0421-met-20150420-story.html#page=1

Its as corrupt and disgusting as it could possibly be.

Your Chicago Tribune Article posted:

Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.

"It's important that he try to get his life back together," Angelo said. "I don't know why it happened that way ... that the state's attorney's office decided to change Dante from victim to offender. It makes no sense to me."

So he'll soon be an active officer again. I wonder how he feels about everything...

quote:

Servin told reporters he felt bad for Boyd's family, but that his family had also suffered since the March 2012 shooting.

"Justice was served today," Servin said. "I've always maintained that an accident occurred with Miss Boyd. ... I think it was a mistake for the state's attorney to charge me. But I also explained to the family, if this is what they needed for closure, to be charged, I hope they got what they're looking for."
[...]
"Any reasonable person, any police officer especially, would've reacted in the exact same manner that I reacted," he said. "And I'm glad to be alive. I saved my life that night. I'm glad that I'm not a police death statistic. Antonio Cross is a would-be cop killer, and that's all I have to say."

# ? Apr 21, 2015 05:02

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

thefncrow posted:

Are you sure about this? The ruling wasn't that he was not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove any element that would be common to a murder charge, but because they failed the unique element that differentiates it from murder. It seems to me that should leave the possibility of a murder charge open.

But I am not a lawyer, so I could just be totally wrong. And it would also require a DAs office that actually wanted to prosecute this case, while this office just demonstrated how badly they were willing to tank it to make this go away.

This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 07:40

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

chitoryu12 posted:

This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there.

The bolded bit is not true in this instance. In many jurisdictions, yes, involuntary manslaughter is basically just voluntary manslaughter minus an element (and similarly, voluntary manslaughter is murder minus an element).

In this case, though, involuntary manslaughter involves a recklessness element that is not present in 1st/2nd degree murder. In an alternate universe where Servin was charged with both involuntary manslaughter and murder, the judge would have tossed the involuntary manslaughter charge and left the murder charge intact. That itself speaks to how the crimes vary, that invol manslaughter charges aren't wholly encapsulated by murder charges in this jurisdiction.

Since the verdict came as a result of the element of involuntary manslaughter that is not present in a murder charge, that seems to me (in my total lack of actual legal education) that it should perhaps leave the door open for a murder charge not being covered off by double jeopardy.

EDIT: In short, my read is that either the judge is right that the recklessness element of involuntary manslaughter means the prosecution failed to present a valid case, which demonstrates the different unique elements between it and murder and should leave open the door for a murder charge, or the judge is wrong about the recklessness element, which would mean that the charges should be reinstated when his ruling is overturned on appeal.

Sadly, either of those scenarios would need a DAs office that was actually willing to pursue the matter, and I doubt that's the case here.

thefncrow fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Apr 21, 2015

# ? Apr 21, 2015 11:27

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

For those who don't seem to understand what reckless means:

Reckless is be definition action that can lead to an unintentional bad result. You can intentionally be reckless, but you cannot intend the result of the reckless behaviour. Recklessness itself requires as part of its definition a lack of intent to do some thing, but a callousness or lack of awareness to the possibility of said thing happening.

Reckless driving itself can be intentional, but the thing that makes it reckless is the chance of accidentally killing or injuring someone or causing damage. That part can't be intentional. If it is intentional, you are no longer being reckless, you are being malicious.

If you intentionally hit someone with your car, you would not be engaged in reckless driving... unless there were other pedestrians you could have accidentally hit in the process. If one of them died, you could make a case that recklessness lead to their death, but not for the person you intentionally hit with your vehicle.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 13:31

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

GlyphGryph posted:

If you intentionally hit someone with your car, you would not be engaged in reckless driving... unless there were other pedestrians you could have accidentally hit in the process. If one of them died, you could make a case that recklessness lead to their death, but not for the person you intentionally hit with your vehicle.

probably not in Illinois: firing into a crowd to intentionally hit someone isn't reckless w/r/t the other people

# ? Apr 21, 2015 13:35

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Wait, I'm confused and may have missed something. I thought he killed the person he was intending too?

I will have to reread.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 14:36

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

GlyphGryph posted:

Wait, I'm confused and may have missed something. I thought he killed the person he was intending too?

I will have to reread.

Some people were in an alley, he thought one of them pulled a gun on him, shot, killed someone else.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 14:43

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

We really need to figure out how to deal with prosecutors that work with people in order to let them get away with murder. It seems like a huge failing of the justice system that it keeps happening and everyone involved is like "yeah that's hosed up but what can you do?" like the system is some kind of natural law that is totally immutable. Even more infuriating is when we all have to pretend that the prosecutors in question were doing their jobs honestly since to infer otherwise would tarnish the name of the Justice System and we can't have that. :ohdear:

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:03

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Out of curiosity, how many prosecutors do you know?

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:07

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

ActusRhesus posted:

Out of curiosity, how many prosecutors do you know?

Several although not closely. I'm not sure how that's really relevant.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:08

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:11

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

ActusRhesus posted:

Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant.

What, do we need to have beers with them? The outcome of their biases is evident.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:17

DARPA: Apr 24, 2005; We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.

ActusRhesus posted:

Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant.

So what's your take on the situation? Incompetence rather than corruption?

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:19

Lucca Blight: Jun 2, 2009

I mean, of my casual reading of subjects, we had that thing in Ferguson and now this in a relatively small window of time.

And it's unethical prosecutors assisting fellow officers that is the focus.

And what does first hand experience entail? Should he be going to court everyday to watch prosecutions or is he supposed to wait for Uncle Terry to mention over Thanksgiving dinner how he sand bagged a case because how dare Officer Lemmy have to face any criticism.

Edit: more accurately would be if I don'tsand bag the police will gone crappy testimony in future cases

Lucca Blight fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 21, 2015

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:23

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

SedanChair posted:

What, do we need to have beers with them? The outcome of their biases is evident.

Coming from you that's pretty funny.

DARPA posted:

So what's your take on the situation? Incompetence rather than corruption?

Need to read more of the details and see the transcripts of this case before weighing in. But as a general rule more people are dumb than evil.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:24

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

ActusRhesus posted:

Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant.

How on earth are you getting that I think all or even most prosecutors are performing unethical actions because I believe the system doesn't have a way to properly deal with the ones that very publicly are scrubbing cases for certain people? The fact that this occurs at all without any real (at least public) attempts to rectify it is really bad and doesn't need to reach epidemic proportions before we decide it's worth tackling.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:24

TURN IT OFF!: Dec 26, 2012

I know nothing about law. Can you sue a lawyer for malpractice sort of like a doctor? If you can prove that incompetence cost you the case?

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:27

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

ActusRhesus posted:

Coming from you that's pretty funny.

My biases don't put anyone in prison.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:28

Voyager I: Jun 29, 2012; This is how your posting feels.
🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥

SedanChair posted:

My biases don't put anyone in prison.

It's okay, neither did this prosecutor's.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:37

Anora: Feb 16, 2014; I fuckin suck!🪠

TURN IT OFF! posted:

I know nothing about law. Can you sue a lawyer for malpractice sort of like a doctor? If you can prove that incompetence cost you the case?

If I was the family of the lady that died, I'd definitely be going after a civil case against both the officer and the DA at this point.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:39

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Good ol' Bobby "Bought a Badge" Bates is pleading not guilty to 2nd-degree manslaughter. Does the falsified training, etc. come into play here?

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:41

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

ActusRhesus posted:

Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant.

Hahah. This is the first time in a while I've seen someone argue that something can't be a problem unless you have anecdotes.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Some people were in an alley, he thought one of them pulled a gun on him, shot, killed someone else.

I had thought the judge had found that wasn't the case, and he had actually intended to fire on the group as a whole and hit whoever, which was why it was malicious rather than reckless.

But, yeah, legally I guess once you get into murder territory it looks like it becomes "Well, you intended to kill someone, killing the wrong person isn't reckless it's just a misdirected murder". There's obviously a line - blowing up a bomb in a building to blow up the building would probably still count as murder if anyone was inside too, not just recklessness leading to death.

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Apr 21, 2015

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:46

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

probably not in Illinois: firing into a crowd to intentionally hit someone isn't reckless w/r/t the other people

Not in any state. If you have the intent, if you kill the wrong person, it is murder.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:52

ozmunkeh: Feb 28, 2008; hey guys what is happening in this thread

It sure is unfortunate that otherwise competent prosecutors tend to lose IQ points whenever law enforcement personnel are under suspicion. What are the odds, right?

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:09

Armacham: Mar 3, 2007; Then brothers in war, to the skirmish must we hence! Shall we hence?

Anora posted:

If I was the family of the lady that died, I'd definitely be going after a civil case against both the officer and the DA at this point.

Yeah hopefully they have enough for a wrongful death lawsuit.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:12

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

chitoryu12 posted:

This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there.

That article actually makes a strong case that they could recharge him, you're reading the reasoning completely wrong.

The judge's ruling already established that recklessness was an element of the crime distinct from murder. If this wasn't the case he wouldn't have ruled that they proved all the elements of murder but not manslaughter.

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 21, 2015

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:17

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

nm posted:

Not in any state. If you have the intent, if you kill the wrong person, it is murder.

It can still be reckless wrt the people you didn't kill.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:20

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

ActusRhesus posted:

It can still be reckless wrt the people you didn't kill.

I mean it can, but if you have the intent to shoot dude A and miss and shoot dude B, you ain't getting a manslaughter charge alone if he dies.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:24

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

ActusRhesus posted:

It can still be reckless wrt the people you didn't kill.

Apparently not unless I'm misunderstanding the ruling.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:29

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

The judge goes over the elements of murder in the opinion, intent clearly follows the bullet.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:31

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

mastershakeman posted:

Apparently not unless I'm misunderstanding the ruling.

I was speaking generally, not specific to the facts of this case.

Defendant sprays bullets at store, trying to kill person A, misses. Hits person B and shot in a way that showed a complete disregard for persons C D and E's safety. One count attempted murder, one count murder, three counts reckless endangerment.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:36

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

At least here anyway. We just limit you can't have multiple mental states for same act on same victim.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:37

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

ActusRhesus posted:

I was speaking generally, not specific to the facts of this case.

Defendant sprays bullets at store, trying to kill person A, misses. Hits person B and shot in a way that showed a complete disregard for persons C D and E's safety. One count attempted murder, one count murder, three counts reckless endangerment.

If person A is shooting at you and you fire wildly at separate area where B, C, D and E are that A isn't shooting from does self defense cover that?

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:42

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

hobbesmaster posted:

If person A is shooting at you and you fire wildly at separate area where B, C, D and E are that A isn't shooting from does self defense cover that?

Depends.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:47

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I learned from the Michael Brown thread that prosecutors never protect cops by setting up cases to take a dive, so whatever happened in this situation must be perfect justice.

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 06:29

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

ActusRhesus posted:

Depends.

Lawyers

# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »