Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this Judge nuts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this Judge nuts?

    This case seems pretty cut and dried, but in Chicago, nothing is cut and dried.
    Here is the back ground, an off duty detective carrying an unregistered hand gun approaches a group of loud obnoxious young people and asks them to turn down the noise.
    Who hasn't done that?
    Then things went bad, the group became aggressive toward him, at some point one of the young thugs pulled something shiny out,(cell phone) the off duty officer thoughtb it was a gun and responded by pulling out his own shiny thing, and fired it into the group, wounding one man and killing a woman, who was shot in the back of the head.
    So how does the off duty detective (or anyone else) who fired a gun into a crowd of people get off??
    Here is the logic the judge used.
    Because the officer was charged with " involuntary manslaughter, reckless discharge of a firearm and reckless conduct " the judge ruled that the officers "actions were “beyond reckless,” therefore the evidence did not support the charges. Servin fired his gun intentionally, the judge said, undercutting the prosecution’s case for manslaughter, a charge that requires proof of recklessness.
    So because the officer intentionally fired into the crowd he is innocent of reckless endangerment. And because his actions were beyond reckless he was innocent of reckless conduct!
    Hey, I didn't say it made sense...after all this happened in Chicago....
    And I guess carrying an unregistered weapon is not a crime if you have a badge these days.....here is the story

    http://www.ibtimes.com/duty-officer-...guilty-1889378
    Last edited by Urban hermit; 20 Apr 15, 23:05.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    Either this article was poorly written, or the judge is speaking legal double speak.
    The Chicago police officer who fatally shot unarmed 22-year-old Rekia Boyd has been found not guilty on all charges. The verdict handed down Monday cleared Detective Dante Servin, 46, of involuntary manslaughter, reckless discharge of a firearm and reckless conduct in the 2012 shooting.

    The decision comes as police departments nationwide come under increased scrutiny over the use of force in predominantly African-American communities.

    “This is not a place for emotion,” said Judge Dennis Porter just before the courtroom erupted in anguish, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “This is a place for reasoned decisions.”

    Servin shot Boyd during a late-night encounter on March 21, 2012, near Servin’s home in Douglas Park, on the west side of Chicago. Boyd, an African-American woman, was with three others when the off-duty officer approached in his car to complain the group was making too much noise.

    A heated exchange followed. Boyd’s friend Anthony Cross, Servin said, waved what looked like a gun, and Servin testified that he thought Cross was shooting at him. Servin produced an unregistered handgun and fired at least five times, striking Cross in the hand and Boyd in the back of the head. Cross testified that he had been carrying only a cell phone. No gun was recovered from the scene.

    In an uncommon ruling, Porter issued a directed verdict. Requested by the defense, the decision precluded the need for Servin to mount a defense or for the case to be decided by a jury.

    Servin’s actions were “beyond reckless,” the judge said, but he indicated that the evidence did not support the charges. Servin fired his gun intentionally, the judge said, undercutting the prosecution’s case for manslaughter, a charge that requires proof of recklessness.

    After the judge read the verdict, distraught family members of Boyd’s were led out of the courtroom screaming, DNAinfo Chicago reported.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

    Comment


    • #3
      On the "unregistered" gun:

      It isn't if he's a police officer. He's covered under LEORSA and federal law trumps Chicago's idiot gun laws. So that would get tossed in an instant.

      Comment


      • #4
        If this is true or happened as described then something is more than wrong...
        One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          Either this article was poorly written, or the judge is speaking legal double speak.
          The Chicago police officer who fatally shot unarmed 22-year-old Rekia Boyd has been found not guilty on all charges. The verdict handed down Monday cleared Detective Dante Servin, 46, of involuntary manslaughter, reckless discharge of a firearm and reckless conduct in the 2012 shooting.

          The decision comes as police departments nationwide come under increased scrutiny over the use of force in predominantly African-American communities.

          “This is not a place for emotion,” said Judge Dennis Porter just before the courtroom erupted in anguish, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “This is a place for reasoned decisions.”

          Servin shot Boyd during a late-night encounter on March 21, 2012, near Servin’s home in Douglas Park, on the west side of Chicago. Boyd, an African-American woman, was with three others when the off-duty officer approached in his car to complain the group was making too much noise.

          A heated exchange followed. Boyd’s friend Anthony Cross, Servin said, waved what looked like a gun, and Servin testified that he thought Cross was shooting at him. Servin produced an unregistered handgun and fired at least five times, striking Cross in the hand and Boyd in the back of the head. Cross testified that he had been carrying only a cell phone. No gun was recovered from the scene.

          In an uncommon ruling, Porter issued a directed verdict. Requested by the defense, the decision precluded the need for Servin to mount a defense or for the case to be decided by a jury.

          Servin’s actions were “beyond reckless,” the judge said, but he indicated that the evidence did not support the charges. Servin fired his gun intentionally, the judge said, undercutting the prosecution’s case for manslaughter, a charge that requires proof of recklessness.

          After the judge read the verdict, distraught family members of Boyd’s were led out of the courtroom screaming, DNAinfo Chicago reported.


          Never assume that a reporter has any understanding of his subject.
          The fact that the reporter called the "Directed Verdict" an "uncommon ruling" tells me he doesn't understand his subject and further wants to try and imply that there was something inappropriate about the ruling. A motion for a directed verdict is probably made in every single criminal trial and naturally some of them get granted.

          I am a little surprised by the ruling, but that doesn't make it wrong.
          The prosecutors decide what to charge the defendant with. They are also well aware of the facts they have to prove in order to win a conviction on the charges they brought. If they fail to prove all of the required elements of the crime, they will lose and that is their own fault.

          While the judge may have misapplied the evidence, it is also possible that the prosecution failed to prove the required elements of the crime in question.
          Based on what the judge said, they failed to prove a necessary element of the crime. The fact that he was guilty of something else (acting intentionally) doesn't change that.

          We may not like the result, but the judge might be right.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #6
            Did it say anywhere that he identified himself as a police officer? One would think that would be a crucial element in the case.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Basically the judge is finding that on the charge of manslaughter, innocent because he intentionally fired the weapon.
              On the charge of reckless discharge innocent because his actions were beyond reckless!
              i think this judge may be a marsupial !
              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

              Comment


              • #8
                And one of the lower primates at that.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                  If this is true or happened as described then something is more than wrong...
                  You are obviously not acquainted with the reputation of Chicago where the dead vote in all elections. Shucks, they even ended up putting JFK in the White House.

                  This is where Obama got his political training.
                  "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Perhaps the fool meant by "beyond reckless " that the action was outside that definition,rather than worst than reckless.Does not say very much for the time and effort spent coming to his conclusion and then presenting it.Time to retire ,if he can successfully fill the form in.
                    Wack tac mac hey.
                    Regards.
                    Grishnak.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by grishnak View Post
                      Perhaps the fool meant by "beyond reckless " that the action was outside that definition,rather than worst than reckless.Does not say very much for the time and effort spent coming to his conclusion and then presenting it.Time to retire ,if he can successfully fill the form in.
                      Let's hope he doesn't end up on the Supreme Court !
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X