Today's essay centers around white Chicago police Detective Dante Servin, who killed an innocent, unarmed 22-year-old black woman at 1 a.m. on March 21, 2012. His recently-concluded trial, in which he was acquitted, might seem like just another example of cops getting away with murder. But my perusal of various sources, and the issues they raised in my own mind, make this case far more interesting.
I will address the issues of:
- Double jeopardy
- Prosecutorial misconduct
- Inability to appeal Judge Porter's decision
- The Ninth Amendment's rights concerning justice and self-defense
So, exactly what happened on the morning of the shooting?
According to an account in the Nov. 26, 2013 issue of the Chicago Tribune:
[NOTE: I highlight selected parts below and, in brackets, make comments]:
QUOTE:
The detective was off duty and driving home just before midnight when he heard a large and loud crowd at Douglas Park near 15th Place, Assistant State's Attorney William Delaney said in court. At home a few minutes later, he called 911 to complain, telling the dispatcher, "I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen."
["driving home" in his own car, not in any kind of police vehicle]
["I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen.": And an hour later, Dante gets in his car and confronts four noisy people within sight of his own home. Even though he said he was "afraid that something bad is going to happen [at the nearby park]." Why didn't Dante simply call for some beat cops to take care of this noisy nuisance? How is it that an $87,000 per year detective decides to handle this - alone! - near his own home? Since this group of four was walking (see next paragraph), why confront them at all? Since they were walking, they would have been out of his earshot soon enough anyway.
As things turned out, now the whole world can figure out where this detective lives!]
About 1 a.m., Servin told authorities, he left his home to get a burger, carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock on his right hip, prosecutors said. He saw a group of four people — including Boyd — as they walked after a night hanging out and drinking at the park to buy cigarettes.
["carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock": All of the articles I've read mentioned "unregistered," but none of them mentioned that police officers are exempt from the requirements of Chicago's gun registration law.]
Servin drove south in an alley just west of Albany Avenue toward 15th Place, approaching the mouth of the alley just as the group was coming by. Through his open driver's side window, Servin told two men in the group that no one would call police if they stayed in the park and were quiet but that "people lived here."
["approaching the mouth of the alley": This indicates that the four were not in the alley, but other accounts state they were.]
["Servin told two men in the group": But Servin did not identify himself as a police office when initially addressing these two men. He did so, according to another article, just before he opened fire because he thought one of the two men had a gun.]
:UNQUOTE.
Dante Servin was acquitted, but that does not mean he was innocent. Because of his actions, the City of Chicago settled a wrongful death law suit with Boyd's family in March of 2013. Even though Servin will most likely be allowed to resume his role as detective, I wonder how many of his superiors are thinking, "This POS cost us $4.5 million dollars."
Other articles of interest
According to this article:
QUOTE:
[Assistant State's Attorney Maria Burnett] also noted that Servin had worked roughly 18 hours on March 20 as an election judge. Servin told Burnett over the course of her investigation, she said, that he'd been heading out to get a burger when he dragged his trash outside and spotted Boyd and Cross.
[and]
Servin told Burnett, meanwhile, that he may have been shot, she said. The officer claimed he heard a gunshot and felt "something" on the back of his head before he began to shoot, Burnett testified.
[source:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150416/north-lawndale/trial-for-detective-who-shot-unarmed-woman-continues-thursday ]
:UNQUOTE.
So Servin "worked roughly 18 hours...as an election judge." So what? How does this irrelevant statement work its way into the proceedings? Was Burnett trying to lay groundwork for a defense that this detective was so tired, he should be excused for his poor judgement?
Maybe Servin heard something that sounded like a gunshot, but as for feeling "something" on the back of his head? Sounds like a lie to me, unless this officer is so skittish that he feels phantom pains when in a stressful situation - especially since he was exhausted after working as an election judge.
From the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 2015:
QUOTE:
[In acquitting Servin] Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that any time an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections...
:UNQUOTE [article by Steve Schmadeke and Jeremy Gorner].
So there we have it: Servin did not act recklessly by firing five shots, while seated in his car, over his left shoulder in the general direction of these four people who, according to some accounts, were in a darkened alley. Servin didn't point "a gun at an intended victim," he pointed it at a group using a technique called spray and pray. His intention was to lash out, holding the entire group responsible by firing away, hoping for the best. Maybe he was afraid that one of the others or all of them had guns. [Sorry, but being "afraid" of a possibility isn't the same as seeing a real gun to which self-defense would be appropriate.]
That hardly sounds like "intention" to kill the one man who Servin said had a gun but who, as it turned out, didn't. Instead, he only had a cell phone in hand. Charges against the "gunman" Antonio Cross were dropped in March of 2013.
Questions for the judge: How could the defendant be charged with murder for killing someone he didn't intend to kill? Doesn't intent factor into a murder charge? If the charge had been murder, would you have decided that Boyd was merely collateral damage and not the intended victim? And for that reason, acquit Servin? Without "intent," we have no crime.
Related Issues
As for double-jeopardy:
The Fifth Amendment says in part: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...". The words "same offense" don't seem to apply, since the first offense which was tried was manslaughter and the second (to be tried?) was murder. The Amendment does not say, "...nor shall any person be subject for any crime to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb by relabeling that crime..."
Also of interest is the term "life or limb." Having been charged with manslaughter, Servin wasn't in any danger of being put in "jeopardy of [his] life." The penalty for this lesser crime did not include either the death penalty or life imprisonment. So later being charged with murder would put him - for the first time - in jeopardy of his life, since that offense carries a possible life sentence. I read, interestingly enough, that the term "life or limb" is taken by the courts to refer to (even non-lethal) punishment in general.
Frankly, I don't see why the judge couldn't have found Servin guilty of murder, even though he had only been charged with manslaughter. I also don't see why this judge's decision can't be appealed. If the judge made a mistake by claiming the charge of manslaughter was inappropriate, then are we to believe that an appellate court wouldn't be allowed to rule on this determination? If the prosecution made a mistake or intentionally undercharged the defendant knowing the judge would acquit, then why aren't we looking at a charge of prosecutorial misconduct?
The Ninth Amendment:
The US Constitution's Ninth Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Don't we have the right of self-defense? Even though that's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, no one's going to argue that we have no such right. In like manner, one such non-enumerated right must be that the cause of justice be served. Rekia Boyd's family deserves justice. It is a travesty that some lapdog judge feels he must find a way to let a guilty man go free, thereby denying that justice.
As for wrongful death:
Why did the city so quickly decide to pay $4.5 million to settle the Boyd family's wrongful death law suit? Note the part I yellowed in the following quote:
QUOTE:
Defining Wrongful Death in Illinois
740 Illinois Compiled Statutes 180 says, "Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages," the person or entity that caused the death can be held liable in a wrongful death lawsuit.
[source:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-lawsuits-illinois.html ]
Rekia Boyd's death was not caused by a wrongful act - remember, the detective was acquitted. Therefore, there was no wrongful death. Does our city government have a burning desire to throw money away for no good reason?
And, lastly, we have this quote from an article by Eric Zorn that shoots a hole in the judge's reasoning:
QUOTE:
Others have blasted [Cook County State's Attorney Anita] Alvarez for not recognizing that "Illinois courts have consistently held that when the defendant intends to fire a gun, points it in the general direction of his or her intended victim, and shoots, such conduct is not merely reckless and does not warrant an involuntary manslaughter instruction," to quote from a passage of Porter's ruling that cited previous opinions.
But Illinois courts have not "consistently held" this.
[Zorn's reasoning, as detailed in this link, is persuasive]:
[source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anita-alvarez-dante-servin-manslaughter-murder-chicago-perspec-0426-jm-20150424-column.html ]
:UNQUOTE.
Conclusion
It seems our legal system - either Judge Porter or Alvarez's office - bowed down to the largest street gang in Chicago - the Chicago Police Department. CPD's motto should read: "We serve and protect - our own. Everyone else can just buzz off."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment