Anger at acquittal of Chicago policeman in shooting of woman

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Anger at acquittal of Chicago policeman in shooting of woman
| April 21, 2015 | Updated: April 21, 2015 9:54pm


[font size=1]
Photo By John J. Kim/AP

In this Monday, April 20, 2015 photo, Chicago police Detective Dante Servin listens as Judge Dennis
Porter reads his decision at the Leighton Criminal Court Building in Chicago on involuntary
manslaughter charges in the March 2012 shooting death of Rekia Boyd. Porter ruled that prosecutors
failed to prove Servin acted recklessly, by the legal definition. Demonstrators rallied Monday night to
protest the acquittal. (John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune via AP, Pool)
[/font]

CHICAGO (AP) — A judge's surprise acquittal of an off-duty Chicago police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed woman called into question prosecutors' decision not to charge the man with murder, and set off protests for a second day Tuesday.

That the officer shot Rekia Boyd, 22, was never in dispute. But the judge said he was bound to find detective Dante Servin not guilty of involuntary manslaughter — because manslaughter requires evidence of "recklessness," while the judge described the act of shooting as "intentional."

"It is intentional and the crime, if any there be, is first-degree murder," Judge Dennis Porter said in his seven-page ruling Monday.

Several dozen demonstrators gathered in downtown Chicago's Daley Plaza on Tuesday, some holding signs with a picture of Boyd, to voice distain for the decision by Porter and for Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Anger-at-acquittal-of-Chicago-policeman-in-6214126.php

[Midnight Writer]

1. Wow. Talk about "the letter of the law"

This guy goes free because the judge determined that he was guilty of a much greater crime.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Noted here too

And if he had been tried for Murder - the judge would have said something else. It's all one big shake down and scam.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. That is an elementary misunderstanding of the English language.

A person may shoot someone both recklessly and intentionally. They are not at all mutually exclusive. Your police seem to be doing it all the time. Surely, the judge's misinterpretation of the language in which the law is written should render his decision void. Let's hope this is not gong to be a case of 'too erroneous to be struck down'.

We also regularly read of a toddler finding a loaded firearm in the house and killing another family member. That would be recklessness qua an utter lack of concern for the consequences, through the child's ignorance. But an adult may have a reckless mindset that leads to his intentionally committing a very serious crime. In fact, it must be a common feature of recidivistic criminals (albeit well be below the CEO level). That too would be down to a failure to process the information necessary to work the levers necessary to use the 'system' lawfully for their own benefit, although of course, it would not be as total as the toddler's effectively blank mind.

The only reservation is that it might not be clearly reckless if the murderer knows that he has a 99% chance of being exonerated by people more reckless than themselves.

[kacekwl]

4. So sitting in his car

Intentionally shooting into a crowd is not reckless ?