Get Ready (Acquittals loom in the Inglewood cop trial)

National Review OnLine ^ | July 17, 2003 | Jack Dunphy

[End Times Sentinel]

July 17, 2003, 9:55 a.m.
Get Ready
Acquittals loom in the Inglewood cop trial. Will trouble follow?

LOS ANGELES — Do you hear that? If you listen closely, you can hear the faint, far-off sounds of the No Justice, No Peace Hallelujah Chorus practicing their scales and limbering up the old vocal chords. That's right, soprano Maxine Waters, baritone Al Sharpton, bass Jesse Jackson, and all their assembled multitudes may soon be, as is their wont, raising a ruckus. Though the story has been largely eclipsed by other events in the national media, the two Inglewood, Calif. police officers indicted in last July's videotaped altercation with a teenager have been brought before the bar of justice. As the world knows, Los Angeles juries can be prone to irrationality at times, so predictions in such highly charged cases can be dicey, but I'm planning on working some overtime soon. Recall that Officers Jeremy Morse and Bijan Darvish were two of several officers involved in a July 6, 2002 fracas with 16-year-old Donovan Jackson, whose father had been stopped for driving a car with expired registration. The final moments of the incident were captured on a bystander's videotape, and for days and weeks thereafter few in the civilized world could escape the image of Morse slamming the handcuffed Jackson onto a police car's trunk and punching him in the mouth. Morse was charged with assault under the color of authority; Darvish, his partner that day, was charged with filing a false police report. The jury has now heard the prosecution's evidence, and what thin gruel it turned out to be. When prosecutors rested their case on Tuesday, some observers were prompted to ask, "That's it? That's all you got?"

L.A. County Sheriff's Commander Charles Heal, testifying for the prosecution as a use-of-force expert, told the jury on Monday that while he considered Morse's treatment of Jackson excessive, it did not rise to the level that would warrant criminal charges. "If [Morse] would have been my deputy, he would have got his chain rattled in my office," Heal testified under cross-examination. "Would I have filed [criminal charges] on him? No." What, then, the jurors might have wondered, are we all doing here?

Prosecutors sought to rebound from this setback on Tuesday by calling Inglewood P.D. Chief Ronald Banks and LAPD Captain Greg Meyer, both of whom testified that Morse's actions were excessive and inexcusable. But in relying on Heal, Banks, and Meyer as they have, prosecutors run the risk of seeing their testimony undercut by other use-of-force experts to be called when the defense presents their case. All three are high-ranking officers within their departments, and one doesn't get to be a high-ranking officer in any police department by mixing it up in gas-station donnybrooks. I don't care how many articles they've written or how many speeches they've given, I'll bet a paycheck that neither Heal, Banks, or Meyer has gotten his uniform dirty in 20 years. The defense will surely present use-of-force authorities whose expertise is more practical than theoretical, and whose testimony will likely carry more weight with the jury.

As if resigned to defeat, some in the anti-cop crowd were quick to denounce the prosecution's efforts. Max Huntsman and Michael Peterson, the two deputy district attorneys assigned to the case, came in for some colorful criticism from one Najee Ali, head of Project Islamic Hope. "What's up, Steve [Cooley, the county D.A]?" said Ali. "Why did you send us Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis? We want to know how come their best people weren't sent out instead of a comedy act."

An even more enlightening reaction came from Leo Terrel, the seldom-tranquil Los Angeles attorney. Reacting to Cmdr. Heal's admission that he did not believe Morse's actions to be criminal, Terrel nearly blew a gasket. "Are you telling me," he thundered, "that [prosecutors] couldn't find, out of all the use-of-force experts in the state, in the nation, one person that would have been loyal to them, and been on the same page?" Interesting that Terrel, who on his local radio show bills himself as "the fair-minded civil-rights attorney," should call for a witness to tailor his testimony so as to achieve some desired outcome.

We'll be hearing a great deal from Terrel and all the better-known cop bashers if the trial continues on its present course. It will be pointed out ad nauseam that only one black was on the jury, so when the acquittals come there will be all the more reason for the usual suspects to condemn them. All that furniture heisted in the '92 Rodney King riots is bound to be a bit threadbare by now, so some people may be looking forward to a shopping spree, one for which the bill never comes.

The jury may get the case as soon as next week. Look for me at Florence and Normandie.

— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. "Jack Dunphy" is the author's nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.

[Catspaw]

Aw, Yeti, I see you're making arguments defense attorneys would make. That's so "I just got out of lawschool." I'd never discuss legal strategy.

But thanks for giving away your defense.

Now let me take a break while I have a good laugh.

[newwahoo]

Try marching around your house yelling "no justice, no peace" a few times. I'm sure that doing that along with bemoaning the DA's supposed intentional sabotage will console you.

[JudyB1938]

I watched that video several times. I never saw the kid grab the cop's privates. It is my opinion that those who say differently are lying.

[JudyB1938]

Sorry, but I still think the cop is lying.

[connectthedots]

I'm sure that doing that along with bemoaning the DA's supposed intentional sabotage will console you.

YOu think a DA couldn't of wouldn't sabotage a case? If so, you are either very naive or simply willing to let government officials cover-up crimes, at least until it affects you or someone you know. When that happens, your attitude will change dramatically, as it di mine when confronted with corruption in the courts.

[Just another Joe]

and are being held by other LEOs

There is the other half of that equation.

[L,TOWM]

Which video have you "seen several times" in Arkansas?

The home movie, edited down to the three second 10 o'clock news clip? You know the one, taken head on from across the car? Or the gas station security video taken from a side angle?

Here's another question--did you see the first 10 seconds of the home movie? Or the gas station video in which your hero, young master Jackson, emerges from the mini-market in the store?

How about you try an experiment, Judy. Speed on your nearest interstate in Arkansas. The first time you get pulled over, co operate with the officer, and obey all instructions.

Take notes on your experience (for comparison later).

Then speed again. This time, DO NOT obey an officers instructions, move toward him quickly and aggressively--yell something obscene and threatening while doing so, perhaps even imitate trying to withdraw an object from your purse or pocket.

Take notes on your experience, or have your next-of-kin contact information handy...

You have committed a cardinal sin for a FReeper; allowed the massaged and edited "news" spoon fed to you from the mainstream media shape your opinion...

[UCANSEE2]

The times I was arrested, I was not mistreated whatsoever.

I knew my rights, and I knew my responsibilities. I kept my mouth shut, and cooperated with the LEO's to the extent that I was required. I was never charged with any crime in either of these cases, but the person I was with was. The mistreatment occurred with the LEO's and the other person.

These were cases where I knew all the details, saw all the action, knew exactly who did or didn't do what, and I will tell you all, the POLICE DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW. What are they gonna do, arrest each other ? Knowing NO ONE will do anything to you if you take out your anger, your aggressions, your adrenaline rush, on a suspect, makes it too easy to do, and it is done all the time.

IS IT RIGHT? nope. I agree an officer has the right to defend himself, even if you are in cuffs.

Does he have the right to PUNISH YOU after the fact? This is the question that is the central key to this whole episode. DOES an officer have the right to be JUDGE and JURY, and HANGMAN?

If an officer was defending himself against gunfire, and he shot the perpetrator, then does he have the right, (say the man is wounded) to come up to him and shoot him 5 more times in the head? SOMEONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for your response.

Officers have the right to use a reasonable amount of force to get someone restrained.

Then, was the officer in this case using REASONABLE force when he slammed the suspect down on the hood, and then slammed his fist into his jaw? Was that reasonable force, or payback?

And amazingly after switching lanes in two different directions the thought never crossed your mind that YOU might be the one he was trying to pull over? What an astounding abuse of power on his part and a solid display of perception on yours.

You are making assumptions, and Perhaps I wasn't fully clear. After moving left and right, I realized he was after me. I pulled over. When he told me he was going to give me a ticket for 'evading police', I said "your f*cking crazy". It wasn't the best choice of words, and his reactions proved it. After explaining to him my view, and lowering my tone of voice (and he the same), He didn't do anything to me except insist on giving me a ticket for 'failure to yield to an emergency vehicle'. The point was he was mad and gave me a ticket for something I didn't really do. For those that say (like you) I should have pulled over and stopped instantly, I would have had to dart across two lanes, with traffic (morning rush hour) darting past in all lanes. The instant I realized he meant me, I moved to the far left lane and pulled to a stop on the exit ramp (closest exit I knew of).

I merely spoke of this as an example , in kind, not in magnitude.

Would you care to make some more fun of it, like that somehow will help justify your side of the issue?

"Every time a police officer is caught on tape beating a suspect, he should be arrested for assault and brought to trial."

I still stand by this. Maybe it is hard for you to tell the difference between self-defense and A BEATING. Which do you think the officer was doing when he punched the suspect in the face?

[UCANSEE2]

If you mean me, Allow me to respond.

I only advocate 'rioting' in the terms of demonstrating, not the looting, etc. I only advocate it as a last resort after legal means to stop abusive actions by police (if that was true in this case, which I have no proof either way so far) have failed. I reserve the right, and believe the Constitution states that I have a GOD given right to do so.

[UCANSEE2]

You have done something liberals do. Make assumptions that fit just your conclusion, then use it to make fun of another's opinion.

First you assume you are the only one that know's the truth.

I believe JudyB1938 left open the notion that someone else may have seen more, and was asking did they?

I have another question. Why is it necessary, when someone is defending a situation, to make personal accusations about them?

Example: Or the gas station video in which your hero, young master Jackson,emerges from the mini-market in the store?

I see no where that JudyB1938 claims the suspect in this case is her "HERO", do you ?

[UCANSEE2]

post 112 is not to you, it is to L,TOWM. I am having problems with getting the L TOWM to work with a COMMA in the middle of it. It screws my TO: thingy up.

[UCANSEE2]

Post 112 is to you. I can't send to you and another, because of the comma in the middle of your screenname.

[L,TOWM]

>>>>>>You see black helicopters quite often?<<<<<<<

No. I reserve those duties for the members of this forum that see a fascist police state whenever some idiot breaks the law, and then compounds their troubles with poor decision making...

Like grabbing a man's package in the middle of a physical struggle. Dumba$$ punk was fortunate that he was'nt shot.

[L,TOWM]

>>>>>>then does he have the right, (say the man is wounded) to come up to him and shoot him 5 more times in the head? SOMEONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION<<<<<<<

Sure. IF, AND ONLY IF, the guy is still firing/pointing a weapon/otherwise not submitting.

[L,TOWM]

>>>>>>Post 112 is to you. I can't send to you and another, because of the comma in the middle of your screenname.<<<<<<

Seems to have worked for you at some point.

[L,TOWM]

>>>>>Which do you think the officer was doing when he punched the suspect in the face?<<<<<<

Trying to get another man to loosen the grip on his b@ll$. Oh, that's right. Police officers get exactly 0*0 chances to actually be people and defend themselves or have a split second over reactiion to intense pain...

I'll remember that the next time I'm drafting a set of laws for Fantasyland.

[L,TOWM]

Now, if you read Ms. Judy's original post, she stated that the issue was, QUOTING EXACTLY "them (jack booted thugs) vs. us (citizens)".

Since the object of "them" in this case was the officer throwing the punch, Judy chooses to hold up young Master Jackson as the standard bearer for "us"; the citizens. Presumably Ms. Judy is identifiying with the poor oppressed Ma. Jackson as the citizen hero de jure, fighting oppression.

Sorry. I put in too much work into my life to stop being like Jackson the idiotic dirtbag to identify at all with him, in any capacity.

But hey, you and Judy can join the rest of the soon to be working class heroes, liberating new furniture and big screen TV's for justice. That'll learn them honkey 'pressors...