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.

[breakem]

never heardx of anyone copyrighting web posting of personal opinions, what's the point?

[newwahoo]

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

No problem with that. BUT, a suspect in cuffs has not necessarily been restrained. Officers have the right to use a reasonable amount of force to get someone restrained.

"I had an officer come behind me with his lights on, and I tried to move to the left, move to the right to allow him by. (4 lane freeway) I had no idea he was after me, as I didn't even know what I had done."

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.

[connectthedots]

You think it is OK for a prosecutor to intentionally lose a case simply to protect a guilty cop? I'm not saying the guy is actually guilty, but a reasonable person can surely see that the prosecutor is not aggressively prosecuting this case. It seems a bit obvious that the prosecutor does not want a conviction in this case.

[Yeti]

Notice: The right to read this notice is may be purchased for $10,000,000. Reading this notice constitutes acceptance of these terms. You may not discuss this notice in freepmail, email, print, in person, via telephone, on any forum or on any type of instant messaging system without the prior consent of the author. Dicussion of this notice shall be construed by the author as permission to post all of your writings on any forum in the world, as well as persmission to post a picture of you touched up to look like Hitler or Michal Moore, at the author's discretion.

Make the check out to "Cult of Yeti, LLC" please. ; )

[Catspaw]

Kewl. Make sure my money's in the form of a cashier's check or money order--and not one of those faux Montana Freeman money orders, either.

[connectthedots]

See, the problem is (and I have friends who are police officers) that the police do not believe they are subject to the laws they enforce.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Catspaw]

never heardx of anyone copyrighting web posting of personal opinions, what's the point?

If someone posts my copyrighted works on another forum without my permission, I reserve the right to sue them. Just because you don't want to exercise your rights doesn't mean I won't.

[breakem]

I was trying to think of a reason, that's why I asked why. Are you saying your rights are in better shape than mine? LOL!

[Catspaw]

If you double-dog dare me, I'll go to LP biker bar and post a big long thread with a bunch your posts and a little notice in red at the bottom that says:

The above posts are reproduced for discussion and educational purposes only

I can and will sue the living bejesus out of you. Your choice.

I didn't know you were an AF. Why are you here?

[Catspaw]

I was trying to think of a reason, that's why I asked why. Are you saying your rights are in better shape than mine? LOL!

No, I didn't say my rights are in better shape than yours. I said I was willing to sue. You can, too. The courts are there for everyone.

[newwahoo]

"I don't even care if the boy grabbed him by the nuts, he should then charge the boy with assault, and take him to jail"

And I suppose he should have waited until the guy just got tired of squeezing the family jewels before he did something about it? So the next time I'm attacked I should just go into the fetal position and yell "you're under arrest for assault!" I'm gonna add that along with "hell, I might go riot myself" to your list of brilliant ideas.

[breakem]

I was trying to make a joke based upon wordplay of your response that you were exercising your rights. I was trying to think of a reason why someone would........ Never mind.

[newwahoo]

"It seems a bit obvious that the prosecutor does not want a conviction in this case.

Obvious to you perhaps. I intend to accept the jury's verdict in this case without resorting to violence and the destruction and theft of people's property, unlike what some on your side seem to be hoping is the end result.

[connectthedots]

Exactly where did I suggest, hint at, or otherwise infer that I would approve or condone violence of any sort?

[newwahoo]

Nowhere that I can see, but your compatriot clearly indicated that he would consider rioting. Then again, I also clearly indicated that this was the desire of "some on your side."

[newwahoo]

You expect to confine yourself to expressing your outrage at an innocent in a civil fashion in the hope of improving "race relations."

[Yeti]

I didn't know you were an AF.

I'm not.

Why are you here?

Because I like it here, and I haven't been banned yet.

I can and will sue the living bejesus out of you.

Now you sound really stupid. You should think about the implications of what you are saying re: this forum. What you are saying is that you think FR is doing something illegal, but that you don't mind because you like FR.

I, on the other hand, don't think FR is doing anything wrong in the first place.

The LAT/WP situation is unique in that they were operating for profit and may have been able to demonstrate an actual economic loss due to the posting of their material on here. The issue was never decided by a judge, because an amicable agreement was reached before it ever got that far.

But every day, hundreds of articles with copyright notices quite like yours are posted on FR. Where are all the lawsuits? The discussion and education "fair use" exemption is REAL.

You, however, are not a for-profit institution. Putting that notice at the end of your posts or on your page is like having a conversation with me and then telling me AFTERWARD that I am bound by a confidentiality agreement and can't repeat what you say. It sounds like bullshit to me.

If someone slanders or defames you on another board, or here for that matter, you might have some standing to sue. Or, if you have some a priori confidentiality agreement. Or, if they *MIS*quote you. Otherwise, good luck.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer....

[Catspaw]

Just curious: How long did it take you to go over to that other site & get this to post?

[connectthedots]

You expect to confine yourself to expressing your outrage at an innocent in a civil fashion in the hope of improving "race relations."

'Not guilty" and "innocent" are not necessarily the same. If the prosecutor intentionally puts on a weak case and the jury result is 'not guilty', that does not mean the cop didn't commit the crime.

[Yeti]

Huh?