Chicago judge throws out all charges against cop in middle of trial..

[Darwin333]

I'm pretty sure juries are allowed to consider lesser charges if they feel that the accused is guilty of something just not what they're being charged with. At the minimum I think this should have gotten reckless endangerment.

According to the judge that wouldn't hold water either:

Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one.

Which is a steaming pile of horseshit, he didn't point his gun at the intended victim he blindly fired over his shoulder which is pretty much the exact opposite of pointing a gun at your intended victim.

ETA:

It gets even better:

Bruce Mosbacher, a longtime criminal-defense attorney, defended the judge's legal reasoning as sound and faulted prosecutors for charging Servin with involuntary manslaughter, calling that a "curious" move that led to a "very distasteful result."

"They didn't charge what they had," said Mosbacher, who contended the office typically brings first-degree murder charges against those who kill by firing into a crowd. "They charged this as a compromise in an effort to help an otherwise good officer ... (and) in an effort to split the baby, they had a very unjust result."

 

[AHamick]

i must of missed that.

holy shit....just fucking amazing.


http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-ch...r-found-innocent-fatal-shooting-unarmed-woman
SHIT..the guy had a UNREGISTERED gun and used that.

Weapon registration is only a policy requirement for Police Officers in the city. The city handgun registration was knocked down when Illinois concealed carry passed, making weapon registrations illegal.

 

[smackababy]

I'm pretty sure juries are allowed to consider lesser charges if they feel that the accused is guilty of something just not what they're being charged with. At the minimum I think this should have gotten reckless endangerment.

Wasn't a jury trial. And, juries are only allowed to consider lesser charges in certain cases.

 

[Pulsar]

i must of missed that.

holy shit....just fucking amazing.


http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/535396/chicago-police-officer-found-innocent-fatal-shooting-unarmed-woman

Boyd died after one of the five bullets from Servin’s unregistered handgun pierced the left side of her head. Servin has maintained that he used his Glock only because he felt threatened when he confronted the group about the noise.


SHIT..the guy had a UNREGISTERED gun and used that.

Does unregistered mean illegal?

Oh right. No, it doesn't. But it's UNREGISTERED... so it must be bad, right?

Less frothing and more thinking would be a good thing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Does unregistered mean illegal?

Oh right. No, it doesn't. But it's UNREGISTERED... so it must be bad, right?

Less frothing and more thinking would be a good thing.

What it means is that he didn't use his service pistol, instead he used one that could not be easily traced back to him. In any other trail it would be argued that this constitutes forethought of action.

 

[smackababy]

What it means is that he didn't use his service pistol, instead he used one that could not be easily traced back to him. In any other trail it would be argued that this constitutes forethought of action.

And it would be argued he was off duty, so why would he have his service pistol on him. Forethought of not carrying his service pistol when off duty proves nothing.

 

[AHamick]

Except no one in Chicago is required to register a legally owned firearm. It being an unregistered firearm has no legal bearing and is merely a policy requirement for cops in Chicago.

So, no. It would not be argued in any other trial that not registering is forethought of anything since it is not required by law.

 

[Belegost]

Somehow I get the feeling if the prosecution had started out with a murder charge the judge would have said something to the effect of,

"By firing over the shoulder in a random manner I fail to see intent to murder, this should have been charged as manslaughter."

And then dismissed the case.

 

[mrjminer]

Well, would you charge someone who just sprayed bullets into a crowd with murder, or involuntary manslaughter because they weren't aiming at anyone in particular?

Good ruling, bad charge.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Somehow I get the feeling if the prosecution had started out with a murder charge the judge would have said something to the effect of,

"By firing over the shoulder in a random manner I fail to see intent to murder, this should have been charged as manslaughter."

And then dismissed the case.

indeed. i thought murder charges required premeditation, which is not what happened here. but firing randomly at a group is reckless as hell. manslaughter seems to be the appropriate charge to me.

 

[SMOGZINN]

indeed. i thought murder charges required premeditation, which is not what happened here. but firing randomly at a group is reckless as hell. manslaughter seems to be the appropriate charge to me.

Premeditation does not require that you know who you want to kill, only that you knowingly did something that would kill someone. Firing a gun into a crowd can be considered murder.

 

[smackababy]

Premeditation does not require that you know who you want to kill, only that you knowingly did something that would kill someone. Firing a gun into a crowd can be considered murder.

Premeditation is usually the difference between first and second degree murder. Planning to go out and kill someone is premeditation; being out, getting upset, and killing someone doesn't fit that. You just willingly killed committed and act that caused a death.

The cop willfully acted in a reckless manner that resulted in a death. Involuntary manslaughter was no appropriate. Murder 2 wasn't appropriate either, as he didn't have intent to kill the target he did.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Premeditation is usually the difference between first and second degree murder.

Yes, I don't know if Illinois has a 1 and 2 degree murder, I don't think all states have that distinction.

Planning to go out and kill someone is premeditation;

And first degree murder.

being out, getting upset, and killing someone doesn't fit that. You just willingly killed committed an act that caused a death.

Probably, second degree murder. Mattering on the exact circumstances.

The cop willfully acted in a reckless manner that resulted in a death. Involuntary manslaughter was no appropriate.

Agreed.

Murder 2 wasn't appropriate either, as he didn't have intent to kill the target he did.

That is what I was trying to say, you don't have to intend to kill the target you did, you only have to do something with such reckless disregard for human life that it is likely to end in someones death. He intentionally killed someone, doesn't matter if he hit his intended target, or even had a specific target. Firing into a crowd fits the description of second degree murder, and can under some circumstances fit first degree.
I think you could argue either in this case.

 

[theeedude]

If I am ever on a cop killer trial as a juror, I will remember that this is the standard of justice that should be used.

 

[smackababy]

If I am ever on a cop killer trial as a juror, I will remember that this is the standard of justice that should be used.

If that cop intentionally shot at someone and your job was to determine if they are guilty for inadvertently killing someone, I sure hope you use your head and find them not guilty.