We've refrained from commenting on the recent acquittal in the Servin case for one simple reason - everything published by the media is probably wrong in some way, shape or form. The media has become the mob, spouting untruths, lies and instigating violence at a supposedly "unjust" verdict. Then weeks later, something comes up that destroys the narrative, but you'll seldom, if ever, see a correction or retraction.
Example A: Ferguson. Everything the "man on the street" knows is demonstrably false by the evidence and facts. We could even go further back involving any sort of made up racial animus (Zimmerman) or sexism (Rolling Stone at UVa) or ignorance of policy (Cleveland, NYPD, etc). The anti-police, anti-gun, anti-whatever attitude that claims the message is more important than the facts, regardless of who gets destroyed on the altar of political correctness for the leftist cause.
You can see it even a few weeks ago - the Scott shooting in South Carolina. Cut and dried - white cop shoots unarmed black man, right? The left finally has a case that they can run around and shout, "This one is true, so everything else we've alleged over the past must be true, too!" So cut and dry that the media isn't even covering it any more. Is that because of this?
That's a screen capture seconds before the copper shot, and that's a green shirted individual on top of the cop. That's kind of a big deal and puts the entire incident in a different light.
See the Taser wire? Wrapped around the cop's leg? Or this one?
Taser wire running to the cops chest? Kind of means the reports of the cop being disarmed and shot with his own Taser might have some merit. And someone who can take your Taser can take your gun. It also means he's an elevated threat if he's (A) been on top of you and (B) has one of your weapons. Additionally, the guy who shot the video related this
- Feidin Santana, the witness to the event who recorded it on his cellphone, has come forth claiming the Scott and Slager were in a “struggle on the ground” prior to the shooting
Does that excuse the final shooting sequence? We have no idea...and neither does anyone else. It makes it more understandable. It clarifies the reasoning behind the actions taken. It also makes the howls for murder charges more ridiculous.
Back to the Servin case. Today, experienced defense attorneys, people who aren't going to buying tickets to the Policeman's Ball any time soon, relate that the judge got it correct:
- Several longtime criminal-defense attorneys interviewed by the Tribune backed the decision by Porter as the right call, saying the veteran judge has a reputation at the Leighton Criminal Court Building for a sharp legal mind and a willingness to make unpopular rulings.
Attorney Richard Kling, a professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, said he has never had a client who fired a gun into a crowd and killed someone face involuntary manslaughter charges.
"It's a gutsy ruling," said attorney Steve Greenberg, who represented former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson at his high-profile murder trial. "It's either self-defense or you've committed a murder. It's definitely not a reckless act."
Greenberg said the decision to charge Servin with involuntary manslaughter may have been a political one, with prosecutors unwilling to charge a police detective with murder, which carries a minimum 45-year sentence on conviction.
So pardon our lack of coverage. Everyone reading knows that the usual suspects are going to use this case as yet another bludgeon to beat the Department with. Pfather Pfleger has already been quoted extensively in the news while his parish averages somewhere around a shooting every 48-hours, none of which are by the police. There are others and will be more.
Labels: scc responds