# Police officer arrested for assault in miscarriage of justice



## jks9199 (Jul 14, 2007)

I started to circulate this privately -- and then decided what the hell...  It brings up lots of relevant issues for this forum, I think.

Quick summary:
Chicago PD Officer Mette is off duty, visiting his brother in Dubuque, Iowa.  Drunken jerk Gothard starts a problem at a party; Mette and his buddies leave the party, and return to Mette's brother's house.  Gothard follows them, making false accusations of theft.  Gothard then threatens Mette with battery, then makes good on it, hitting him repeatedly in the chest.  After the third strike, Mette decks him.  Mette ends up arrested and subsequently convicted of felonious assault, and sentenced to five years.  The judge actually recognized that Gothard instigated this!  He's also either suspended w/o pay or has been fired; I'm not certain exactly where the process is standing.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5478651 should link to an article about this.

Now...

Just how far was Mette supposed to run?  Until Gothard sobered up?  How many times was he supposed let Gothard hit him?  How exactly did that end up not being self defense, especially since there were multiple witnesses?  

Oh... And Gothard, who has since been arrested DUI and posted plenty of drunken photos all over his Facebook account according to the article, decided that he couldn't be interviewed by the press because he's suing Mette!


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jul 14, 2007)

One more example of how weak much of our society is becoming.

Used to be if you laid hands on another man, you got what you got, be it your *** handed to you, a bullet in the head or a blade in your gut.

Lawyers, activist Judges and feminism sure has done this country good.


Just like in the Home Invasion thread, were many stated it would be wrong to outright kill an intruder and then this week in Fla, a woman and her child were assulted, raped, forced to do unspeakable things to one another, beaten, burned with bleech and left for dead.

 Antoher example of it's better to be over prepared, and willing to killa nd or die before submiting to another's will.


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 14, 2007)

Bring back the days of an eye for an eye.


----------



## exile (Jul 14, 2007)

This cannot be allowed to stand, and I'd bet heavy that the convinction is overturned on appeal. 

The most disgusting aspect of this whole disgusting case is that the assailant assaulted a police officerthe distinguished jurist who pronounced sentence in this case apparently had no problem recognizing that simple factyet apparently you can commit assault and battery on a police officer _and not be charged with A&B!!_. The initiator of the attack isn't charged, the defending victim of the attack _is_... 

Someone deserves to be impeached and removed from the bench permanently, and the municipal prosecutors in this sorry district need a serious attitude adjustment. But number one priority is overturning that conviction.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 14, 2007)

exile said:


> Someone deserves to be impeached and removed from the bench permanently, and the municipal prosecutors in this sorry district need a serious attitude adjustment. But number one priority is overturning that conviction.


I strongly, vehemently AGREE.

Unfortunately, jurors are often shielded from certain facts - they may be prevented from hearing all evidence through motions decided by judicial whim.  Even more unfortunately, there is a good chance the Officer will not be able to afford to appeal.


----------



## exile (Jul 14, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> I strongly, vehemently AGREE.
> 
> Unfortunately, jurors are often shielded from certain facts - they may be prevented from hearing all evidence through motions decided by judicial whim.  Even more unfortunately, there is a good chance the Officer will not be able to afford to appeal.



But surely his Police Officer's Benevolent Association would undertake his representation? If this completely indefensible ruling isn't challenged, it sends the message that basic canons of justice, like the right to self-defense, are suspended in the case of LEOs. You'd think that no police union, dedicated as it is to safeguarding its members and making their working conditions the best possible, could allow this verdict to be the last word in the caseand isn't the whole point to POBAs that the individual officer should not be forced stand on his own, especially in the case of judicial abuse?


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 14, 2007)

exile said:


> This cannot be allowed to stand, and I'd bet heavy that the convinction is overturned on appeal.
> 
> The most disgusting aspect of this whole disgusting case is that the assailant assaulted a police officer&#8212;the distinguished jurist who pronounced sentence in this case apparently had no problem recognizing that simple fact&#8212;yet apparently you can commit assault and battery on a police officer _and not be charged with A&B!!_. The initiator of the attack isn't charged, the defending victim of the attack _is_...
> 
> Someone deserves to be impeached and removed from the bench permanently, and the municipal prosecutors in this sorry district need a serious attitude adjustment. But number one priority is overturning that conviction.


 
I just want to make it clear that Mette was OFF duty, in a completely different state from where he works.  I don't know, but suspect he never identified himself as a police officer.  (Unlike the feds, you generally have to know you're assaulting a local/state cop who is performing their duties to be charged with assault on an officer.)  I'm even willing to grant that he'd been drinking...

It's still beyond my understanding how in hell this ever got to a trial in the first place...  Or what more Mette could or should have done to avoid the situation.  He'd already left one location, and been followed.  He even took a couple of shots...  I suppose maybe he could have tried some sort of restraint hold -- but c'mon...  A guy's hitting you, and you're supposed to just get pounded?!


----------



## exile (Jul 14, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I just want to make it clear that Mette was OFF duty, in a completely different state from where he works.  I don't know, but suspect he never identified himself as a police officer.  (Unlike the feds, you generally have to know you're assaulting a local/state cop who is performing their duties to be charged with assault on an officer.)  I'm even willing to grant that he'd been drinking...
> 
> It's still beyond my understanding how in hell this ever got to a trial in the first place...  Or what more Mette could or should have done to avoid the situation.  He'd already left one location, and been followed.  He even took a couple of shots...  I suppose maybe he could have tried some sort of restraint hold -- but c'mon...  A guy's hitting you, and you're supposed to just get pounded?!



So what's your guess about how things will go, jks? Will his union go to bat for him so far as supporting an appeal?


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 14, 2007)

I have some very bad experience with  the community where I grew up - in this case, the GS Civilian in charge of cleaning a laboratory was charged in Federal court for violating environmental law, and sued to boot.  The entire thing was for political hay; the guy was an obvious fall-guy, used to promote someone's political career.  He had no more responsibility for any toxic waste than the Prosecuter, and he did everything that any reasonable person could think to do to stop the problem.  Also, anyone who had ever worked with any related government office was excluded from the jury pool (much as I'm sure all other LEO's were excluded in this case), so the people most knowledgeable in the way things 'really' work weren't allowd to participate in the process.  

Anyway, the Gov. employee's union helped our local lab guy with one case (criminal or civil, I forget which), but could not with the other.  The man mortgaged his house, used all his savings, and went into debt to try to file an appeal - I don't think it was ever resolved justly.

I would think the Union would have an interest in the result of this case, but probably could not as a rule put itself in the position of defending union members from criminal charges.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 14, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I just want to make it clear that Mette was OFF duty, in a completely different state from where he works.  I don't know, but suspect he never identified himself as a police officer.  (Unlike the feds, you generally have to know you're assaulting a local/state cop who is performing their duties to be charged with assault on an officer.)  I'm even willing to grant that he'd been drinking...
> 
> It's still beyond my understanding how in hell this ever got to a trial in the first place...  Or what more Mette could or should have done to avoid the situation.  He'd already left one location, and been followed.  He even took a couple of shots...  I suppose maybe he could have tried some sort of restraint hold -- but c'mon...  A guy's hitting you, and you're supposed to just get pounded?!


So what if he'd been drinking? So what if he didn't identify himself as a PO. How does that change any of the substantive facts. Man is badmouthed; leaves to preserve the peace, is followed by troublemaker, who then batters him repeatedly, until the victim finally strikes back. Alcohol and/or a badge wouldn't seem to make any difference to my way of thinking.

And this really brings into question how the legal system might view preemptive strikes, when in this case, this guy was struck three times before retaliating, and _he _becomes the convict! :angry:

By the way, he may have been reluctant to identify himself as LE because he was so far from jurisdiction, and didn't want to give a false impression. No good deed goes unpunished, huh?


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 14, 2007)

exile said:


> So what's your guess about how things will go, jks? Will his union go to bat for him so far as supporting an appeal?


At this point, I only know what's in the article.

It's under appeal.  I hope that the appellate court will overturn the original ruling, and at a minimum, remand it for retrial.  Hopefully, on remand, the prosecutor will remove his head from his backside, and realize that Mette wasn't the one who was wrong...

But Mette's still going to be out the costs of the trial, and have his career severely impacted.  And Goatherd (who, according to some editorials I've just read was apparently so seriously impacted by this that he was leading the golf team and still having plenty of time to get smashed, and could barely be bothered to attend the trial) is still suing Mette.  I've inquired about a legal fund for Mette, but haven't heard anything yet.


----------



## qi-tah (Jul 14, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> One more example of how weak much of our society is becoming.
> 
> Used to be if you laid hands on another man, you got what you got, be it your *** handed to you, a bullet in the head or a blade in your gut.
> 
> ...


 
What the?? How on earth did feminism get the blame for this state of affairs? :erg:


----------



## exile (Jul 14, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> I have some very bad experience with  the community where I grew up - in this case, the GS Civilian in charge of cleaning a laboratory was charged in Federal court for violating environmental law, and sued to boot.  The entire thing was for political hay; the guy was an obvious fall-guy, used to promote someone's political career.  He had no more responsibility for any toxic waste than the Prosecuter, and he did everything that any reasonable person could think to do to stop the problem.  Also, anyone who had ever worked with any related government office was excluded from the jury pool (much as I'm sure all other LEO's were excluded in this case), so the people most knowledgeable in the way things 'really' work weren't allowd to participate in the process.
> 
> Anyway, the Gov. employee's union helped our local lab guy with one case (criminal or civil, I forget which), but could not with the other.  The man mortgaged his house, used all his savings, and went into debt to try to file an appeal - I don't think it was ever resolved justly.
> 
> I would think the Union would have an interest in the result of this case, but probably could not as a rule put itself in the position of defending union members from criminal charges.



Yick, stories like make me feel physically ill. Sometimes the collective stupidity of our social institutions seems literally bottomless. And the argument that mostly they work pretty well, etc., is basically a irrelevance in cases like these, because there's no _need_ to tolerate this kind of injustice in order that the system work well most of the time. It's just what happens when judicial processes become corrupted by political machinations...


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jul 14, 2007)

There have been many fine things said about this story by everyone who has posted on this thread, but one thing is for sure, is that there is something going on that isn't in the artical, maybe this guy was a dirty cop and a judge was looking to put him away, or someone else has there own agenda, let it be for financial or Polital gain...not saying that what is going on is right or wrong, merely stating that there is probably something going on that we don't know about.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 15, 2007)

Sensei Payne said:


> There have been many fine things said about this story by everyone who has posted on this thread, but one thing is for sure, is that there is something going on that isn't in the artical, maybe this guy was a dirty cop and a judge was looking to put him away, or someone else has there own agenda, let it be for financial or Polital gain...not saying that what is going on is right or wrong, merely stating that there is probably something going on that we don't know about.


Before you go making unsubstantiated musings like this, pay attention to the undisputed details.  Mette was off duty, in a different state.  His employment should have had no more bearing on this than it would have had he been a carpenter or trash collector.  Could there be something else?  Sure.  My only guess at the moment would be the collective off duty beatings committed by several different Chicago cops -- or that Gothard (or his daddy) was someone important.

I have no clue why this progressed beyond the initial report; bluntly, given the undisputed circumstances as reported -- my paper on it would have made it absolutely clear that Mette was defending himself, and there's no way that I'd have arrested him.  HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF.


----------



## SKB (Jul 15, 2007)

I think there is more to the story then what we know. Also there is another way to look at this. The guy is a cop and should of been able to handle the situation without using violence and if he had to us physical means to stop the guy he could of done it without hurting the guy. Also  since he is a cop he should of known to call the police. Why did he let the guy get close enough to hit him in the first place? He's a cop and should of known to keep walking away no matter how far!

OK so everyone should be ticked off by what I just wrote!!! You have to remember people think cops should react diffrently then civilians! Some how LEOs go to a special school where they suck the human out of us and replace it with 'super cop' and we are not allowed to react to situations in a "human way". Even in the agency a cop might work for there are people, mostly the ones who sit behind a desk all day, who think every situation could of been handled diffrently. Most cases the pick the least violent and most PC way to handle something!!!


----------



## exile (Jul 15, 2007)

SKB said:


> I think there is more to the story then what we know. Also there is another way to look at this. The guy is a cop and should of been able to handle the situation without using violence and if he had to us physical means to stop the guy he could of done it without hurting the guy. Also  since he is a cop he should of known to call the police. Why did he let the guy get close enough to hit him in the first place? He's a cop and should of known to keep walking away no matter how far!
> 
> OK so everyone should be ticked off by what I just wrote!!! You have to remember people think cops should react diffrently then civilians! Some how LEOs go to a special school where they suck the human out of us and replace it with 'super cop' and we are not allowed to react to situations in a "human way". Even in the agency a cop might work for there are people, mostly the ones who sit behind a desk all day, who think every situation could of been handled diffrently. Most cases the pick the least violent and most PC way to handle something!!!



Whew, for a second there you had me going, SKB! Unfortunately, you're right&#8212;too many people think that way....

Given the firepower they're entrusted with, LEOs have to receive appropriate training and show due restraint in its use, no question. But this was a clear, simple, elementary self-defense situation. No more than due force was used to inhibit an unprovoked assault, and for all practical purposes, as jks has noted, the LEO _was_ a civilian. He showed a hell of a lot more restraint than a lot of civilians I can think of, at least one of whom I know quite well... :wink1: But as you say, some people will immediately switch to the `cops-must-be-inhumanly-patient-no-matter-what's-being-done-to-them' channel.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 15, 2007)

I know it's not a laughing matter but I have to shamefacedly admit you got me too with that one *SKB*.  I was all set to enter Indignant-Sputtering Mode and then there was a rapid spooling up of "Oh! I see. Yes, quite right." .


----------



## grydth (Jul 15, 2007)

Why is everyone so ready to ASSUME the cops, prosecutors, judge and jury all got this one wrong... and the media got it right?

I was a military prosecutor for years, in private practice for many years more...and let's say media 'reports' of trials sometimes bear little resemblance to what actually happens in court.

What missing facts _might_ make a difference? 

What if the accused is lying to the station? His self serving quotes make up most of the story...What if he originally gave several conflicting accounts - or credible witnesses back the other guy? What if the accused actually did steal something and was running away with it instead of "retreating"? What if the other guy was a much smaller wimp who was falling down drunk, and the accused used deadly force on somebody who was virtually no threat at all? 

Think about it, and you, too can come up with 5 more 'what if's'? I'll await the appellate court ruling.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 15, 2007)

grydth said:


> Why is everyone so ready to ASSUME the cops, prosecutors, judge and jury all got this one wrong... and the media got it right?
> 
> I was a military prosecutor for years, in private practice for many years more...and let's say media 'reports' of trials sometimes bear little resemblance to what actually happens in court.
> 
> ...


The media accounts are based on the undisputed court testimony, including the trial judge's own finding that Gothard instigated the fight.  However, I think I've been pretty clear in stating that my posts and opinions are based on the multiple press accounts, which included counting five witnesses to the fight that supported Mette's account.  And Gothard was so seriously injured that he was posting golf scores in the 70s within a month of the incident... and has since been arrested for DUI.

Yeah -- I'm biased.  I'm going to believe the cop over the drunken, underage frat boy who followed the cop to his brother's house, and, according to witnesses, committed assault and battery.  As I said, I'll even concede that Mette had been drinking and probably wasn't exercising perfect judgement.  That said -- it still appears that he was apparently supposed to continue to run rather than defend himself, according to Judge Ackley.  (I wonder if she'd have felt the same had Gothard been assaulting one of her two children?)

But I'll be damned if I see any good reason why a cop should be held to some insane standard of retreating when someone has followed him, and is assaulting him.

Here are several other reports, editorials, blogs, or other articles:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_bd15jul15,1,7971382.column?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866036/posts


> When the case went to a bench trial in December, Dubuque County Judge Monica Ackley found that Chicago Police Officer Mike Mette "was not the initial aggressor of this incident," Jake Gothard was. Nevertheless, Judge Ackley ruled that Mette was guilty, because even after Gothard struck him three times, Mette should have just ignored it and retreated.



http://www.lineofduty.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=88735


----------



## exile (Jul 15, 2007)

One thing that emerges pretty clearly: Judge Ackley has no clue what an actual assault is likewhat's going on when someone is aiming a series of blows to your head and other breakable parts of your body at very close range with every indication that they will continue doing so until you lose consciousness, and maybe even after, and who will pursue you no matter what you do to evade them, maybe doing you still worse injury once your back is turned. In this respect, the trial was a farce: how can you render fair judgment on the behavior of someone in a situation which you don't have the foggiest clue about? People's behavior is usually related to the circumstances they find themselves in; how can you assess the judgment they show in their behavior unless you have an inkling, even a little bit of one, of what those circumstances actually _are_, in real-time experience? This kind of case strikes me as very similar to someone born without a sense of taste being hired as a wine critic for a major publication...


----------



## grydth (Jul 15, 2007)

exile said:


> One thing that emerges pretty clearly: Judge Ackley has no clue what an actual assault is likewhat's going on when someone is aiming a series of blows to your head and other breakable parts of your body at very close range with every indication that they will continue doing so until you lose consciousness, and maybe even after, and who will pursue you no matter what you do to evade them, maybe doing you still worse injury once your back is turned. In this respect, the trial was a farce: how can you render fair judgment on the behavior of someone in a situation which you don't have the foggiest clue about? People's behavior is usually related to the circumstances they find themselves in; how can you assess the judgment they show in their behavior unless you have an inkling, even a little bit of one, of what those circumstances actually _are_, in real-time experience? This kind of case strikes me as very similar to someone born without a sense of taste being hired as a wine critic for a major publication...



Problem for the defendant is that not only Judge Ackley was involved here. Fellow police officers responded to the scene.... and what did they do? Arrested Mette, and not just for simple assault or disturbing the peace...but for Felony Assault! Why single out the judge when the investigating street cops - and later heir Sgts - didn't buy his claim of self-defense?

The case then had to go through the DA's office... and they charged it as a felony... as a Grand Jury most likely saw it that way as well.

So.... I don't think we've heard all the facts from our trustworthy media.

 Just so you know... I once refused as a prosecutor to take a guy to court who'd used a knife when attacked by 4 dangerous criminals. When asked why not, I referred to my own experiences of having been assaulted on the street by both armed and unarmed assailants. (Oh, and justice was done out there, too.). You don't have to be an addled liberal with no fighting experience to see that something's wrong with the reporting on this one.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 15, 2007)

This outcome weirdly reminds me in a 'flip-side' way of a circumstance in which my iaido sensei ( who is also 6th Dan Karate) was attacked by a workman who he politely remonstrated with for dumping food waste on his doorstep.  

The workman took a swing at sensei, who dodged.  He took a kick at sensei, who dodged.  Sensei, who is standing in his own front doorway for reference, thought, "Well I'm not giving him a third go" and delivered the standard 'front-kick-to-the-privates' which seemed the simplest thing to do under the circumstances ... and shut the door.  The miscreant then hobbled into his white van and drove off (after having picked up the offending food waste and thrown it at sensei's window).

Sensei called the police to report it, partly because it was his legal duty but also partly because he'd just belted some chap in the family jewels who was now driving a van on the public highway.

The response?:

"Did he hit you, sir?"

"Well no, but he tried twice and I wasn't going to give him a third go"

"Ah well, if he didn't hit you then there's nothing we can do"

...

Is it any wonder that people hold the general belief that the law is 'screwed up'?


----------



## grydth (Jul 15, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> The media accounts are based on the undisputed court testimony, including the trial judge's own finding that Gothard instigated the fight.  However, I think I've been pretty clear in stating that my posts and opinions are based on the multiple press accounts, which included counting five witnesses to the fight that supported Mette's account.  And Gothard was so seriously injured that he was posting golf scores in the 70s within a month of the incident... and has since been arrested for DUI.
> 
> Yeah -- I'm biased.  I'm going to believe the cop over the drunken, underage frat boy who followed the cop to his brother's house, and, according to witnesses, committed assault and battery.  As I said, I'll even concede that Mette had been drinking and probably wasn't exercising perfect judgement.  That said -- it still appears that he was apparently supposed to continue to run rather than defend himself, according to Judge Ackley.  (I wonder if she'd have felt the same had Gothard been assaulting one of her two children?)
> 
> ...



Look, I disagree with the conclusions drawn by the media. I think you did a great thing for the forum in starting this thread... but that doesn't mean we all see the issue the same way.

Questions : Why didn't the responding police officers believe Mette? Their reports would be reviewed by SGTS and LTS - none of the supervisors apparently saw it Mette's way, either. Why didn't the DA?

The reports keep saying they are based on court testimony? Really? I didn't see any cites to testimony or hear from the witnesses the prosecution presented. 

The findings that Gothard later returned to golf and, later had a DUI mean nothing. They happened after the trial and are therefore irrelevant. Judges cannot see into the future.

I'll wait until we have an appellate ruling to form a final opinion.... but this sounds like a case where a sober and capable fighter struck a guy who was falling down drunk with a force likely to kill him... and maybe hit him more than once. That isn't self defense in my book... nor in many states' law books.

You know what - running away would have been the *smart* thing. Realizing I have a terrific temper and some MA training, I have on a number of occasions walked away from assailants I likely could have killed. Why bother, what's to gain? Most of the posters here are long time MA... so never mind the judge or the law.... what do your sensei and sifu tell you to do?


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 15, 2007)

grydth said:


> You know what - running away would have been the *smart* thing. Realizing I have a terrific temper and some MA training, I have on a number of occasions walked away from assailants I likely could have killed. Why bother, what's to gain? Most of the posters here are long time MA... so never mind the judge or the law.... what do your sensei and sifu tell you to do?



First -- I've got my own opinions about the responding cops.  I think they're summed up by my statement early on about how I'd have likely handled the situation.  It's absolutely possible (in fact, I'd even say probable) that there's more to the story.  But given the balance between a veteran officer and a drunken, underage frat boy who clearly followed the officer AND instigated the fight (even the judge agreed with that!), I personally will come down on the cop's side.  After all, if there's anyone who can dispute Mette's account, they're free to come forward and call him a liar.  With regard to Gothard's subsequent golf performance -- I only cited that (pulled from the University's own website) to address the seriousness of the injury.  In my area, an assault in similar situations would almost certainly have required sufficient injury to have impaired his golf game a month later...

With that out of the way -- I also agree, running away or going inside would have been the ideal choice.  But, I also have to ask just how far is someone supposed to run?  How many times are you supposed to let a 6-2, 200 or so, college athlete, no matter how drunk, hit you before you do something?  Do you have to let him cause serious injury before you can defend yourself?  Was Mette held to a different standard because of his employment?  Or because of the well-reported stupid off-duty bar stunts of several different Chicago PD cops?  Does either justification seem fair?  Would any of us, as martial artists, be held to a similar standard?  

I want to make something else clear; I absolutely do not support -- and have no tolerance for -- criminal activity, on or off duty, by police officers.  Everything I've read or seen in this case suggests that Mette has been royally screwed, and doesn't deserve any punishment.  Were it to turn out that Mette was wrong, and did severely and without justification, beat Gothard -- I'll be the first to say he should do every minute of the five years.  The idiot son of a LAPD deputy chief who beat some guy up and stole his friggin' tacos a few years ago deserved everything he got...  (except the tacos!).  It's one thing for a cop to exercise discretion over a traffic ticket; I've given more civilians breaks than cops, 'cause I've stopped way more civilians.   But actually crimes -- not infractions -- are a different matter.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jul 16, 2007)

Reminds me of high school.  I learned that if you defend yourself you get in trouble.  I also learned how much of a protective effect popularity has.  This is not a democracy, IMO.  This seems to be completely backward.  Mette shoulda fed him some pavement, broken an arm and given him a knee drop to the chest.  Probably would've got a lighter sentance...


----------



## SKB (Jul 16, 2007)

Not to pick on you grydth but you show one of the problems with the way people think of situations.



> What if the other guy was a much smaller wimp who was falling down drunk, and the accused used deadly force on somebody who was virtually no threat at all?


 
how tall do you have to be to be a threat? How drunk? How strong? how fast? See you used the unwritten rules already! If someone is bigger they are supposed to give up there right to self defense because their attacker is smaller? The guy with the knife should of been able to handle what 1,2,3 attackers before he can pull the knife? Just in the same way the off duty cop is supposed to do something diffrent? And if the "victim" was so drunk as to not be worth of a thrashing maybe he should not of been chasing anyone????


----------



## redfang (Jul 17, 2007)

Apparently Iowa has a duty to retreat law, thanfully, there's no such animal here where I am. One can still use reasonable force to defend themself, esp on their own property. 

Also, the assault as described would likely be a misdemeanor here. 

Still, I'd be curious to know the real story.


----------



## grydth (Jul 19, 2007)

SKB said:


> Not to pick on you grydth but you show one of the problems with the way people think of situations.
> 
> 
> 
> how tall do you have to be to be a threat? How drunk? How strong? how fast? See you used the unwritten rules already! If someone is bigger they are supposed to give up there right to self defense because their attacker is smaller? The guy with the knife should of been able to handle what 1,2,3 attackers before he can pull the knife? Just in the same way the off duty cop is supposed to do something diffrent? And if the "victim" was so drunk as to not be worth of a thrashing maybe he should not of been chasing anyone????



Not feeling picked on at all.... respectful and intelligent debate is what I believe they are trying to foster.

On the contrary, though, these are exactly the factors a judge has to consider. Also, it is not any sinister unwritten rule - the judge has to consider hard evidence (such as a blood alcohol test), forensics, plus police testimony and eyewitness accounts.

The examples and hypotheticals above in your post are fair questions, and I mostly agree with you on them.... but they are *not* the facts in this case.

Now, you and the thread originator may be right on the self defense aspect of this case - my original point being that media accounts often fail to give one enough facts to make a reasonable opinion of justice/injustice. I have zero sympathy for Mr Gothard or his misbehavior... whether he deserved to be nearly killed for that, however, is another matter.

But I have a feeling that the attacker (Gothard) may have been so staggering drunk as to have been no realistic threat to the sober Mette... and for a trained, fit and sober man to land a punch (or quite possibly multiple blows) that caused that kind of damage... to me that is not self defense.... in fact, to me it would be a little disgusting. 

Self defense is *not* landing a measured full force blow(s) that nearly kills a reeling drunk. If that were so, we could kill every drunk/hooker/panhandler/peddler who accosts us on the street.

Perhaps we'll get an appeals court opinion that sheds some more light on this. Right now it is difficult to feel any of us are on solid ground - we just don't know enough of what happened.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jul 19, 2007)

I could make an argument based on the rights of the cop to defend himself on his own property. I could also rail about the injustice of the law and how the cop's getting screwed. And I could also say the idiot frat kid got what he deserved. In some respects, that's valid.

On the other hand, I could pay attention to the fact that, given that police combat training is founded primarily on arresting, controlling, and detaining, the cop likely had the training to end the situation without throwing blows himself. I could also recite the oft repeated police mantra: "There's no such thing as off-duty". I could also say that young dumb frat kid is probably not a good fighter, especially when drunk, where as the cop was a trained professional. And I could state that just as a trucker, being a professional , must conform to stricter laws and higher responsibility, so must a policeman be held to a higher standard because... they _know_ better. 

There are too many unanswered questions to come up with a sound argument. But I would say the stronger argument is that the cop should have reacted differently. I don't see why exactly a felony offense is appropriate, however.


----------



## SKB (Jul 20, 2007)

Ok let us get rid of one fairy tale or urban legand....... LEOs receive VERY little training in ways to defend themselves or all of the other things people think we do!!!! Really, sit down and talk to one or better yet train with one. In about ten minutes you have gone through everything they are "taught". Then ask them how much training they got on PC issues........ several hours later you will want a break!!!! Why do you think a lot of LEOs train on their own?


----------



## grydth (Jul 20, 2007)

What training Mette did (or did not) receive is yet another of the unknowns which make it difficult to form an opinion one way or the other. In point of fact, police self defense training varies widely... from next to nothing to impressive... and yes, that comes from friends and coworkers.

But tell me this: if Officer Mette was one of the police who trained privately... what reputable dojo would have trained him to strike a staggering drunkard with a full force blow(s) to the head? 

Even an old Tai Chi guy like me knows a number of ways to deflect or take down such a nuisance... without almost killing him.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 21, 2007)

SKB said:


> Ok let us get rid of one fairy tale or urban legand....... LEOs receive VERY little training in ways to defend themselves or all of the other things people think we do!!!! Really, sit down and talk to one or better yet train with one. In about ten minutes you have gone through everything they are "taught". Then ask them how much training they got on PC issues........ several hours later you will want a break!!!! Why do you think a lot of LEOs train on their own?



Thank you for posting this and it bears repeating.  The imbalance and inadequacies in official LEO training (at least what I've seen resulting from it) are *appalling* and almost always in need of supplementation.


----------



## LawDog (Jul 21, 2007)

One should not have to give up a few of his / her right's because they don a badge.
If they are forced to do so then might all trained fighters / martial artists be required to do the same?


----------



## Drac (Jul 21, 2007)

SKB said:


> Ok let us get rid of one fairy tale or urban legand....... LEOs receive VERY little training in ways to defend themselves or all of the other things people think we do!!!! Really, sit down and talk to one or better yet train with one. In about ten minutes you have gone through everything they are "taught". Then ask them how much training they got on PC issues........ several hours later you will want a break!!!! Why do you think a lot of LEOs train on their own?


 
Well said..It has been my experience as an LEO trainer that 90%  will spend HOURS on the range going through cases of ammo, but suggest they spend a few hours on the mats and you'll get the standard "I don't need any of that "karroty" crapola...


----------



## grydth (Jul 21, 2007)

LawDog said:


> One should not have to give up a few of his / her right's because they don a badge.
> If they are forced to do so then might all trained fighters / martial artists be required to do the same?



IF - big IF - Officer Mette used force likely to produce grievous bodily harm or death... then I would respectfully disagree with you that there is any "right" to give up in the first place. The use of deadly force upon a grossly offensive - but virtually harmless - attacker is not part of our right to self defense.

You mention martial artists, and this of course is a Martial Arts forum... So I would ask any and all of you: Which of your dojos trains its students to respond as Mette did here?

As to your concern that police/martial artists be convicted on lesser evidence or not be allowed to defend themselves as others do - I wholeheartedly agree. Every time we create priviledged legal classes of people we move farther from the Founders' intent and more towards Animal Farm. But my point remains that there is no legal right for anyone to use the level of force it SEEMS was used here.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 21, 2007)

grydth said:


> IF - big IF - Officer Mette used force likely to produce grievous bodily harm or death... then I would respectfully disagree with you that there is any "right" to give up in the first place. The use of deadly force upon a grossly offensive - but virtually harmless - attacker is not part of our right to self defense.


 
I agree with this -- but there's no real evidence either way.  Taking both parties in their best light -- Mette hit a drunk hard enough to knock him down, hurt him, and finish the damage that the alcohol was doing to him for the night.  How do separate the reported >.3 BAC when Gothard got to the hospital from Mette's strike?  I've arrested hardcore alcoholics with .30 BAC or above; it's generally pretty obvious they're drunk.  They aren't all incapable of fighting or causing harm, however.  We're dealing with a college kid who has, assuming common behavior, developed a respectable tolerance for alcohol -- but when they go out, they go OUT.  Given his level of inebriation, and a blow to the head, he'd generally have needed medical clearance, anyway.  



> You mention martial artists, and this of course is a Martial Arts forum... So I would ask any and all of you: Which of your dojos trains its students to respond as Mette did here?


 
Which of us trains students to attempt to leave, attempt to walk away, but when a person persists in being a problem, and assaults them repeatedly, to use force against them?  I think that most of us probably would answer that they do so.  The location isn't in dispute; the broad circumstances aren't disputed either.  So, again giving Gothard every benefit of the doubt, it seems that Mette made quite an effort to avoid the fight.  Gothard instigated the combat.



> As to your concern that police/martial artists be convicted on lesser evidence or not be allowed to defend themselves as others do - I wholeheartedly agree. Every time we create priviledged legal classes of people we move farther from the Founders' intent and more towards Animal Farm. But my point remains that there is no legal right for anyone to use the level of force it SEEMS was used here.


 
But there's no real evidence other than the fact that he was prosecuted that suggests Mette used excessive force, just as there's no evidence that he didn't.  Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment...  He throws one punch at a drunken, assaultive, big college kid.  The kid goes down, and he ends up charged with felony assault?  I've stated my opinion on how I would have handled the case were I to come across it; it doesn't really make a difference if it was a cop or not.  I once was called to the scene of an assault.  The accused suspect left the scene prior to my arrival; the victim had a bloody nose and was transported to the hospital.  Based solely on his account, I would have likely arrested the suspect.  Until I did my job, and looked deeper.  Guess what?  The "victim" instigated the entire event, startinb by moving the "suspect's" car without permission, authority, or justification.  When the "suspect" was angered by this, the "victim" charged him; the suspect tried to push him off, and when that wasn't sufficient deterrent, struck him.  I ended up advising the parties of the warrant process.  (Unfortunately, the suspect was work visa from a Slavic country, didn't understand US legal process, and the victim got a warrant.  The suspect basically got railroaded at court because the victim was more familiar with the system...  I don't recall the disposition; I think it was a peace bond or something similar.)


----------



## grydth (Jul 21, 2007)

This has been a good discussion on a very relevant topic. Hope you update this thread when new facts/court decisions are available. Til then I yield the floor, and the substantive last word, to you with respect.


----------



## SKB (Jul 21, 2007)

grydth,

One quick question. What do you consider "force likely to produce grievous bodily harm or death"?


----------



## grydth (Jul 21, 2007)

SKB said:


> grydth,
> 
> One quick question. What do you consider "force likely to produce grievous bodily harm or death"?



Such type and level of force as will cause serious injury, maiming or death. There is no doubt on most weapons - shooting multiple times, slashing with a katana or Bowie knife. I recall a court-martial where the victim was stomped and kicked repeatedly while down on the ground.

With hands, the best analogy I can come up with is where one boxer has clearly been knocked senseless, barely on his feet... the ref fails to move in for a TKO call... and the opposing fighter delivers one or more savage blows. People have been killed in the ring that way. In boxing, it has been allowed... but on the street it can be a felony.

Did that happen in this case? I don't know, which is why I respectfully yield the floor to the thread originator until more solid facts become available.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 22, 2007)

grydth said:


> Such type and level of force as will cause serious injury, maiming or death. There is no doubt on most weapons - shooting multiple times, slashing with a katana or Bowie knife. I recall a court-martial where the victim was stomped and kicked repeatedly while down on the ground.
> 
> With hands, the best analogy I can come up with is where one boxer has clearly been knocked senseless, barely on his feet... the ref fails to move in for a TKO call... and the opposing fighter delivers one or more savage blows. People have been killed in the ring that way. In boxing, it has been allowed... but on the street it can be a felony.
> 
> Did that happen in this case? I don't know, which is why I respectfully yield the floor to the thread originator until more solid facts become available.


As I learn more, I'll update.  Unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, the appeals process is pretty slow.  I've heard that the FOP is assisting Mette in his defense.  I personally hope he at least communicates with Bill Lewinsky and the Force Science Institute (they're a really interesting group that has helped defend several officers with solid, repeatable experimental data).  

One of the problems in any use of force is that there is no absolute definition syaing "_this_ is serious injury; _that_ isn't."  For example, in VA, we can generally obtain a warrant for malicious wounding if blood was drawn (beyond a bloody nose or simple split lip) -- but I'm sure many of us here have seen just how easily some people bleed from facial punches.  A broken limb is serious; is a sprain?

It'll be interesting and instructive to see how this unfolds.


----------



## oddball (Oct 10, 2007)

Sorry to necro, but it's been a few months now and I wanted to know if anything happened with this.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 11, 2007)

I haven't heard anything new; I'll have to look and check around.  It's very, very possible that there's been no movement.  The appeals process is incredibly slow.

On a quick check, I found the website of his defense fund; I'm NOT posting the site as a fundraiser, only because it seems most likely to have info.  But it doesn't have anything more recent than submitting the appeal in September.  You can see for yourself here


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Oct 11, 2007)

There is a line that's drawn between defending oneself, and causing serious injury to the other party. I'm not saying that this setence isint a miscarriage of justice, I think it probably is. Apparently though, Gothard was bleeding from his head, brain, etc. Perhaps Mette really beat this guy up above and beyond self-defense? So it could be labled as revenge. Sounds similar to the hockey fathers case of MA, but this time nobody died. And of course an overzelous judge.


----------



## newGuy12 (Oct 12, 2007)

This is why it is SO DANGEROUS to be involved in any way in a court case!  I have been acquainted with attorneys.  I have asked them about strange rulings.  One told me, "It has nothing to do with common sense, it has nothing to do with right and wrong, it only has to do with what is LEGAL and ILLEGAL."

It is VERY DANGEROUS to get tangled up in the courts.  I hope that it never happens to me, or to anyone else on this board.  All rules of common sense get stopped at the door when you go into a courtroom!


----------

