# Ex Officer Acquitted



## MJS (Dec 9, 2009)

Now that this case is over, I thought I'd post it here for discussion.  I'm posting the recent link, but others can be found with ease.  
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-lawlor-1209.artdec09,0,5233883.story

So, a quick run down of the events.  Officer and Federal agent are working a sting.  Agent is on the phone, but the officer spots a car with 2 males in it.  Believes he sees one of the guys with a gun, so as they approach the car, the driver starts to move, the officer, fearing for his safety and the safety of his partner, fires, fatally wounding the passenger, injuring the driver.  Driver flees in the car, crashes, bails out and is caught a short time later.  Supposedly no gun was ever found, although there were questions surrounding how things were done after the crash, meaning, storm drains were not checked, and the areas that the car travelled were not sectioned off, allowing anyone access to the area.

So, years later, the trial finally happens, and fortunately, the officer is found not guilty.  Of course this causes a huge uproar with the kids family.  

So, just going on what is provided in the link, do you feel that the officer was justified in shooting, even if no gun was ever found?

Personally, I dont see anything wrong with what he did.  The kid was hanging around with a known drug dealer, there were drugs in the car, and a gun could've easily been tossed from the car.  Of course the kids family is going to paint him as an upstanding person, rather than looking at his actions, and realizing that that is most likely what caused his death.


----------



## grydth (Dec 11, 2009)

Can't see any reason to second guess what the jury did here. 

From what they said in the article, the jurors pretty much believed the detective. It isn't unreasonable that they apparently gave little weight to the career criminal's testimony.


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2009)

grydth said:


> Can't see any reason to second guess what the jury did here.
> 
> From what they said in the article, the jurors pretty much believed the detective. It isn't unreasonable that they apparently gave little weight to the career criminal's testimony.


 
Thanks for the reply.  I was wondering if anyone was going to reply. 

Anyways...I agree.  Seems to me that the defense was trying to go on the fact because there was no gun found, that the cop was in the wrong for shooting.  But as I said in the other post, its very possible that it could've been thrown and picked up by someone else.  Plus, if in fact the guy driving was aiming the car at the cops, then I would think he'd be justified in shooting.

There're other articles floating around, including one in todays paper about a rally that the family had.  What I alway find to be very interesting, is how, no matter what the record of the person is, that somehow he's viewed as an innocent flower in the eyes of the family.  Who cares that he has a record for drugs...he's still a good person, was a star b-ball player in high school, blah, blah, blah. *rolls eyes*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 11, 2009)

It does not matter if a gun was present at all.  What matters is what the police officer *believed* he saw.

This goes to the heart of the entire _'reasonable and prudent man' _philosophy of response to dangerous situations.  It applies to everyone (in the US), not just police officers.

If I am walking down the street and a huge menacing-looking man comes running towards me, screaming obscenities and draws back his hand as if to strike me, a 'reasonable and prudent' man would believe he was about to be assaulted.  As such, I am within my rights to employ violence in self-defense - even before I am hit.  Because I _reasonably believe_ I am about to be hit.

If the person who came tear-assing down the street at me later tells a jury that he was playing a joke and never intended to hit me at all, mistaking me for his old pal Mipsy, it doesn't matter.  His intent doesn't matter, and whether or not he was actually going to hit me doesn't matter.  All that matters is that a) I thought he was going to hit me and b) a reasonable person would feel the same way.

In the case of this police officer, he states that he saw a gun in the hand of the deceased.  He also states that he felt his partner's life was in immediate danger from the car speeding towards them.  I do not know if there was a gun, nor do I know if the car was intended to run over the federal agent assigned as the police officer's partner.

I do know that a reasonable and prudent man would defend the right of a police officer to shoot at a person aiming a gun at him.  The same would be true of a person aiming a vehicle at the man's partner.  The police have not just the right, but the duty, to try to stop such behavior.

So in the end,* it does not matter whether or not there was a gun*.  All that matters is that the police officer says he saw a gun, and if he is telling the truth about what he thought he saw, then his actions were legitimate.

I do not know if the police officer was lying or not.  In criminal cases, however, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer charged did not think he saw a gun in the hand of the deceased.  I do not think they could have done that.  They could have introduced the element of doubt by attacking the officer's credibility, but that's not enough to prove that he was lying beyond a reasonable doubt.

My guess would be that this police officer will now face (along with the city) an unlawful death lawsuit, which the city's insurers will most likely settle out-of-court.  The burden of proof in a civil suit is not _'beyond a reasonable doubt'_ but a _'preponderance of evidence'_.  That is about like saying 99% versus 51%.  That's why OJ wasn't convicted of murder in a criminal case, but was found guilty in a later lawsuit.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 12, 2009)

> Tuesday's verdict spared the retired officer a possible 40-year prison sentence and capped nearly two days of jury deliberations and a monthlong trial in Superior Court *in which prosecutors accused Lawlor, 45, of breaking the law when he fired on Bryant and Henry*.


 
Apparently the prosecutor thought that if there was no gun than it became murder. Lawyers looking to move up don't care much what a "reasonable man" thinks I guess.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Apparently the prosecutor thought that if there was no gun than it became murder. Lawyers looking to move up don't care much what a "reasonable man" thinks I guess.



I doubt that the prosecutor thought that if there was no gun it became murder.  More likely, he thought that the police officer did not actually believe he saw a gun.  There have been police officers who have shot and killed people carrying toy guns, water pistols, television remote controls, and so on who were not prosecuted, because it was what the believed they saw that mattered, not what was actually being carried.

I suspect that it went like this.

1) Police officer employs deadly force in questionable circumstances.
2) Police and DA investigate the circumstances.
3) DA finds credible evidence (I do not know what that is, it was not reported here) that the police officer did not actually see a gun and decides to present the case to a Grand Jury.
4) Grand Jury holds a hearing and hands up an indictment.
5) DA is then required to press charges.

None of this is fun for anyone.  However, it is part of the process.  If there were no investigation into the officer's claims, citizens would be rightfully suspect that the police protect their own and that cops can do anything they want to do.  If there were an investigation and the Grand Jury declines to hand up an indictment, then an independent investigative body representing the citizenry has spoken, and it's over.  If they hand up an indictment, then there is probable cause to believe that the police officer was lying.  That doesn't mean he was lying, it just means that there are reasons to believe he might have been.  The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine whether or not that reasonable suspicion could be proven.

This process is designed to protect the public and the accused, and to ensure that everyone's rights are respected and the truth of the matter determined.  No one gets a free pass, nor should they.

No matter how the situation had turned out, someone would be crying foul, and that's part of our tradition as well.  Relatives of the deceased are always going to claim that they received no justice.  Friends and relatives of the police are always going to claim that they were sacrificed just for doing their jobs.  But this is how our system works.

The one thing that could stand some reform in this process is the Grand Jury system.  As it has often been said, typically a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich if asked to do so by a DA.  Since Grand Jury's are not determiners of guilt or innocence, but merely arbiters of whether or not there is sufficient cause to go to trial, DA's often see GJ's as a formality when they wish to press charges.  Not every state has a Grand Jury system.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

grydth said:


> Can't see any reason to second guess what the jury did here.
> 
> From what they said in the article, the jurors pretty much believed the detective. It isn't unreasonable that they apparently gave little weight to the career criminal's testimony.



Sums up my feelings pretty well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I doubt that the prosecutor thought that if there was no gun it became murder.  More likely, he thought that the police officer did not actually believe he saw a gun.  There have been police officers who have shot and killed people carrying toy guns, water pistols, television remote controls, and so on who were not prosecuted, because it was what the believed they saw that mattered, not what was actually being carried.
> 
> I suspect that it went like this.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with anything you just said, except that you forgot a step in the prosecutorial decision making process......'Large interest groups begin putting pressure on Prosecutor to Prosecute the case, fearing loss of constituency, and huge controversy that would hound his career, takes a position in favor of prosecution for political reasons.'

Anyone who doesn't believe that Prosecutors don't often pursue cases simply for political expediency doesn't remember the name Nifong........and as you say the Grand Jury system is subject to Prosecutor manipulation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 13, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I don't disagree with anything you just said, except that you forgot a step in the prosecutorial decision making process......'Large interest groups begin putting pressure on Prosecutor to Prosecute the case, fearing loss of constituency, and huge controversy that would hound his career, takes a position in favor of prosecution for political reasons.'
> 
> Anyone who doesn't believe that Prosecutors don't often pursue cases simply for political expediency doesn't remember the name Nifong........and as you say the Grand Jury system is subject to Prosecutor manipulation.



Of course politics are often involved, as is public pressure.  I would hesitate to use that as my go-to argument in the case of any result I didn't care for, but it can certainly play a role.

No one is perfect. Public servants are no exception, and many of them are driven by personal ambition, greed, and desire for fame or attention.  I am not sure how that could ever be removed from the equation.

In the end, friends and coworkers of an accused police officer will always swear that he did no wrong; friends and relatives of someone killed by police will swear that he did no wrong.  Neither side is intentionally lying, but each has a firm conviction about the validity of their point of view, and will manipulate facts and cast aspersions on motives to demonstrate their points.  As to the truth of the matter, we can only hope our system is robust enough to arrive at it despite all of our failings as human beings.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course politics are often involved, as is public pressure.  I would hesitate to use that as my go-to argument in the case of any result I didn't care for, but it can certainly play a role.
> 
> No one is perfect. Public servants are no exception, and many of them are driven by personal ambition, greed, and desire for fame or attention.  I am not sure how that could ever be removed from the equation.
> 
> In the end, friends and coworkers of an accused police officer will always swear that he did no wrong; friends and relatives of someone killed by police will swear that he did no wrong.  Neither side is intentionally lying, but each has a firm conviction about the validity of their point of view, and will manipulate facts and cast aspersions on motives to demonstrate their points.  As to the truth of the matter, we can only hope our system is robust enough to arrive at it despite all of our failings as human beings.



All true.......but it's important to point out that Prosecutors are human as well, and do pursue these things sometimes for far less than noble reasons.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 17, 2009)

MJS said:


> There're other articles floating around, including one in todays paper about a rally that the family had. What I alway find to be very interesting, is how, no matter what the record of the person is, that somehow he's viewed as an innocent flower in the eyes of the family. Who cares that he has a record for drugs...he's still a good person, was a star b-ball player in high school, blah, blah, blah. *rolls eyes*


 
Some family members honestly don't know what their kids do and some don't really want to know.  I remember reading an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer's mother (think it was him, might have been a different serial killer) and they asked her how she could still love him after what he did.  She siad that to me, he will always be the little boy playing with his ball in the front yard.  I think that is the same case with all criminals, parents just don't want to believe that their kids are capable of that kind of stuff.  

It is always funny how in many obituaries of gang members it says that they were a member of a local "youth organization" for the community.  That's a nice way to put it!  LOL

Nice to see the verdict go that way for the officer.


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2009)

Another article a few days ago said that the NAACP was getting involved.  Gee, theres a shocker. LOL!  
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-web-naacp-bryant-1215dec15,0,4534848.story


----------



## MJS (Dec 17, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> Some family members honestly don't know what their kids do and some don't really want to know. I remember reading an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer's mother (think it was him, might have been a different serial killer) and they asked her how she could still love him after what he did. She siad that to me, he will always be the little boy playing with his ball in the front yard. I think that is the same case with all criminals, parents just don't want to believe that their kids are capable of that kind of stuff.
> 
> It is always funny how in many obituaries of gang members it says that they were a member of a local "youth organization" for the community. That's a nice way to put it! LOL
> 
> Nice to see the verdict go that way for the officer.


 
Yeah, it makes me laugh, that some families are so clueless, so when something happens to their 'perfect' child, they're in shock and disbelief.  Umm...lets see...your son is hanging around with a known bad guy, who has a record, and then you're shocked when something bad happens to him.  I'd be willing to bet that if this kid didn't get shot by the police, he'd end up shot in a drug deal gone bad.  Guess this family will never understand the fact that the kid was on a road to destruction.


----------



## Carol (Dec 18, 2009)

Unfortunately the retired officer and his lawyer are receiving death threats.  I hate to say it, but I don't think this one's over yet.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> Some family members honestly don't know what their kids do and some don't really want to know.  I remember reading an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer's mother (think it was him, might have been a different serial killer) and they asked her how she could still love him after what he did.  She siad that to me, he will always be the little boy playing with his ball in the front yard.  I think that is the same case with all criminals, parents just don't want to believe that their kids are capable of that kind of stuff.
> 
> It is always funny how in many obituaries of gang members it says that they were a member of a local "youth organization" for the community.  That's a nice way to put it!  LOL
> 
> Nice to see the verdict go that way for the officer.


 From the perspective of a parent, that's always the way it's going to be.......you will always see the little boy you raised, not what the rest of the world sees.


----------



## MJS (Dec 18, 2009)

Carol said:


> Unfortunately the retired officer and his lawyer are receiving death threats. I hate to say it, but I don't think this one's over yet.


 
Thats disgusting!  Most likely, its from the low class family members of this fine upstanding POS, who was hanging around with scum.


----------



## MJS (Dec 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> From the perspective of a parent, that's always the way it's going to be.......you will always see the little boy you raised, not what the rest of the world sees.


 
Sad but true.  Of course, I'm sure this POS was a POS when he was a kid too.


----------

