Posted on 10/29/2007 9:38:52 PM PDT by garyhope
On Sunday, Bob Mette and his son, Mike, 30, will go to the game at Soldier Field to watch the Bears play the Lions. On Monday, Bob will drive Mike to Iowa, to prison. Mike Mette, until recently a Chicago police officer, is scheduled to begin serving a 5-year prison sentence.
His crime? According to the judge's ruling, Mike threw one punch at an angry drunk who chased Mike down the street and attacked him verbally, physically, repeatedly.
The drunk is fine now, golfing, having attended college in Dubuque. The last time I checked he was adding to his resume with a DUI. And Mette?
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Chicago, IL doesn’t recognize the right to self defense either.
Mette is being treated as he demonstrably was willing to treat others.
Before anyone gets excited, a little research please. Gotthard, the official victim had bruises on the side of his neck, his arms, his elbow, his shoulders, and his back. Medical experts testified at the trial that his injuries were consistant with someone who had been stomped and kicked.
The officers at the scene arrested Mette because his one punch story and the evidence being loaded into the ambulance didn’t add up. The testimony of physicians was given and a jury reached a verdict.
None of which this particular columnist felt necessary to mention.
If he was attacked, which seems to be proven and accepted, then what’s the long sentence for?
Just because he was attacked, does not justify the use of excessive force. Self-defense is only a defense if the individual defending himself uses “reasonable” force; kicking and stomping on an individual after that individual is already on the ground is not “reasonable” force.
Mette did not lose because he punched the guy once. He lost because the evidence suggested that he did much more than just punch the guy once. Had the judge believed his story (i.e., had the evidence backed him up), he wouldn’t be off to jail.
So when a guy chases you down the street and attacks you, you’re allowed only one punch??
what’s the rest of the story here? I feel like being led down the garden path. something doesn’t add up here - why would a cop on the scene of a fight go AGAINST another cop? there is a loto off stuff we’re not being told by this crusading journalist...
He was knocked unconscious. He was airlifted to a hospital where he spent four days.
In Iowa, assault causing serious injury carries a mandatory five-year term. Maybe that's harsh, I don't know. But that's what the citizens of Iowa want.
He's a cop. You'd think he would know the law.
Is this a quote? From where, please?
Dig deeper. This was not a one punch incident. Gotthard was severely beaten incurring multiple serious injuries requiring that he be airlifted from one hospital to another. This columnist is lying through his his teeth.
Now where is that picture of the BS Meter pegging out?
No, not even that. I believe what we have here is a minority "victim" (the drunk at the party) harrassing, intimidating, and assaulting a white person, and when the white person responds, he is treated as "the oppressor".
Yep, checked my facts. No “severe beating”, just a single punch after being pushed three times (assaulted). Mette’s attacker deserved what he got. The fact that he cracked his melon on the pavement is unfortunate, but no one’s fault but his own.
A minority? With a name like Jake Gotthard, in Dubuque (heavily settled by Germans) Iowa? I’ve got $10 bucks that says he’s white with an obvious German ancestory. Nice try at making it racial though.
Gothard suffered a broken cheekbone, multiple fractures to his nose and a broken jaw, according to court records. He had multiple hemorrhages on the brain. He had bruising on both buttocks and the sides of his arms and on his ribs, and he had lacerations to his face and head.
The emergency-room physician, who was board certified, testified that these injuries would not have resulted from one blow," Dubuque County Attorney Ralph Potter wrote in a pointed defense of the case's prosecution. "The defendant's expert witness disputed that finding, while acknowledging that some of the bruising was consistent with "defensive" injuries
I think he was found guilty by a jury - not the judge.
Sure one's entitled to strike back, 2-3-4 times or more if they're so moved.
However if an altercation should happen in IA/IL?
As soon as one's sated, feeling safe it'd behoove them to become the guy running down the street ASAP.
I suspect "defending-fleeing" will be exactly the result of this.
...after word spreads.
According to the judge’s ruling, Mette waived his right to a jury trial.
The kid was probably stomped. The judge does a disservice to her ruling by ignoring that possibility. In her attempt to rule based solely on the undisputed facts she has created this opportunity for Mette to mount an internet “they-done-me-wrong” defense.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=30fd893b
You are correct.
BS. One punch was thrown and the drunk assailant received a broken nose, fell(probably knocked out), and banged his head on the pavement. The rest of your story doesn't match the judge's findings. The judge's findings presented by Paulsen in post #12 show that. The cop was convicted, because Iowa requires the victim to attempt to escape. It's clear from the judge's comments, that she would allow no self defense whatsoever. She would require the victim to flee until they ran out of breath and get beaten by vicious drunks.
This is a typical case of a person defending himself against an attacker and being charged with a crime for it. They left the house, and the assailants followed after them to confront them. Both the judge and the prosecutor are liberals intolerant of the concept of self defense.
It's very likely he was wrong.
That's right, but this is IA, which requires the same thing. MN and WI do also.
"He might have benefited from the jurors' innate sense of justice"
No, this happened in Dubuque, IA. htere would have been libs on the jury and both the prosecutor and judge are libs.
That's right, and in addition, Jake's buddy would have been beaten too, if the scenario was really as the prosecutor said. That's the way these things go.
When applying for my carry permit in Onondaga County NY, a sign above the permit office window actually said “Self-Defense Is Not A Valid Reason”.
(Indeed, only applications noting the reason for the permit request as “sporting purpose” or “collecting” were approved. Later the signing judge who implemented that limitation was driven out of office on cocaine distribution charges. Do the math.)
I thought he only had one friend with him, and that individual was being confronted by someone else. I don't believe his friend saw anything.
That's right. This happens quite often, and those attacked who defend themselves successfully get charged and convicted. The only reason this one hit the news is, because it was a Chicago cop that was railroaded.
"Mette's big mistake was having the judge decide his case."
That was his atty's call. I think his defense atty's ability and competence wasn't so great.
They were all in a group. Even though there were only 2 attackers, the other one would have noticed any overt beating of an unconscious friend.
The judge said, "Mike planted a fist into Jake's face ...". Which was enough to find that an assault took place.
The judge left unsaid whether it was limited to that one punch. It was irrelevant.
The defendant claimed there was only one punch. You believe him. But he lied to the police when they showed up, claiming Jake was drunk and fell.
Yep, I misspoke. But don’t you think his pal would have noticed him getting “stomped and kicked”, even if he was involved in a non-physical pi$$ing contest with one or more of Mette’s friends? I find it hard to believe such a thing would go unnoticed by any of the attendees.
"A" punch was thrown. The judge never said it was only one. Actually, he left it unsaid.
A punch was sufficient for the judge to find that an assault had occurred. Ten punches would not change that finding.
No, they weren't. I posted the link.
Chris was getting into his car. Mike and Mark were heading to the apartment door. They were separated.
Nick and Jake arrived and Nick went after Chris. Mark broke away and went to help Chris.
That left Mike and Jake alone. Since Jake's friend Nick was busy with two guys, I'm sure his attention was focused on those two.
Maybe Marks's friends saw what happened. But they ain't talkin'.
IMHO, Mette didn't seek a jury trial because the evidence was heavily against him. He sought a bench trial because he hoped that the judge would be inclined to look the other way because he was a police officer.
Agreed. The list of injuries sure read like he was stomped and kicked.
When you're in a potential physical confrontation with another person, you tend to focus on that other person. Totally.
When it's two against one, I guarantee you're not looking around or thinking of anything or anyone else.
So to answer your question, no. I don't think his pal would have noticed the local high school marching band going by. And I have to go back to the fact that the defendant lied at the scene.
That's what the jury would have concluded also.
But it's a moot point. The extent of the injuries was the important issue in this case, not how many blows it took to inflict those injuries.
Assault consists of simple touching in an unwelcomed way. Note the assailent was not Mette. The miscreant began the unwelcomed touching first. He physically attacked Mette 3 times first, before Mette threw his first punch. THe assialant lost all right not to be hit as long as he continued that attack. The judge's finding of fact was consistant with one blow, delivered during an ongoing assault that was purpetrated and being vigorously engaged in by the assailant. That blow broke the assialant's nose, probably knocked him unconscious, whereupon he fell backwards and subsequently hit his head on the ground.
"A punch was sufficient for the judge to find that an assault had occurred. Ten punches would not change that finding."
Mette did not commit assault, regardless of what the judge said. The judge is in fact full of shit. Mette was under no obligation to let the assailant touch him n any way, any more whatsoever. He was also under no oblgation to turn his back to the assailant and flee, which would open and expose him to more danger. This liberal BS of insisting that folks leave themselves open to detached retinas, broken bones, brain damage, and other possible injuries due to the choices and actions of violent assailants, to promote their warped concept of "civility" and "peace" needs to be opposed at every occurance.
Folks can't all be experts at fending off violent nutcases w/o injuring the "precious" little asses. If they need to hit them with a pipe, a claw hammer, garbage can, sewer cap, ect... to stop the attack, so be it. It's the right thing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.