Posted on 12/24/2007 9:47:52 AM PST by ninonitti
Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino says the Boston police lieutenant who is serving 18 months court-ordered probation for punching his girlfriend off a Baltimore barstool is a “coward.”
“(Police Commissioner Edward) Davis has assured the mayor that he will do everything in his power to hold this coward accountable for his actions,” said Menino’s spokeswoman, Dot Joyce. “Domestic violence is a huge problem in our society. No one should be able to get away with raising a hand to anyone, especially a defenseless woman.”
Lt. David Murphy was suspended for 30 days on Dec. 19 but will only serve five of those days under an agreement worked out with the department. He is expected to return to work this week. He has been on paid leave since his April arrest in Baltimore for second-degree assault. A Maryland judge found him guilty and issued a probation before judgment order against Murphy.
“Murphy will have a criminal record but not a criminal conviction at the end of his probation term,” said Margaret T. Burns, director of communications with the Baltimore city state’s attorney’s office.
“The guilty finding will not stand after his successful completion of the probation.”
Davis said the department could fire Murphy without a conviction, but city lawyers told him they would undoubtedly lose the case at a civil service appeal and would be forced to write a check for missed pay, including details.
Okaaaaay... but don't count on a jury agreeing with you.
(How sad that so many people are so eager to take the life of another.)
"Reasonable" is the operative word there, my friend. Firing shots is NOT a reasonable response to simply being punched once. No matter your home state, you might wish to read a few law books and case histories before rushing out to blow away some drunkard who just cold-cocked you.
Not at all, but the response must be reasonable and proportionate. A bullet for a punch is neither reasonable nor proportionate in most circumstances or in most states. A punch for a punch... or even swinging a barstool or beerstein in response to a punch... is far more likely to be seen as proportional and reasonable. Even in extremely gun-friendly states, there are virtually zero instances where a court considered gunfire as an appropriate response to fists.
No, he isn't. There is far more that is required by the law before it is justifiable. There must be an imminent danger of a life-threatening injury, before a "defense of self or others" claim may be made. (However, most states also allow a lethal response to rape.)
If a man pushes you for flirting with his wife (which is battery... the push, not the flirtation, LOL), that does not legally allow you to terminate his life.
You suppose incorrectly. My response was for the situation where she was punched off of a barstool. Once he upgrades the situation to bludgeoning with a heavy instrument, all bets are off. However, I did not read where that happened in this situation... and I doubt that the court would have given him probation before judgment if that had been the case.
That may be the black letter of the law, but I doubt that a jury here would convict someone who used a firearm to stop a man from battering a woman in an unprovoked attack in public, unless there was some extraordinary mitigating circumstance.
If you think one punch can’t kill then you haven’t been paying attention.
If you think a punch vicious enough to send you sprawling (and a sucker punch, no less)can’t kill you, then you live in TV land and your connection with reality is nebulous at best.
If you think any armed person must take such savage and unprovoked abuse without a right to draw and fire then you are a moral preening ass.
Ever been attacked out of the blue in this way? Ever been sucker punched? Are you aware of the debilitating effect such a sudden and often unseen blow has upon your coordination, vision, balance, perception of continuity of time. Are you aware of how hard your unprotected head hits the floor?
Are you aware of anything besides what a great, moral guy you are out there in It-never-hurts-them-in-the-movies-land?
“Brave new world, cops just love fellow wife beating cops.”
Maybe this cop was a Muslim, aren’t they supposed to beat their wives?
I pinged each of you because you all either asked how this officer does not have a criminal conviction, or made comments about cops protecting their own.
In MD, one can be granted probation before judgment. It requires a finding of guilt which is then stricken and probation is instituted. The defendant has very, very limited appellate rights if he/she accepts PBJ. Any defense attorney will have their client enter an “Alford” plea, which cannot be used against them at a later date. (the defendant admits that the state could produce the evidence proffered to the court, without commenting on what evidence, if any, the defendant would produce to rebut, and without admitting they are guilty. The court then determines if the un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and enters a finding of guilty without the defendant ever making an admission which could be used in an administrative hearing or civil lawsuit.)
However, there is no conviction, just a length of probation with whatever conditions the judge orders. (incarceration, community service, piss tests, counseling, abstinence, etc...) If one violates the probation and is found in violation then one has a criminal record as the PBJ is stricken.
If one successfully completes the probation, one can then move to expunge all records of the charge after a period of time. (usually immediately, one year in the case of drug convictions)
If expungement is ordered, ALL records must be destroyed - police, parole and probation, State’s Attorney’s files, court files, etc...
So, this guy doesn’t have a criminal conviction, and until he gets an expungement order, the only thing that exists are the court/police/probation/state’s attorney files.
Not sure how the plays into his ability to own/carry a firearm.
I can tell you that the Baltimore City State’s Attorney prosecutes more cops than real criminals so there was no part of the case analysis that included helping out a cop. (hyperbole, but the cops hate the elected SAO down there)
If the victim didn’t want to testify they are lucky they got a guilty plea at all.
Good post. Thanks for the ping.
either you have issues with cops or you have never, ever, made a mistake in your life.
not giving the guy a pass, but your reactions seem a little extreme
punching a woman off a bar stool is a bit extreme, try it on you wife are girl friend and see what they think about it.
Can’t answer your questions.
I just know it doesn’t take a man to hit a woman.
Brave new world, cops just love fellow wife beating cops.
23 posted on 12/24/2007 2:25:51 PM EST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Nothing in the story even hints that his fellow officers love him for beating his wife, which is what you assert.
Instead of focusing on what everyone on the thread believes is bad behavior by this cop, how about focusing on your issues with cops in general?
I cold cock someone in a ginmill in front of witnesses and just because the victim doen'r prees the issue I can't be found guilty???????
depending on the circumstances, yes.
it sucks, but it happens.
you would be amazed at the number of "witnesses" who disappear before the officers can get a name, address, phone number and statement...
Suppose I pop someone infront of a bartender who calls the assault & battery into the police. The cops come and the bartender gives a statement describing the incident. Now for some reason the victim doesn't show but the bartender does along with say a couple of other patrons who also witnessed the A & B.
You're telling me that if I were prosecuting this case I'd be lucky to get a guilty verdict?.
This represents what I've read the circumstances to be. IMHO he's lucky he didn't run up against a DA who wanted jail time.
you are assuming facts not present in the story about the cop.
under your scenario, yes, a conviction is a good possibility, although juries notoriously don’t like to convict unless they hear from the victim
not saying it’s right, just saying it is the reality
Any good cop knows you don't beat them in public - you wait til they're back at the station. That's why this guy should go.
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.