RedmannBarry t1_j168fmw wrote
Good. Fuck those dudes. I hope this becomes a common thing. Accountability is the only way to end this shit.
[deleted] t1_j16z1np wrote
[removed]
swheels125 t1_j171quq wrote
“According to an indictment issued last year, Sutton violated police general orders by chasing Hylton-Brown. He and Zabavsky then intentionally misled police superiors about what happened leading up to the crash, the indictment states.”
Seems like it’s more that they didn’t follow procedure or orders, and lied about the circumstances to get an exception to continue chasing someone that the law says they were not allowed to pursue. And since they lied and broke the rules to continue the chase that ultimately led to the man’s death they are responsible.
FrankSinatraYodeling t1_j19j8ef wrote
What law says they are not allowed to pursuit in this context? I'm not saying there isn't one, I am just curious what legal criteria was used to get the conviction since violating policy isn't technically against the law.
I can certainly see blatant disregard for safety, but I'm not sure how that gets to be 2nd degree murder.
When I worked at my local PD (not an officer) it was against policy to have soda at my work station. If I had accidentally damaged equipment I wouldn't have been charged with a crime.
I'm not saying the conviction is wrong, rather there is something I'm not understanding here.
FartRainbow t1_j19p8f4 wrote
Violating some simple company policy isn't against the law, until the violation of that policy results in the injury, or in this case death, of another person. If the policy wasn't violated and the dude rode into traffic, it would be his own fault. But the officers chased him, so it's their fault.
If you drink a soda at your desk and spill it, after knowing it's against policy, that's willful destruction of government property, which is a crime.
FrankSinatraYodeling t1_j19rh11 wrote
Except what you're saying is completely wrong. You only break a law when you break a law.
Department policy isn't some legal shield PD admin gets to set. Department policy has no effect on what statutory violations may or may not have been committed. If that was the case, PD's would have no incentive to limit any officer action.
FartRainbow t1_j19uy0i wrote
So they shouldn't be held accountable when their direct action or inaction leads to the unnecessary death of a citizen?
It wasn't their job to pursue. They did, and someone died. And then they lied about it. How is that any different from vigilantism?
FrankSinatraYodeling t1_j19wpdj wrote
I never said they shouldn't be held accountable, rather I'm questioning the criteria under which they were charged and whether or not a different charge would be more appropriate.
Charges need to be appropriate. If they are not, convictions can be thrown out and the convicted walk free. Where's the justice in that?
FartRainbow t1_j19x9u4 wrote
Fair enough. Legit question; what do you think would've been a more appropriate charge?
FrankSinatraYodeling t1_j1a04zu wrote
I'm not sure because I don't understand the criteria nor am familiar enough with DC law.
In my jurisdiction, you could argue 2nd degree murder but only if the death were caused by while committing another felony. Otherwise you would have to prove criminal intent to commit murder.
Ex. Derek Chauvin is guilty of 2nd degree murder because George Floyd died while Chauvin was committing 3rd degree assault. The intent is derived from the assault.
2nd Degree murder seems like an overcharge given the facts of the case. That's why I'm asking for an explanation of the charges.
In a similar case near me, I believe the officer was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter and criminal vehicular homicide. That trial is still pending.
FartRainbow t1_j1a8d6t wrote
Totally speculative, but I imagine it's because of how the events played out. And just to be clear, I have zero experience with law or law enforcement.
Sutton and Zabavsky witnessed Brown committing a crime (riding a scooter without a helmet). They are obligated to perform their duties and stop him from committing that crime. However, their department policy (which as I understand are the guidelines under when, where, and how police officers are allowed to enforce their authority) states they aren't allowed to pursue Brown for that crime alone.
The officers lied to superiors about the events leading up to the crash, and Sutton's attorney told the judge they were making a legal stop to determine if Brown was armed. I'm assuming (because it isn't stated anywhere) it was determined that Sutton and Zabavsky didn't have probable cause to stop Brown for that, and by pursing him they acted outside of their authority.
I imagine the prosecution could argue they were committing a crime when Brown was hit. Again, all speculation.
AntiWork-ellog t1_j179136 wrote
Interesting that your hypothetical doesn't even involve the police chasing people.
[deleted] t1_j174lxq wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments