[removed]

Good. Fuck those dudes. I hope this becomes a common thing. Accountability is the only way to end this shit.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[removed]

> killed in a crash of his own doing.

Would he have crashed if the police hadn't given chase?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Their pursuit was in direct violation of department policy, and they lied about it when questioned. That may have affected charging decisions.

[removed]

To me, those are all crimes, but I don't see second degree murder. Seems like a textbook case of involuntary manslaughter.

[removed]

Yeah this case is ripe for appeal and them winning. Lying and violating policy are grounds for termination, and possibly some relatively minor criminal charges if their jurisdiction has a law against officers lying, but those in themselves don't create criminal culpability for other crimes. Civil liability? They would get smoked/will get smoked in civil court. Second degree Murder which under DC code requires proving the accused has the intention to kill or harm? Not so sure.

We will see how it plays out.

“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.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

Interesting that your hypothetical doesn't even involve the police chasing people.

Yes. Best Buy's loss prevention policy states employees are not allowed to touch a suspected shoplifter once they leave the store.

Most stores don't let employees chase people. Just observe and report.

LP jurisdiction ends at the door, that's pretty common retail policy. They can follow you into the lot to record your license number, but are not allowed to interact once you've left the physical premises (usually, I'm sure some stores are different). In stores with a vestibule/double doored entrance, apprehensions are only supposed to be done in that specific space unless assited by an actual uniformed officer.

But breaking policy isn't illegal.

Sure. But if the security guard wasn't supposed to be chasing the shoplifter, the shoplifter could sue the security guard and Best Buy. Which I imagine is why it's a fireable offense.

But it's still not murder. And no, I don't think you could win that law suit. On what grounds?

Also it's a fireable offense because of the risk to the employee not to the risk of the thief.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I fail to see how lying about policy violations is not lying during a criminal investigation.

Also, the idea that every crime/degree requires proof of malicious intent to do criminal harm is fiction.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

>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.

>Attorneys for the officers told the judge they were making a legal stop to investigate their suspicions that Hylton-Brown was armed.

The officers broke policy by chasing someone into traffic, where he got hit by a van and died. They then lied about why they were trying to pull him over in the first place.

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.

How does lying about policy violations escalate a charge to 2nd degree murder?

It's kind of a dumb comment, but it does stumble on an interesting question. If a DC police officer initiates an inappropriate traffic stop and the subject of the stop is injured by hitting his head in this manner, are police officers then vulnerable to 2nd degree murder charges?

Name one police officer convicted of murder who was able to keep his job.

I never said that? At least in this case, but since you ask, that would depend on the exact violations and reasons why.

Moreover, normal people can be charged for lying in the course of an investigation-why should that not apply to police of all people?

Whether it's murder or not is up to the prosecution to prove, which apparently they did.

How is there more risk to the employee outside the store than inside the store?

It should apply to police, but how does that elevate a charge to 2nd degree murder when it doesn't to normal people?

Another note, those police officers not only broke policy and protocol, but lied about it in the ensuing investigation.

It's not like they made a little mistake in the heat of the moment and someone got hurt. Someone died. And they lied about the events leading to his death. Obstruction of justice is a big deal.

Again, I did not say that. What I said was that lying about policy violations in the course of an investigation IS criminal-even if prosecutors avoid charging the police, as they prefer to do.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Fair enough. Legit question; what do you think would've been a more appropriate charge?

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.

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.

In DC second degree murder includes homicide where the person committing it possesses "reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life"

They do not necessarily need to intend to kill the person.

Is there a reason you think this wouldn't count?

> proving the accused has the intention to kill or harm

This isn't required for second degree murder in DC, though it would be enough. It would also count if there is sufficient recklessness.

Whoever with malice aforethought, except as provided in §§ 22-2101, 22-2102, kills another, is guilty of murder in the second degree. For purposes of imprisonment following revocation of release authorized by § 24-403.01(b)(7), murder in the second degree is a Class A felony.

Any definition of malice aforethought, whether Blacks or general definitions, has intention as an element.

A good example of this would be George Floyd; whether he intended to kill him or not, that officer intentionally committed the act/applied the force (the knee on back, etc) that led to the death. In this case though, they aren't the ones who applied the force or action that killed him. Seems much more like a matter of involuntary manslaughter, though I don't know the statutes for that, so I'm guessing.

From my understanding, the unjustifiably high risk is something like I decided to speed the wrong way on the highway. Involuntary manslaughter is where it is possible but not likely like I would think is this case.

He did not have to flee and drive recklessly into a van.

This was a politically motivated prosecution.

It was a good arrest and conviction. They tried to pull him over to see if he was going to run.

They had no evidence of a crime.

The resulting chase ends in the suspects death.

It's a good thing to remind police that they need to follow the law.

Why did he run?

And it was he who crashed. Murder charges were pure political witch hunt.

Their job is to know who gang members are and they had Intel he was going to retaliate against another gang member. They found him breaking a traffic law and attempted to stop him but he ran and got hit by a car. Nothing in there is against policy and they had enough probable cause to stop him, he decided to run and got himself killed.

Cops broke department policy, not the law.

Cop broke policy resulting in the death of a human. They lied to investigators about why they wanted to stop him.

If your doctor broke policy and it resulted in the death of your asshole brother in law, you'd still want the doctor to face justice.

Doctors do that more often than you think, but they don’t face criminal trials they face civil trials. They charged them criminally not civilly

So follow that thought.

Police should, at a minimum, have malpractice insurance, peer reviews, continuing education, and licensing boards.

In this case, because the officers lied about what they were doing, one was convicted of second-degree murder.

Both were convicted of conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction.

In addition, the city will catch a lawsuit for civil rights violations.

Maybe next time, officers in that precinct will follow policy and not lie about if they make a mistake. Or, officers can police themselves and form licensing boards, get malpractice insurance, do monthly peer reviews, and all the other things necessary to be trusted again.

They have licensing boards and civilian review boards already. No insurance is going to offer coverage based on how often cops are sued even when they’re determined to be completely justified. Todays environment doesn’t offer it to be feasible. This also doesn’t fit the crime of murder which will be easy to appeal, that was a political charge. Obstruction is the only charge that fits their actions.

And what civil rights did the department violate? This is part of the issue, claims that make no sense being filled, thus insurance stays away.

Doctors get malpractice insurance. Lawyers get malfeasance insurance. People will insure officers also. Insurance is just covering a bet. You can always find someone to cover a bet.

Civil right violation was that he had the right to be alive. Directly due to the officers action, he isn't alive.

Also, due process. You can't randomly pull someone over because you "think" they "might" have a gun.

Long story short. We want good cops. That means we need to trust cops. Part of trusting them means knowing that if they fuck up, they will suffer consequences.

These cops fucked up, someone died, they are paying the price for their fatal fuckup.

That’s not what a civil rights violation is, and again it’s been brought up for years about insurance but still not one insurance company wants to or has offered it.

Also due process is not what reasonable suspicion is, the man was being stopped for a helmet violation which is a legal stop. He was then going to be questioned about the details of the retaliation. Completely legal and a justified stop.

The only fuckup these guys did was break department policy, and if that brings criminal charges then I doubt blame them for becoming short staffed soon.

Dude, read the article. They lied about it being a valid stop. They admitted they lied.

They hit the lights to see if he would run.

They broke policy, resulting in the DEATH of a human.

They didn't flub some paperwork. A guy died.

The guy died because HE decided to run, the cops broke DEPARTMENT policy stating not to chase.

The guy died as a result of his own actions, the cops didn’t force him to run.

Dude, that doesn't make a lick of sense even on the surface.

Cops break the law by attempting to pull someone over for no reason. That's the initiating action. Everything after that is the cops responsibility.

They then chase him around, again breaking policy, which is a continuing action. Probably what took it from reckless homicide to 2nd degree murder.

These are also police officers. They have reason to know better. We have reasons to EXPECT better.

tl;dr Cops do their job right - Guy doesn't die.

He's dead as a direct result of the initiating action of cops not doing their job right.

Your first sentence contradicts everything, they were attempting to pull him over for a helmet violation and riding on the sidewalk. Not even the prosecutor said the stop was unjustified. You decide to ignore this.

Also breaking policy does not justify murder at all, there is no intent on the officers to kill him. If anything it would be negligent homicide and that’s a stretch.

You reaching everywhere to defend a guy that knowingly and consciously decided to take a risk by running from the police in a residential area where the chance of an accident is high. You keep trying to push the blame of him fleeing the stop as the cops fault.

Hypothetically If the stop was unjustified he still can’t run since he doesn’t know the reason for the stop, and that’s a COURT issue not a self made decision.

It is the cops fault for trying to stop him in the first place.

Go read the article. They lied about the helmet violation and riding on the sidewalk. They admitted that they only tried to pull him over to see if he would run.

The body cam still shows him clearly riding in the sidewalk and in a reckless manner. Even if you believe you did nothing wrong you still cannot run from the police. It’s a court matter. How are you missing that point it was his choice to run?