Surprise! ANOTHER black person dead, murderer not punished

[Eulogy]

It's in Chicago. Shocking, I know.

It was an unseasonably warm March night when 22-year-old Rekia Boyd was gunned down by an off-duty police officer in Chicago's Lawndale neighborhood.

Boyd was with a group of friends around 1 a.m. near 15th Place and Albany Avenue when off-duty Chicago Police Det. Dante Servin pulled up in an unmarked vehicle and told the group to "shut up," according to her family.

What happened next, according to an attorney for Boyd's family, was truly shocking: After a verbal altercation with one person in the group, Servin allegedly opened fire. As the friends ran away, 39-year-old Antonio Cross was shot in his hand and Boyd was shot in the head, according to the attorney, James D. Montgomery. She died nearly 24 hours after the shooting.

"Rekia Boyd was shot and killed on March 21, 2012, without any legal justification," Montgomery said during a Friday press conference. "Her young life was snuffed out by an aggressive, intimidating police officer who provoked the confrontation and when met with a verbal rejoinder took the life of an innocent young woman."

"The police spokesperson publicly claimed that the officer fired in defense of his life when a man approached his vehicle and pointed a gun at him," Montgomery said. "Incidentally, no gun was ever found."

Initially, the police department claimed that Cross approached Servin with a weapon. Allegedly fearing for his life, Servin opened fire. But the Independent Police Review Authority has since stated that no weapon was found on the scene.

In an intense interview with WGN News, Cross said that he was talking on the phone when the officer began shooting into the crowd. Cross asked the station how the officer could have thought his phone was a weapon when he was holding it to his ear and talking.

Montgomery said the shooting happened simply because someone "mouthed off" to the officer.

Darian Boyd, the victim's older brother, told the Huffington Post that Servin lived in the Lawndale area, and had made a comment prior to the incident about wanting some "respect" from the community.

"He basically said, 'What do I have to do to get some peace, quiet and respect ... shoot someone?'" Darian Boyd told The Huffington Post, adding that there is a possibility that Cross exchanged words with the officer but that a weapon was never involved.

Boyd's family is now suing the city of Chicago and the detective in connection with her murder.

Darian Boyd and Martinez Sutton, another brother of the victim, started a website and petition hoping to find justice for their sister. Darian Boyd said that several witnesses believe that Servin was intoxicated when the shooting occurred. He added that his family has been canvassing the neighborhood looking for answers.

Ilana Rosenzweig, the review authority's chief administrator, said in a statement that it has identified several witnesses and also gathered physical evidence from the scene. The authority has passed on its findings to the Cook County State's Attorney's office and that the investigation is ongoing, she added.

"I couldn't believe it," Sutton said during the Friday press conference. "I saw a news story about a 22-year-old woman who had been shot in the head. I was like, I feel sorry for that family. I come to find out, we were the family."

(Watch video from the conference above.)

According to a community news site, Servin is still working on duty with the Chicago Police Department while the investigation into his actions continues.

The police would not comment on his status or the lawsuit against the department.

The Cook County State's Attorney's office did not return calls for comment.

The lawsuit against the city comes one day after 61-year-old Howard Morgan was sentenced to 40 years in prison for allegedly attempting to kill four white Chicago police officers. Morgan, an off-duty detective for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, was pulled over by Chicago police on Feb. 21, 2005, and shot 28 times. He survived, and his family maintains that police are not telling the truth about what happened that night.

"He never fired his weapon," Morgan's wife Rosalind told CBS. "There was no gun residue on his hand, and he didn’t fire his weapon."

"They shot him 21 times in the back parts of his body and seven times in the front, and left him there in a puddle of blood," she added. "He made it then, and God will allow him to make it again."

With cases like this surfacing more and more, I have a hunch that being a cop in America is soon going to become even more dangerous than it is already.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[Kamakazie Sith]

Anyone who discharges a firearm, even in self defense, is responsible for each round.

Eulogy - This took place on March 21st. 2012. Shooting investigations can take months. Though Servin still being on duty while the DA is investigating is bizarre and very stupid on the departments part.

[Zaune]

"The police spokesperson publicly claimed that the officer fired in defense of his life when a man approached his vehicle and pointed a gun at him," Montgomery said. "Incidentally, no gun was ever found."

Initially, the police department claimed that Cross approached Servin with a weapon. Allegedly fearing for his life, Servin opened fire. But the Independent Police Review Authority has since stated that no weapon was found on the scene.

When are they going to learn? Making public statements that absolve the shooter of blame before the investigation is complete just pisses people off, even if it turns out that the shooting was within policy.

And perhaps more to the point, why do the police as a whole feel any desire to protect officers who they even suspect of using unjustified force? Do they want people believing the only way to be safe when dealing with the police is to shoot first?

[Block]

It's been less than 3 weeks, you want the guy railroaded as fast as possible?

[White Haven]

False dilemma much, Block? You act as if the only two options are to throw up fairly obvious lies as a smokescreen, or whirl around and stab a stake through the guy's heart. As opposed to saying they're investigating the issue and not lying their ass off to the general public or making claims the evidence can't cash.

[Block]

False dilemma much, Block? You act as if the only two options are to throw up fairly obvious lies as a smokescreen, or whirl around and stab a stake through the guy's heart. As opposed to saying they're investigating the issue and not lying their ass off to the general public or making claims the evidence can't cash.

No. The spokesmen for the department made an initial statement that said one thing, the Independant Review Authority, also a Police agency, said that no weapon has been found and that there's nothing to back that up. That's all within 3 weeks. My reaction is to the OP, who's expecting the guy to have been punished by now, which is rediculous.

[madd0ct0r]

The lawsuit against the city comes one day after 61-year-old Howard Morgan was sentenced to 40 years in prison for allegedly attempting to kill four white Chicago police officers. Morgan, an off-duty detective for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, was pulled over by Chicago police on Feb. 21, 2005, and shot 28 times. He survived, and his family maintains that police are not telling the truth about what happened that night.

"He never fired his weapon," Morgan's wife Rosalind told CBS. "There was no gun residue on his hand, and he didn’t fire his weapon."

"They shot him 21 times in the back parts of his body and seven times in the front, and left him there in a puddle of blood," she added. "He made it then, and God will allow him to make it again."

there's a fucking bumper crop of these in the press at the moment, ain't there!

[TheFeniX]

With cases like this surfacing more and more, I have a hunch that being a cop in America is soon going to become even more dangerous than it is already.

Police work is "dangerous" in that officers are in a line of work where a routine traffic stop can turn into a shoot-out. But police work itself is far more mundane and boring than it is dangerous. Sidenote: Is it ironic that I spent most of the night watching "Deadliest Catch" reruns on Netflixs and saw this post before I went to bed? I think that's just coincidental.

Anyways, something like 100 officers out of ~1 million total in the US are killed by criminals each year, including car-wrecks during chases. In fact, the most dangerous part of being a cop seems to be that they spend so many hours on the roads and quite a few get hit directing traffic or dealing with accidents (any job requiring lots of driving is inherently dangerous). Texas has been combating this by requiring all drivers to drop at least 20 MPH below the speed-limit when driving by any kind of emergency vehicle.

Eulogy - This took place on March 21st. 2012. Shooting investigations can take months. Though Servin still being on duty while the DA is investigating is bizarre and very stupid on the departments part.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in situations like this the chance of new evidence being obtained after 48 hours is pretty low. It's an even lower chance that the evidence is all that reliable with the exception of things like perjury/lying as holes are poked in alibi's/etc. But really, what's troubling is that the immediate reaction is usually "justified, move along" rather than "we're investigating, next question."

Many police departments could likely saves themselves loads of grief (and money) if they hired some fucking Public Relations people who didn't immediately jump to the defense of officers suspected of wrong-doing, or were just stopped from saying anything at all. Whether true or not, claiming "it was justified" and "we're investigating" at the same time makes people assume "investigating" actually means "sweeping it all under the rug."

[Zaune]

No. The spokesmen for the department made an initial statement that said one thing, the Independant Review Authority, also a Police agency, said that no weapon has been found and that there's nothing to back that up. That's all within 3 weeks. My reaction is to the OP, who's expecting the guy to have been punished by now, which is rediculous.

Are we to believe that it took three weeks to determine that the weapon that Detective Servin claimed was pointed at him is nowhere to be found at the scene of the crime? I'm neither a cop nor a CSI technician, but it seems to me that unless Boyd is supposed to have somehow concealed or disposed of the gun out of spite before dropping dead, it's not likely to have gone very far.

Of course, I suppose we must consider the possibility that the department spokesman was embellishing heavily and Servin never claimed to have seen the weapon itself in the first place; maybe Boyd's cellphone went off on vibrate and he reached for it in a way that looked like he was going for a gun. But the fact that Servin isn't even on administrative suspension raises questions, to put it mildly.

[SVPD]

No. The spokesmen for the department made an initial statement that said one thing, the Independant Review Authority, also a Police agency, said that no weapon has been found and that there's nothing to back that up. That's all within 3 weeks. My reaction is to the OP, who's expecting the guy to have been punished by now, which is rediculous.

Are we to believe that it took three weeks to determine that the weapon that Detective Servin claimed was pointed at him is nowhere to be found at the scene of the crime? I'm neither a cop nor a CSI technician, but it seems to me that unless Boyd is supposed to have somehow concealed or disposed of the gun out of spite before dropping dead, it's not likely to have gone very far.

Then yes, you should believe that it takes three weeks to eliminate all the possibilities. As you yourself state, you have no expertise whatsoever in the matter.

Of course, I suppose we must consider the possibility that the department spokesman was embellishing heavily and Servin never claimed to have seen the weapon itself in the first place; maybe Boyd's cellphone went off on vibrate and he reached for it in a way that looked like he was going for a gun. But the fact that Servin isn't even on administrative suspension raises questions, to put it mildly.

Yes, it does, and this is the Chicago P.D. we're talking about.

[SVPD]

When are they going to learn? Making public statements that absolve the shooter of blame before the investigation is complete just pisses people off, even if it turns out that the shooting was within policy.

So presenting the officer's side of the story is a problem, but having all these other people come out and scream to the media about their side of the story is just perfectly fine?

And perhaps more to the point, why do the police as a whole feel any desire to protect officers who they even suspect of using unjustified force? Do they want people believing the only way to be safe when dealing with the police is to shoot first?

"But Comrade, if you are not guilty, why are you on trial?"

[SVPD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in situations like this the chance of new evidence being obtained after 48 hours is pretty low. It's an even lower chance that the evidence is all that reliable with the exception of things like perjury/lying as holes are poked in alibi's/etc. But really, what's troubling is that the immediate reaction is usually "justified, move along" rather than "we're investigating, next question."

Where did you obtain this 48 hours number?

Many police departments could likely saves themselves loads of grief (and money) if they hired some fucking Public Relations people who didn't immediately jump to the defense of officers suspected of wrong-doing, or were just stopped from saying anything at all. Whether true or not, claiming "it was justified" and "we're investigating" at the same time makes people assume "investigating" actually means "sweeping it all under the rug."

I don't see that the department claimed it was justified. All they did is present what the officer claimed the situation was. In fact, the only way we know from the OP what the police spokesperson said is a quote from this attorney Montgomery:

"The police spokesperson publicly claimed that the officer fired in defense of his life when a man approached his vehicle and pointed a gun at him," Montgomery said. "Incidentally, no gun was ever found."

We don't know if this is a direct quote, or this attorney's paraphrase of what the spokesperson said, or what the exact context was, but there is no reason to assume it's a declaration that the officer is innocent by the department.

[Broomstick]

It took seven years to convict and sentence the 5 New Orleans cops who opened fire on unarmed people in 2005 after Katrina - and the OP is outraged that an officer that shot someone in Chicago is still free three weeks later?

US Cops do get convicted and go to jail for shooting people when they shouldn't, when there is no justification, but I guess the convictions are so long after the fact a lot of people don't notice them. No, cops don't have carte blanche to shoot people and more and more often they are punished for doing so.

[dragon]

they really need to start putting cameras on the guns or on the uniforms. And make it a crime if they are shut off.

[Kamakazie Sith]

they really need to start putting cameras on the guns or on the uniforms. And make it a crime if they are shut off.

They are doing that in many agencies. I'm told the problem is costs.

As for making it a crime. The most you'd be able to do is a low class misdemeanor...maybe. I doubt the legislature would approve. What you can do is require a mandatory termination for anyone that intentionally shuts off their camera.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The 48-hour evidence number tossed about has to do with kidnappings, I don't know why its being applied to a shooting.

[Edi]

Moved Broomstick's post (some four posts above) to this thread from the other one about officers being killed since there seems to have been an inadvertent mixup of threads when that post was made.

[The Yosemite Bear]

1. Marina why not use the Joe Strummer original version? How about them dead guys in Skynyrd also have "Mr. Saturday night Special"

[Themightytom]

there's a fucking bumper crop of these in the press at the moment, ain't there!

I disagree unless you can prove it. I think the number is about average, but within a smaller population (That of this board) we are looking at similar issues as a group.

[Stark]

As for making it a crime. The most you'd be able to do is a low class misdemeanor...maybe. I doubt the legislature would approve. What you can do is require a mandatory termination for anyone that intentionally shuts off their camera.

In that other case, the idea that officers can be recorded intentionally turning off the devices intended to prevent abuse and then people ending up dead and NOBODY BEING INSTANTLY FIRED is totally beyond me. Are officers under surveillance, or not? Are they held to standards, or not? Is it acceptable to say 'shut it off' during the commission of a violent entry, or not?

[Kamakazie Sith]

As for making it a crime. The most you'd be able to do is a low class misdemeanor...maybe. I doubt the legislature would approve. What you can do is require a mandatory termination for anyone that intentionally shuts off their camera.

In that other case, the idea that officers can be recorded intentionally turning off the devices intended to prevent abuse and then people ending up dead and NOBODY BEING INSTANTLY FIRED is totally beyond me. Are officers under surveillance, or not? Are they held to standards, or not? Is it acceptable to say 'shut it off' during the commission of a violent entry, or not?

Intentionally shutting off a recording device is grounds for termination especially prior to the use of force and then the subsequent death of a subject.

[madd0ct0r]

there's a fucking bumper crop of these in the press at the moment, ain't there!

I disagree unless you can prove it. I think the number is about average, but within a smaller population (That of this board) we are looking at similar issues as a group.

there are 4 stories active on the board - Zimmerman (involving possible police incompetence/corruption) and three where the victim was shot by a police officer. the linking factor would be the victims ethnicity*.

*yes I'm aware that none of these have gone to trial yet and therefore the precise classification is unverified. bite me.

2010 had 7 hate crime classed murders. the shorter story in this thread happened in 2005, so we are looking at 3 possible hate crime murders and we're only 25% of the way through the year. Tiny numbers so error bounds huge, but you can see where i'm coming from.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr[/url] ]FBI Releases 2010 Hate Crime Statistics

Download Printable Document

Washington, D.C.—Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released Hate Crime Statistics, 2010, based on information submitted by law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation. These data indicate that 6,628 criminal incidents involving 7,699 offenses were reported in 2010 as a result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2010, includes the following information:

Of the 6,624 single‑bias incidents, 47.3 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 20.0 percent were motivated by a religious bias, 19.3 percent were motivated by a sexual‑orientation bias, and 12.8 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 0.6 percent of single-bias incidents.
There were 4,824 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons. Intimidation accounted for 46.2 percent of these crimes, simple assaults for 34.8 percent, and aggravated assaults for 18.4 percent. In addition, 7 murders were reported as hate crimes.
There were 2,861 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property; most of these (81.1 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. The remaining 18.9 percent of crimes against property consisted of robbery, burglary, larceny‑theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses.
Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 18.4 percent were black. For 12.0 percent, the race was unknown, and the remaining known offenders were of other races.
The largest percentage (31.4 percent) of hate crime incidents occurred in or near homes. Another 17.0 percent took place on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 10.9 percent happened at schools or colleges; 5.8 percent in parking lots or garages; and 3.7 percent in churches, synagogues, or temples. The location was considered other or unknown for 14.3 percent of hate crime incidents. The remaining 16.9 percent of hate crime incidents took place at other specified locations or multiple locations.



Hate Crime Statistics, 2010, is available exclusively on the FBI’s Web site at <www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr>.

[Themightytom]

I disagree unless you can prove it. I think the number is about average, but within a smaller population (That of this board) we are looking at similar issues as a group.

there are 4 stories active on the board - Zimmerman (involving possible police incompetence/corruption) and three where the victim was shot by a police officer. the linking factor would be the victims ethnicity*.

*yes I'm aware that none of these have gone to trial yet and therefore the precise classification is unverified. bite me.

2010 had 7 hate crime classed murders. the shorter story in this thread happened in 2005, so we are looking at 3 possible hate crime murders and we're only 25% of the way through the year. Tiny numbers so error bounds huge, but you can see where i'm coming from.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr[/url] ]FBI Releases 2010 Hate Crime Statistics

Download Printable Document

Washington, D.C.—Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released Hate Crime Statistics, 2010, based on information submitted by law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation. These data indicate that 6,628 criminal incidents involving 7,699 offenses were reported in 2010 as a result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2010, includes the following information:

Of the 6,624 single‑bias incidents, 47.3 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 20.0 percent were motivated by a religious bias, 19.3 percent were motivated by a sexual‑orientation bias, and 12.8 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 0.6 percent of single-bias incidents.
There were 4,824 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons. Intimidation accounted for 46.2 percent of these crimes, simple assaults for 34.8 percent, and aggravated assaults for 18.4 percent. In addition, 7 murders were reported as hate crimes.
There were 2,861 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property; most of these (81.1 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. The remaining 18.9 percent of crimes against property consisted of robbery, burglary, larceny‑theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses.
Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 18.4 percent were black. For 12.0 percent, the race was unknown, and the remaining known offenders were of other races.
The largest percentage (31.4 percent) of hate crime incidents occurred in or near homes. Another 17.0 percent took place on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 10.9 percent happened at schools or colleges; 5.8 percent in parking lots or garages; and 3.7 percent in churches, synagogues, or temples. The location was considered other or unknown for 14.3 percent of hate crime incidents. The remaining 16.9 percent of hate crime incidents took place at other specified locations or multiple locations.



Hate Crime Statistics, 2010, is available exclusively on the FBI’s Web site at <www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr>.

Well we agree that this board is paying close attention to hate crimes, which I acknowledged, but SD.net is not "in the press" I don't see any evidence that there are more stories than usual reported through mainstream media however.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So presenting the officer's side of the story is a problem, but having all these other people come out and scream to the media about their side of the story is just perfectly fine?

No.

There is a BIG difference between saying

"Person X claims this is what happened, and we are investigating to determine if this is true" and "This is what happened, we are investigating".

The difference in implications between the two statements is obvious.