Police officer arrested for assault in miscarriage of justice

[jks9199]

I started to circulate this privately -- and then decided what the hell... It brings up lots of relevant issues for this forum, I think.

Quick summary:
Chicago PD Officer Mette is off duty, visiting his brother in Dubuque, Iowa. Drunken jerk Gothard starts a problem at a party; Mette and his buddies leave the party, and return to Mette's brother's house. Gothard follows them, making false accusations of theft. Gothard then threatens Mette with battery, then makes good on it, hitting him repeatedly in the chest. After the third strike, Mette decks him. Mette ends up arrested and subsequently convicted of felonious assault, and sentenced to five years. The judge actually recognized that Gothard instigated this! He's also either suspended w/o pay or has been fired; I'm not certain exactly where the process is standing.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5478651 should link to an article about this.

Now...

Just how far was Mette supposed to run? Until Gothard sobered up? How many times was he supposed let Gothard hit him? How exactly did that end up not being self defense, especially since there were multiple witnesses?

Oh... And Gothard, who has since been arrested DUI and posted plenty of drunken photos all over his Facebook account according to the article, decided that he couldn't be interviewed by the press because he's suing Mette!

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

One more example of how weak much of our society is becoming.

Used to be if you laid hands on another man, you got what you got, be it your *** handed to you, a bullet in the head or a blade in your gut.

Lawyers, activist Judges and feminism sure has done this country good.


Just like in the Home Invasion thread, were many stated it would be wrong to outright kill an intruder and then this week in Fla, a woman and her child were assulted, raped, forced to do unspeakable things to one another, beaten, burned with bleech and left for dead.

Antoher example of it's better to be over prepared, and willing to killa nd or die before submiting to another's will.

 

[terryl965]

Bring back the days of an eye for an eye.

 

[exile]

This cannot be allowed to stand, and I'd bet heavy that the convinction is overturned on appeal.

The most disgusting aspect of this whole disgusting case is that the assailant assaulted a police officer—the distinguished jurist who pronounced sentence in this case apparently had no problem recognizing that simple fact—yet apparently you can commit assault and battery on a police officer and not be charged with A&B!!. The initiator of the attack isn't charged, the defending victim of the attack is...

Someone deserves to be impeached and removed from the bench permanently, and the municipal prosecutors in this sorry district need a serious attitude adjustment. But number one priority is overturning that conviction.

 

[Ninjamom]

Someone deserves to be impeached and removed from the bench permanently, and the municipal prosecutors in this sorry district need a serious attitude adjustment. But number one priority is overturning that conviction.

I strongly, vehemently AGREE.

Unfortunately, jurors are often shielded from certain facts - they may be prevented from hearing all evidence through motions decided by judicial whim. Even more unfortunately, there is a good chance the Officer will not be able to afford to appeal.

 

[exile]

I strongly, vehemently AGREE.

Unfortunately, jurors are often shielded from certain facts - they may be prevented from hearing all evidence through motions decided by judicial whim. Even more unfortunately, there is a good chance the Officer will not be able to afford to appeal.

But surely his Police Officer's Benevolent Association would undertake his representation? If this completely indefensible ruling isn't challenged, it sends the message that basic canons of justice, like the right to self-defense, are suspended in the case of LEOs. You'd think that no police union, dedicated as it is to safeguarding its members and making their working conditions the best possible, could allow this verdict to be the last word in the case—and isn't the whole point to POBAs that the individual officer should not be forced stand on his own, especially in the case of judicial abuse?

 

[jks9199]

This cannot be allowed to stand, and I'd bet heavy that the convinction is overturned on appeal.

The most disgusting aspect of this whole disgusting case is that the assailant assaulted a police officer—the distinguished jurist who pronounced sentence in this case apparently had no problem recognizing that simple fact—yet apparently you can commit assault and battery on a police officer and not be charged with A&B!!. The initiator of the attack isn't charged, the defending victim of the attack is...

Someone deserves to be impeached and removed from the bench permanently, and the municipal prosecutors in this sorry district need a serious attitude adjustment. But number one priority is overturning that conviction.

I just want to make it clear that Mette was OFF duty, in a completely different state from where he works. I don't know, but suspect he never identified himself as a police officer. (Unlike the feds, you generally have to know you're assaulting a local/state cop who is performing their duties to be charged with assault on an officer.) I'm even willing to grant that he'd been drinking...

It's still beyond my understanding how in hell this ever got to a trial in the first place... Or what more Mette could or should have done to avoid the situation. He'd already left one location, and been followed. He even took a couple of shots... I suppose maybe he could have tried some sort of restraint hold -- but c'mon... A guy's hitting you, and you're supposed to just get pounded?!

 

[exile]

I just want to make it clear that Mette was OFF duty, in a completely different state from where he works. I don't know, but suspect he never identified himself as a police officer. (Unlike the feds, you generally have to know you're assaulting a local/state cop who is performing their duties to be charged with assault on an officer.) I'm even willing to grant that he'd been drinking...

It's still beyond my understanding how in hell this ever got to a trial in the first place... Or what more Mette could or should have done to avoid the situation. He'd already left one location, and been followed. He even took a couple of shots... I suppose maybe he could have tried some sort of restraint hold -- but c'mon... A guy's hitting you, and you're supposed to just get pounded?!

So what's your guess about how things will go, jks? Will his union go to bat for him so far as supporting an appeal?

 

[Ninjamom]

I have some very bad experience with the community where I grew up - in this case, the GS Civilian in charge of cleaning a laboratory was charged in Federal court for violating environmental law, and sued to boot. The entire thing was for political hay; the guy was an obvious fall-guy, used to promote someone's political career. He had no more responsibility for any toxic waste than the Prosecuter, and he did everything that any reasonable person could think to do to stop the problem. Also, anyone who had ever worked with any related government office was excluded from the jury pool (much as I'm sure all other LEO's were excluded in this case), so the people most knowledgeable in the way things 'really' work weren't allowd to participate in the process.

Anyway, the Gov. employee's union helped our local lab guy with one case (criminal or civil, I forget which), but could not with the other. The man mortgaged his house, used all his savings, and went into debt to try to file an appeal - I don't think it was ever resolved justly.

I would think the Union would have an interest in the result of this case, but probably could not as a rule put itself in the position of defending union members from criminal charges.

 

[kidswarrior]

I just want to make it clear that Mette was OFF duty, in a completely different state from where he works. I don't know, but suspect he never identified himself as a police officer. (Unlike the feds, you generally have to know you're assaulting a local/state cop who is performing their duties to be charged with assault on an officer.) I'm even willing to grant that he'd been drinking...

It's still beyond my understanding how in hell this ever got to a trial in the first place... Or what more Mette could or should have done to avoid the situation. He'd already left one location, and been followed. He even took a couple of shots... I suppose maybe he could have tried some sort of restraint hold -- but c'mon... A guy's hitting you, and you're supposed to just get pounded?!

So what if he'd been drinking? So what if he didn't identify himself as a PO. How does that change any of the substantive facts. Man is badmouthed; leaves to preserve the peace, is followed by troublemaker, who then batters him repeatedly, until the victim finally strikes back. Alcohol and/or a badge wouldn't seem to make any difference to my way of thinking.

And this really brings into question how the legal system might view preemptive strikes, when in this case, this guy was struck three times before retaliating, and he becomes the convict! :angry:

By the way, he may have been reluctant to identify himself as LE because he was so far from jurisdiction, and didn't want to give a false impression. No good deed goes unpunished, huh?

 

[jks9199]

So what's your guess about how things will go, jks? Will his union go to bat for him so far as supporting an appeal?

At this point, I only know what's in the article.

It's under appeal. I hope that the appellate court will overturn the original ruling, and at a minimum, remand it for retrial. Hopefully, on remand, the prosecutor will remove his head from his backside, and realize that Mette wasn't the one who was wrong...

But Mette's still going to be out the costs of the trial, and have his career severely impacted. And Goatherd (who, according to some editorials I've just read was apparently so seriously impacted by this that he was leading the golf team and still having plenty of time to get smashed, and could barely be bothered to attend the trial) is still suing Mette. I've inquired about a legal fund for Mette, but haven't heard anything yet.

 

[qi-tah]

One more example of how weak much of our society is becoming.

Used to be if you laid hands on another man, you got what you got, be it your *** handed to you, a bullet in the head or a blade in your gut.

Lawyers, activist Judges and feminism sure has done this country good.


Just like in the Home Invasion thread, were many stated it would be wrong to outright kill an intruder and then this week in Fla, a woman and her child were assulted, raped, forced to do unspeakable things to one another, beaten, burned with bleech and left for dead.

Antoher example of it's better to be over prepared, and willing to killa nd or die before submiting to another's will.

What the?? How on earth did feminism get the blame for this state of affairs? :erg:

 

[exile]

I have some very bad experience with the community where I grew up - in this case, the GS Civilian in charge of cleaning a laboratory was charged in Federal court for violating environmental law, and sued to boot. The entire thing was for political hay; the guy was an obvious fall-guy, used to promote someone's political career. He had no more responsibility for any toxic waste than the Prosecuter, and he did everything that any reasonable person could think to do to stop the problem. Also, anyone who had ever worked with any related government office was excluded from the jury pool (much as I'm sure all other LEO's were excluded in this case), so the people most knowledgeable in the way things 'really' work weren't allowd to participate in the process.

Anyway, the Gov. employee's union helped our local lab guy with one case (criminal or civil, I forget which), but could not with the other. The man mortgaged his house, used all his savings, and went into debt to try to file an appeal - I don't think it was ever resolved justly.

I would think the Union would have an interest in the result of this case, but probably could not as a rule put itself in the position of defending union members from criminal charges.

Yick, stories like make me feel physically ill. Sometimes the collective stupidity of our social institutions seems literally bottomless. And the argument that mostly they work pretty well, etc., is basically a irrelevance in cases like these, because there's no need to tolerate this kind of injustice in order that the system work well most of the time. It's just what happens when judicial processes become corrupted by political machinations...

 

[Sensei Payne]

There have been many fine things said about this story by everyone who has posted on this thread, but one thing is for sure, is that there is something going on that isn't in the artical, maybe this guy was a dirty cop and a judge was looking to put him away, or someone else has there own agenda, let it be for financial or Polital gain...not saying that what is going on is right or wrong, merely stating that there is probably something going on that we don't know about.

 

[jks9199]

There have been many fine things said about this story by everyone who has posted on this thread, but one thing is for sure, is that there is something going on that isn't in the artical, maybe this guy was a dirty cop and a judge was looking to put him away, or someone else has there own agenda, let it be for financial or Polital gain...not saying that what is going on is right or wrong, merely stating that there is probably something going on that we don't know about.

Before you go making unsubstantiated musings like this, pay attention to the undisputed details. Mette was off duty, in a different state. His employment should have had no more bearing on this than it would have had he been a carpenter or trash collector. Could there be something else? Sure. My only guess at the moment would be the collective off duty beatings committed by several different Chicago cops -- or that Gothard (or his daddy) was someone important.

I have no clue why this progressed beyond the initial report; bluntly, given the undisputed circumstances as reported -- my paper on it would have made it absolutely clear that Mette was defending himself, and there's no way that I'd have arrested him. HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF.

 

[SKB]

I think there is more to the story then what we know. Also there is another way to look at this. The guy is a cop and should of been able to handle the situation without using violence and if he had to us physical means to stop the guy he could of done it without hurting the guy. Also since he is a cop he should of known to call the police. Why did he let the guy get close enough to hit him in the first place? He's a cop and should of known to keep walking away no matter how far!

OK so everyone should be ticked off by what I just wrote!!! You have to remember people think cops should react diffrently then civilians! Some how LEOs go to a special school where they suck the human out of us and replace it with 'super cop' and we are not allowed to react to situations in a "human way". Even in the agency a cop might work for there are people, mostly the ones who sit behind a desk all day, who think every situation could of been handled diffrently. Most cases the pick the least violent and most PC way to handle something!!!

 

[exile]

I think there is more to the story then what we know. Also there is another way to look at this. The guy is a cop and should of been able to handle the situation without using violence and if he had to us physical means to stop the guy he could of done it without hurting the guy. Also since he is a cop he should of known to call the police. Why did he let the guy get close enough to hit him in the first place? He's a cop and should of known to keep walking away no matter how far!

OK so everyone should be ticked off by what I just wrote!!! You have to remember people think cops should react diffrently then civilians! Some how LEOs go to a special school where they suck the human out of us and replace it with 'super cop' and we are not allowed to react to situations in a "human way". Even in the agency a cop might work for there are people, mostly the ones who sit behind a desk all day, who think every situation could of been handled diffrently. Most cases the pick the least violent and most PC way to handle something!!!

Whew, for a second there you had me going, SKB! Unfortunately, you're right—too many people think that way....

Given the firepower they're entrusted with, LEOs have to receive appropriate training and show due restraint in its use, no question. But this was a clear, simple, elementary self-defense situation. No more than due force was used to inhibit an unprovoked assault, and for all practical purposes, as jks has noted, the LEO was a civilian. He showed a hell of a lot more restraint than a lot of civilians I can think of, at least one of whom I know quite well... :wink1: But as you say, some people will immediately switch to the `cops-must-be-inhumanly-patient-no-matter-what's-being-done-to-them' channel.

 

[Sukerkin]

I know it's not a laughing matter but I have to shamefacedly admit you got me too with that one SKB. I was all set to enter Indignant-Sputtering Mode and then there was a rapid spooling up of "Oh! I see. Yes, quite right." .

 

[grydth]

Why is everyone so ready to ASSUME the cops, prosecutors, judge and jury all got this one wrong... and the media got it right?

I was a military prosecutor for years, in private practice for many years more...and let's say media 'reports' of trials sometimes bear little resemblance to what actually happens in court.

What missing facts might make a difference?

What if the accused is lying to the station? His self serving quotes make up most of the story...What if he originally gave several conflicting accounts - or credible witnesses back the other guy? What if the accused actually did steal something and was running away with it instead of "retreating"? What if the other guy was a much smaller wimp who was falling down drunk, and the accused used deadly force on somebody who was virtually no threat at all?

Think about it, and you, too can come up with 5 more 'what if's'? I'll await the appellate court ruling.

 

[jks9199]

Why is everyone so ready to ASSUME the cops, prosecutors, judge and jury all got this one wrong... and the media got it right?

I was a military prosecutor for years, in private practice for many years more...and let's say media 'reports' of trials sometimes bear little resemblance to what actually happens in court.

What missing facts might make a difference?

What if the accused is lying to the station? His self serving quotes make up most of the story...What if he originally gave several conflicting accounts - or credible witnesses back the other guy? What if the accused actually did steal something and was running away with it instead of "retreating"? What if the other guy was a much smaller wimp who was falling down drunk, and the accused used deadly force on somebody who was virtually no threat at all?

Think about it, and you, too can come up with 5 more 'what if's'? I'll await the appellate court ruling.

The media accounts are based on the undisputed court testimony, including the trial judge's own finding that Gothard instigated the fight. However, I think I've been pretty clear in stating that my posts and opinions are based on the multiple press accounts, which included counting five witnesses to the fight that supported Mette's account. And Gothard was so seriously injured that he was posting golf scores in the 70s within a month of the incident... and has since been arrested for DUI.

Yeah -- I'm biased. I'm going to believe the cop over the drunken, underage frat boy who followed the cop to his brother's house, and, according to witnesses, committed assault and battery. As I said, I'll even concede that Mette had been drinking and probably wasn't exercising perfect judgement. That said -- it still appears that he was apparently supposed to continue to run rather than defend himself, according to Judge Ackley. (I wonder if she'd have felt the same had Gothard been assaulting one of her two children?)

But I'll be damned if I see any good reason why a cop should be held to some insane standard of retreating when someone has followed him, and is assaulting him.

Here are several other reports, editorials, blogs, or other articles:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_bd15jul15,1,7971382.column?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866036/posts

When the case went to a bench trial in December, Dubuque County Judge Monica Ackley found that Chicago Police Officer Mike Mette "was not the initial aggressor of this incident," Jake Gothard was. Nevertheless, Judge Ackley ruled that Mette was guilty, because even after Gothard struck him three times, Mette should have just ignored it and retreated.

http://www.lineofduty.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=88735