In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Cop who killed Rekia Boyd acquitted of all charges

Chicago police detective Dante Servin has been found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Rekia Boyd. A Cook County Circuit Court Judge Dennis Porter ruled that the state had failed to prove recklessness on Servin’s part after he fired his unregistered handgun over his shoulder from inside his car into a dark alley, hitting Boyd in the back of the head.

Reading his seven-page ruling from the bench, the judge said there was no dispute that Servin had intended to kill Cross, but under the involuntary manslaughter law, prosecutors had to prove he acted recklessly in the legal sense of the word.

“It is easy to say, ‘Of course the defendant was reckless. He intentionally shot in the direction of a group of people on the sidewalk. That is really dangerous … and in fact Rekia Boyd was killed. Case closed,’ ” Porter wrote. “It is easy to think that way, but it is wrong.”

That’s because Illinois law says that intentionally firing a gun at someone on the street “is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless,” Porter wrote. “It is intentional and the crime, if any there be, is first-degree murder.”

Porter acknowledged that it was “perhaps even unfortunate” that neither side would have “closure” on whether Servin was justified in opening fire that night, but he said he had no choice under the law but to dismiss the charges.

In short: Servin might have been guilty of first-degree murder, just not involuntary manslaughter, so he goes free and will shortly be reinstated to active police duty.

In March of 2012, Boyd and three friends were walking to a store near Chicago’s Douglas Park when Servin, off duty at the time, told the group to quiet down. Words were exchanged, and then Servin fired five shots at the group from inside his car. Boyd was killed, and her boyfriend, Antonio Cross, was grazed in the thumb. Servin later said that he feared for his life and claimed to see Cross pull a gun from his waistband and point it at him, and that he heard a gunshot and felt “something” on the back of his head before he started shooting. Police never found a weapon, and Cross says he was holding a cell phone.

Speaking to reporters at the courthouse after his acquittal, Servin said, “Any reasonable person, any police officer especially, would’ve reacted in the exact same manner that I reacted. And I’m glad to be alive. I saved my life that night. I’m glad that I’m not a police death statistic. Antonio Cross is a would-be cop killer, and that’s all I have to say.”

He also said, “I think it was a mistake for the state’s attorney to charge me. But I also explained to the family, if this is what they needed for closure, to be charged, I hope they got what they’re looking for.”


11 thoughts on Cop who killed Rekia Boyd acquitted of all charges

  1. I know a lot of the anger will focus on the judge for removing the case, but I think most of the real fault here lies with the prosecutor’s office, which chose to file a significantly lower charge than the facts supported, as prosecutor’s frequently do when cops shoot people. The judge in the case has been pretty clear that he wouldn’t have thrown out a first degree murder charge.

    1. Incidentally, to be clear, I also think the judge’s legal decision-making was questionable at best. I just don’t think we should forget that the process of letting this asshole off easy started even before the decision was made.

      1. I also think the judge’s legal decision-making was questionable at best.

        Okay, not just me then.

        Because I don’t know if that judge’s intention was to punish the prosecutor, or even if there’s some professional responsibility requirement for the prosecutor to have brought the greater charge (though my (admittedly uneducated) guess is that the prosecutor’s office also didn’t want to bring a charge they felt the evidence wouldn’t support, not even setting aside the point of the motivation to bring a lesser charge against a cop whom you might need for later convictions during your career, if you’re the prosecutor), but …

        aside of all that? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like this.

        I am casting about in my mind for some rubric pursuant to which something like this udge’s ruling could even be called “logic” or “legal reasoning”.

        Because, wow.

        1. I am casting about in my mind for some rubric pursuant to which something like this udge’s ruling could even be called “logic” or “legal reasoning”.

          I mean, legally, yeah, it doesn’t matter if the charge is incorrect because it’s too lenient or too severe; the prosecutor can lose because they undercharged. The issue is that a pretrial motion to dismiss requires the judge to consider all the facts in the context most favorable to the prosecution; in other words, it’s a safety valve for absurd cases. Defense lawyers nearly always file for preliminary dismissal, and it basically is never granted (again, because the judge is basically determining if the defendant would be guilty if all the facts claimed by the prosecution are true).

          As a result, this seems a lot like a judge using this case to smack around a prosecutors office he think has a bad habit of undercharging, which would be understandable, except that there’s more at stake than a pissing contest between two branches of government.

  2. …so why does this story end “and then he returned to active duty” instead of “and then he was immediately charged with first-degree murder and taken back to the cells to await trial”?

    1. Never mind, we’ve found the answer. Apparently “double jeopardy” is a lot broader and more generous than we’d previously believed.

      1. Yep. You can’t be charged twice for the same crime, even if the charges are different. There are exceptions in cases where new evidence comes to light (for example, if someone confesses after being acquitted, they can be tried again- Ashley Judd got it wrong). Also there are some limited exceptions for cases where the trial itself was interfered with, such as judicial bribery or jury intimidation.

        This is a Good Thing. Without those protections, prosecutors could (would) just keep filing new and increasingly more creative charges until they finally got a conviction (or just thoroughly ruined their target’s life).

  3. We have to try to get through to the good cops out there that by maintaining “the Blue Wall of Silence” when bad cops execute people, they are lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship. If this epidemic of unjustified killings by police continues, there will be a massive public reaction of some kind and law enforcement officers, good, bad, or indifferent will not fare well.

    1. If this epidemic of unjustified killings by police continues, there will be a massive public reaction of some kind and law enforcement officers, good, bad, or indifferent will not fare well.

      Yeah, they’ve been saying that since the 50’s.

      We have to try to get through to the good cops out there that by maintaining “the Blue Wall of Silence” when bad cops execute people

      I think we have to make it clear to everyone that covering for ‘bad cops’ is incompatible with being a ‘good cop.’

Comments are currently closed.