[DeltaElite]

Well, I wish I could say I was surprised, but since most assault statutes are written to require an "intent to injure", not just being reckless, he slips through without criminal charges.
Of course for $100 million I would let you cut the whole damn finger off, not just the tip. ;)
Detroit Knife Incident (http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0301/16/metro-61987.htm)

Officer accused of severing woman's finger not to be charged
By Associated Press

DETROIT -- A police officer who authorities say severed a woman's finger during an arrest will not be charged in the case, a prosecutor said Thursday.

The department has said it has no policies and procedures for an officer to use a knife during an arrest, but Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Duggan said the injury wasn't intentional and cannot be considered an assault.

Police investigated the incident and last week forwarded information to prosecutors. Officer Anthony Johnson was suspended without pay following the incident.

The police department is moving forward with a disciplinary review.

On Friday, attorney Geoffrey Fieger filed a $100 million lawsuit against the city and Johnson on behalf of Joni and William Gullas.

Attorney Arnie Matusz, who is working with Fieger on the lawsuit, said the prosecutor's decision was expected and doesn't change the outlook for the civil case.

"He will seek justice for her in the civil court, which is the only place that she will get it," Matusz said of Fieger.

Joni Gullas' left ring finger was severed at the top knuckle early Jan. 5 when Johnson used a 4-inch knife to cut the sleeve off her jacket in an attempt to handcuff her.

The fingertip was recovered but could not be reattached.

[hammer4nc]

Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Duggan said the injury wasn't intentional and cannot be considered an assault.

Of course, Prosecutor Duggan will immediately be working overtime to reverse all Wayne County assault convictions, according to the new "intent" standard. Also, updated training for law enforcement (esp on domestic dispute calls), will begin, so that officers will be sure to establish "intent", before cuff & stuff of subjects, on assault charges.

What, do these guys think nobody is reading this stuff??? Here's an open invitation to all resident leo apologists to explain how this is anything BUT a blatant double standard. Eagerly waiting to be convinced.

Respect for the rule of law just dropped another notch. I hope Kervorkian's lawyer goes for $200 million!

[Blackhawk]

Has there ever been any question that there's a double standard? Is there any question that there should not be?

"There is?"

That's the way it's been for centuries, here and in every other country.

"Is that any justification?"

No, it's just the way it is, and there hasn't been enough sustained public outrage to change it.

"Why not?"

Perhaps because that same public wants enough people to want to be LEOs to have an effective police force. They sure can't be doing it for the money, so maybe power, authority, and respect motivates them. Take those away, and you might just have to be figuring out how to maintain a semblance of law and order by yourself or with your neighbor down the street.

So nice chatting with you, and you're welcome for thanking me for saving us the time of actually exchanging these messages. :D

[Matthew Courtney]

What a turd DA. He doesn't have to prove the cop intended to hurt her, just that he intentionally pulled the knife while deliberately engaging her.

[ArmsAkimber]

Now it all clear to me! They're in it for the power and authority! (I think some are in it for the leather, too. :p )

Here in Ohio, several cop organizations have lobbied against CCW. They like us (non-cops) disarmed, and want to keep it that way. Up in Michigan, they have CCW. The cops can't disarm the people, but they can damn well take their fingers! :neener:

[Baba Louie]

So you're saying "If you can't dis-arm them, it's OK to dis-finger them?"

Oops. Lesson to be learned Baba Louie: "Never struggle with an officer who's hooking you up while holding a blade". Bad things can happen.

Heck, it could be my trigger finger.

Us vs. Them in Ohio. The Boys in Blue can't trust law-abiding citizens with concealed handguns, even tho' 33 other states say it's OK and it appears that very few LEO have been killed or injured by a CCW holder in those states. Or am I missing something?

Probably.

Adios

[Edward429451]

Prosecutor Michael Duggan said the injury wasn't intentional and cannot be considered an assault.

No suprise there. Reverse the situation and let the citizen accidently cut even a K-9, and she'd be buried in charges.:fire: :banghead:

[KMKeller]

Another shining example of justice served... NOT.:rolleyes:

[ArmsAkimber]

My post was made with tongue firmly in cheek. I wanted to see this goon nailed to the wall. Alas, it's not to be.

Given the depressing and outrageous circumstances, and the fact that I could get so ulcerated by like news my stomach wouldn't even make a passable haggis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=haggis), I thought it better to :neener: than to :banghead: for a moment.

Didn't mean to be taken seriously...that time.

mmmm....haggis.....

[Coronach]

I'm curious how the MI assault code is written. If it states that intent is required for it to be an assault, the DA is correct in not charging him...absent evidence of his intent to cause harm. Some places, however, have a lower standard for culpable mental state if the harm induced is 'serious,' and I would think that a lost finger would meet that criterion.

Now, he's still wide-open for departmental charges and the impending civil lawsuit. And if his actions were not in accordance with department policy, he personally will be wide open to the lawsuit.

Unless there is some really good reason for him doing what he did (and I cannot imagine what that may be), he's toast.

Mike

[Tamara]

Heh.

Charges of "Felonius Stupidity in the First Degree" are still pending, however... ;)

[Don Gwinn]

Interesting. I still tend to see a double standard here in the fact that they simply seem to be taking his word for the fact that he did not intend to harm her. I have to believe they'd at least have arrested me and tried to bring me to trial to prove I didn't intend harm when I took out a deadly weapon and applied it to the arm of my victim. Nobody trained or taught this goof to use a knife to cut open a resisting subject's sleeve, apparently, but we take it as gospel when he says that's what he was doing.

Besides, don't they at least have a reckless endangerment statute or something?

[Coronach]

Thats kinda why I'm wondering how the assault statue is written.

Mike

[DeltaElite]

Can any of you answer whether or not he violated the Michigan Criminal Code? Or are you just screaming "double standard" while adjusting your tin foil hats? ;)

I can't find an online source for the Michigan Criminal Code, that will work for me, so I can't read the statute to make an informed decision.
If someone can find that info, that would be great, then we could all make a decision based in facts.
I am for the "Felonius Stupidity in the First Degree", charge that Tamara suggested.



Look, there's Elvis and Bigfoot. heheh :neener:

[Jason Demond]

On Friday, attorney Geoffrey Fieger filed a $100 million lawsuit against the city and Johnson on behalf of Joni and William Gullas.
When I first read the story, I knew there would be a lawsuit. It comes as no surprise to me that, that liberal scumbag Feiger has his dirty fingers in this whole mess!
I really hate that guy!!:fire:

[hammer4nc]

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-82&highlight=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
excerpt:

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)


Act 328 of 1931

750.82 Felonious assault; violation of subsection (1) in weapon free school zone; definitions.
Sec. 82.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who assaults another person with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sections .83 through .89 describe assault with various intents...presumably more serious offenses. Link: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-328-1931-XI&highlight=

Doesn't quite seem to match the DA's opinion, eh?

[DeltaElite]

Thanks Hammer. :)

Not being a nit picker, but we need to look at the Michigan definition of assault and of a peace officers allowable use of force.

The statute you posted assumes that he intended to assault her.
He was performing official duties, albeit in the manner befitting a moron.
Cops are allowed to use force in an arrest, the law may be so poorly written that even though he acted recklessly, IMHO, he was not in violation of the law.

Remember it is a "Legal System", not a Justice System.

I personally think he should be charged with something, but if it doesn't fit statute, they can't charge him.
I think I could make an felony charge of "Endangerment" stick where I am, since it only requires recklessness and if his actions weren't reckless, than nothing is.

[DeltaElite]

FWIW, I don't see it as a double standard, I see it as technicalities, loopholes and poorly written laws allowing a idiot to walk free.
It's what I see everyday, just so happens that this time it is a "cop" involved instead of just an ordinary crook.
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Sarge]

"Here's an open invitation to all resident leo apologists to explain how this is anything BUT a blatant double standard. Eagerly waiting to be convinced."

Well, let me put it this way. There are some dumbasses in the biz. There aren't supposed to be now mind you, what with all the shift toward hiring highly-educated shining examples of PCness, and avoiding anyone who might be a dreaded "gun nut", etc.- but some slip through anyhow, and their departments and/or the local CJ system is supposed to have a system in place to deal with them when they do something this stupid. Apparently that system isn't working very well in the jurisdiction involved.

Like many others who have posted on this topic, I do not have a copy of the reports and pertinent statutes at my disposal; but intent is indeed a required element in almost every assault statute I am familiar with, except those which allow the substitution of criminal negligence instead of intent. Without seeing the reports etc., there is simply no way for any of us to say whether or not the officer's actions meet the required elements for the DA to file an assault charge in that jurisdiction. Since I can't say conclusively WHAT happened, I obviously can't say that his actions were justified either, or whether a 'double standard' has affected the outcome. If I were a member of that lady's family, I believe I would be making my presence known at the state AG and US attorney's office responsible for that jurisdiction.

As a long-time member of law enforcement, I can definitely say that I have had a few people resist arrest, I've had to hurt a couple, and a while a small number of those who have resisted been women, I've never had to cut anyone's finger off to get them handcuffed. The whole notion of using a 4" knife to cut way the clothing of a struggling suspect, in order to handcuff them, is so asinine that it boggles the mind. The idea is to gain control of the suspect so they can be handcuffed safely, and the methods employed do not seem to have brought about that outcome.

It is apparent from reading this string that many bad things have resulted from this act of criminal negligence and/or stupidity, not the least of which is that a number of you think that the remainder of us in law enforcement should make some ineffective attempt to explain this away, so you can prove what a bunch of sleazeballs we all are. I don't believe I'll play that game with you. I also will not apologize for the actions of someone I don't know, never met, didn't hire and was not in a position to terminate if and when they showed a propensity toward ridiculously bad judgement or the use of excessive force.

There are in fact mechanisms in place to deal with this sort of thing, if it is in fact what it has been made to appear. It sounds to me like the complainant's family is going to have to take it somewhere else to get it handled. There is such a thing as violating someone's civil rights under color of law, and these things are typically investigated by the feds and handled in federal court. The civil and criminal penalties are severe. We all had that beaten into out heads beginning on Day One at the academy.

Apparently someone wasn't paying attention.

[Matthew Courtney]

He was not acting in his official capacity. Plainclothes officers in unmarked units are not allowed to make traffic stops. He is a moron with a badge who is being allowed to hide behind it after attacking a woman with a knife.

[hammer4nc]

The statute you posted assumes that he intended to assault her.

I disagree. If you stipulate the assault with the knife occurred (self evident, no one has denied it...the finger's GONE), the various sections specify the penalties depending on the intent of the actor (i.e., sections .83 -.89); or EVEN WITH NO INTENT TO INFLICT HARM (section .82).

I might agree that legal use of force (i.e., use of asp or baton) that falls within training guidelines, and threat presented, would preclude charging a leo with assault. However, haven't the departmental spokesman (and leo's on this board, for that matter), said that no way, no how, is use of knife within permissable procedures, to aid in cuffing. He loses the "legal umbrella" when he chose that course of action.

Furthermore, the DA as much as admitted his decision to NOT charge the officer turned on the officer's lack of intent (not permissable use of force by leo). Directly at odds with section .82, as I read it. Perhaps a more enlightened attorney will chime in.

[DeltaElite]

Hello Matthew.
If he was making an arrest, then he was acting in an official capacity as a cop. I have police powers whether wearing a uniform or wearing my undercover outfit of a topless dancer. :eek:
Just where have you obtained the info that plainclothes cops in unmarked cars can't make stops?
They sure can in my state.

Good point Hammer, then the DA is to blame, so why not "hammer" him with mails and phone calls. ;)
We have no offensive knife training.
I am not trying to defend the guy, just offering perspective on how the "legal system" functions.
Gotta remember, even if this happened in my jurisdiction and he was charged, he would get probation and a slap on the wrist, just like most first time felons do. Heck, it might have been plead down to less than that.

[Matthew Courtney]

Plainclothes officers in Michigan are prohibited from making traffic stops. That varies from state to state. The officer was not making an arrest, he was attempting a kidknapping. He refused to allow the lady he had unlawfully stopped even see his LEO ID. You only have lawful authority when you follow the rules. When an LEO doesn't, he's just another thug.

[DeltaElite]

Matthew,
Plainclothes officers in Michigan are prohibited from making traffic stops by law or by dept rules? Do you have a reference for this information?

Even if not allowed to make a stop, it was in no way a kidnapping. Michigan law requires many things to meet their kidnapping statute, read it here.
Kidnapping in Michigan (http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-349&highlight=)

So are you suggesting that in the middle of a fight, a cop has to show his ID to the person they are attempting to arrest?
That's not practical in most instances. Many people who resist, claim that they didn't realize we were cops. :rolleyes:
She says they didn't ID themselves, they say they did. Who to believe? I dunno.

[TheeBadOne]

DE, apparently you don't recognize the game or know the rules. It hasn't changed from the playground, still called "Beat on the Brat", and the rules haven't changed. Just go with the flow and pound away... :neener:

[DeltaElite]

TBO,
I don't get alot of stuff. ;)
Just ask my wife. :( :evil:

[Matthew Courtney]

"Without lawful authority" says it all.

My source for the lack of authorization for a plainclothes officer to make a traffic stop was a media source and has not been verified by me. I do know that in my state such stops are illegal. If I am wrong about MI, then I apologize and if he showed her his ID and she resisted, it is her own fault.

When an LEO breaks the law in the course of a traffic stop or other interaction with a suspect or citizen, they cease to have the lawful authority of a sworn peace officer.

Whenever an undercover officer ID's himself as an LEO, he should have his ID in his hand, or otherwise plainly visable. If a suspect or citizen is not reasonably convinced that an ununiformed person is an LEO, what they are doing is not resisting, It is self -defense. The "I yelled out that I was the police" arguement is bogus. Anyone can yell that out. That is why departments have regs regarding what undercover cops can and cannot do, and regs which detail how what can be done is to be done.

The woman reqested to see an ID at the beginning of the interaction, before any physical contact took place. As she was never arrested, it seems she wasn't resisting or she would have been. And if he wasn't arresting her, what, besides kidnapping, might he have been doing to her?

[DeltaElite]

I agree, a plainclothes cop should have plenty of ID available. Much more so than a uniformed cop.
I must have missed the news account saying that plainclothes cops can't make stops in Michigan.
I guess the DA doesn't see the "without lawful authority" part or there are other laws or case law that clarifies that part in regards to kidnapping.
The whole thing is a mess, no doubt about it.

I apologize for busting on you, Matthew. That was not my intent.

I just don't believe the media account of anything.
I don't believe the account of the drunk who sees millions in her future or the cops who's careers hang in the balance, not to mention possible civil and criminal charges.

We will never know the truth, but we do know that even without criminal charges being filed, the cops in that situation are screwed and that will serve to keep others from acting in such a manner in the future. I hope.

[Matthew Courtney]

I usually don't put a lot of stock in the media either. In this case, much of what I gave credibility to came directly from police reports or was quotes from LEO's involved.

Hopefully, this incident will give rise to training aimed at preventing such miscommunications in the future.

The case law is well settled at the federal level that once an LEO violates federal law, state law, or departmental policy he is no longer acting with the authority of a peace officer.

[Tim Burke]

DeltaElite writes:Even if not allowed to make a stop, it was in no way a kidnapping.The statute you cited reads:Confining person against will, etc.—Any person who wilfully, maliciously and without lawful authority shall forcibly or secretly confine or imprison any other person within this state against his will...shall be guilty of a felonyNow, clearly this was willful. You have conceded above that, for the purpose of argument, it was without lawful authority. He admits that he was trying to forcibly confine her. Your answer to the claim that it was an attempted kidnapping is that it doesn't meet the statute for kidnapping. Is that because you don't think it was malicious? Or because he was unsuccessful?
If someone pulls a knife, and cuts someone else's finger off, I think I'd let the jury decide whether or not it was malicious, rather than take the knife wielder's word.

[Spark]

This guy severed a woman's finger with a Delica / Endura? He was willfully negligent to say the least - criminally so.


Kevin