Cop Anthony Abbate Gets Probation, No Jail, For Beating Female Bartender

[meegbear]

Source: HuffingtonPost.com

An off-duty Chicago police officer convicted of pummeling a female bartender half his size has been sentenced to two years probation and anger management classes.

Cook County Circuit Judge John Fleming sentenced Anthony Abbate (ah-BAHT'-ee) on Tuesday. He also imposed a home curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and ordered Abbate to perform 130 hours of community service.

Prosecutors had asked for a prison term. But Fleming said he didn't see any aggravating factors to justify that. Earlier this month Fleming found Abbate guilty of aggravated battery for the February 2007 attack.

The bar's security camera captured a drunken, 250-pound Abbate punching and kicking the 125-pound woman. The footage circulated widely on TV and the Web.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/ex-cop-anthony-abbate-get_n_219651.html

---

You can click the link to see the video of what he did to her.

[Lars39]

1. Good grief.

:grr:

[Occulus]

18. Anyone else notice how cop apologists never ever ever post on these threads? n/t

[Ignis]

22. *raises hand*

But if they did appear, you know they'd just spout the usual "few bad apples" crap.

[Occulus]

26. On that note, where the fuck is paulsby?

I figured he would have chimed in with that by now.

[paulsby]

32. i can find bad examples in any group

so what's the point of "chiming in"?

he committed a crime.

[Skittles]

39. WTF is a cop apologist?

someone who fails to see all cops as all evil all the time?

[Ignis]

45. Yes, that's exactly it.

Or possibly--just possibly--it's someone who believe that cops are above the law.

[bushmeister0]

2. No aggravating factors to justify prison?

They send people to jail for an ounce of pot, yet, beating a woman to a pulp is A-OK? Yeah, we got your justice right here. And we're talking about the legitimacy of the Iranian regime? Look a little closer to home people.

[KamaAina]

3. And he's not even rich.

:eyes:

[Soylent Brice]

4. the badge. it's all about the badge.

he's in "the club"

[dysfunctional press]

11. he's not in the club anymore.

he's in the process of being terminated.

[atreides1]

5. No He's Not

He's a cop, and that's all that's required. Now if he had beaten her to death, then the judge would have felt compelled to at least lock him up for 30 days.

[Raster]

6. Scumsucking pig!

He should have been given jail time.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

7. Unbelievable

The video of this is disgusting, yet another Chicago cop gets off. Typical

[elway7]

8. What's with those cowards just standing by watching him beat a woman.

They should have all gone to jail.

[KansDem]

19. It looks like the guy on the left is calling on a cell phone...

About the 1 minute mark. Calling for help?

Personally, I'd gone over the bar and laid into the f*cker. I'm 6' and about 225 lbs., so I'm not sure if I'd come out on top, but I would have tried my best!

I used to tend bar and I had my share of difficult customers, but nothing like this...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. And you would have gone to jail if they could identify you. You can not touch even an off duty cop

in places like Chicago and the northeast. BTDT and ran like hell once I dropped the asshat.

[The Stranger]

24. If they can identify you, take the video to the grand jury.

They'd no bill you faster than you can sing "Chicago, My Kind of Town."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. You are assuming such a good Samaritan would survive being arrested and lockup

[Occulus]

25. I would have shot the bastard

or broken a beer bottle over his head, and then curbstomped him.

I would have done it, and plead not guilty, and demanded a jury trial, and requested an ROR in the interim.

Fucker is lucky someone didn't kill him. I hope the people in the area know his name and where he lives and everything about the case, and I'm perfectly willing to let them know if they don't already. This bastard deserves to have a target on his back.

[KansDem]

47. Would I be in trouble even if the off-duty cop didn't ID himself?

I mean, how would I know he was an off-duty cop if he didn't identify himself? Just curious.

And in this case, I'd have my case tried in the "court of public opinion" :D

[Odin2005]

30. The same kind of people who make jokes about rape at a bar right by my friend who is a rape survivor

:puke:

[downindixie]

9. This was a heinous crime committed by a drunken cop and

a stupid fucking judge who couldn't see any aggravating circumstances. This is an injustice to women everywhere and encourages abuse of women. I hope the woman sues the hell out of him,so he will never own a thing. Women's groups should get involved in this and demand the judge be removed from the bench.

[sasquatch]

10. Wow, I wonder how many death threats the judge got before he ruled

[fascisthunter]

12. "250-pound Abbate punching and kicking the 125-pound woman"

and he's supposed to be serving and protecting all tax payers.

[noiretextatique]

13. civil suit

i hope the victim of the heinous crimes sues this dangerous lunatic.

[tom_paine]

14. Just another day in the Empire...

"You're either cop or your little people."
--Blade Runner

Police Brutality is skyrocketing in the ONLY aspect of "trickle down" that works. Tyranny.

[defendandprotect]

15. Isn't beating a woman an "aggravating factor" . . .??? "Punching and Kicking" !!!!

Oh, gee . . . she pushed him when he came behind the bar!!!

Is this criminal continuing on the police force?

[paulsby]

33. it's not an aggravating factor

to beat a woman

are you suggesting that women as victims of assault should get special treatment vs. men?

the law should treat the genders equally.

i'm surprised you are suggesting the law should institutionalize sexism.

[defendandprotect]

38. No, I think it should ban police officers assaulting women while off duty . . .

and that goes for men, as well --

[paulsby]

53. yer doin' it wrong

it bans ANY person from assaulting any other person.

that applies to off duty police officers, and off duty shepherds.

it's called assault, or in some jurisdictions, assault and battery.

what IS clear, is that a man attacking a woman is not an AGGRAVATED assault merely because of the gender of the victim.

gender equality means just that.

if the people involved are in a domestic relationship (live together, children in common, related within the bounds of consanguinity, etc. and varies by jurisdiction), then an assault becomes a domestic violence assault.

however...

that's gender neutral.

no law should make an assault on a woman an aggravated assault. that institutionalizes sexism.

the judge CAN take size/physical capability disparity into account during sentencing fwiw. that's also gender neutral.

my wife is a kickboxer. she can kick a lot fo guys azzes. gender should not be an aggravating factor.

[defendandprotect]

57. CAN take size/physical capability disparity into account during sentencing fwiw. that's also gender

Agree -- and applies in this case.

Too bad you're wife didn't get to kick this guy's AZZ . .

but, oops! her legs are probably lethal weapons and she'd be accused

of "aggravated assault" . . !!

[paulsby]

59. no, it's not

the AVERAGE woman is smaller and physically less capable than the average man.

it doesn't follow that a man attacking a woman is an aggravated assault

grok the difference?

if the bartender had been a 100 lb male it would just as much a MISDEMEANOR assault.

not to mention that attacking somebdoy smaller and less physically capable is not the definition of aggravated assault.

you also apparently believe the myth that martial artists are registered as "lethal weapons" which is a silly urban myth from people who watch too much teevee.

there is no such thing.

furthermore, what the judge can consider during sentencing is ENTIRELY different than what is presented at trial.

i want to live in a society where men and women are treated equally under the penal code.

you, apparently do not.

pretty sad.

fwiw, as one example, a judge can take into account illegally obtained evidence during sentencing (yes, it's true).

what a judge can consider during sentencing is disparate from many issues at trial

rule of law matters. for people like you who want the law to create first class and second class citizens, not so much

[defendandprotect]

70. When males use violence, they will of course succeed -- as we've seen from

the overturn of females by patriarchy.

Violence cannot be equated with "right" --

We've also seen the severe damage done to our society by right wing political violence.

I think the first decision to be made is that when male violence succeeds we all lose.

I want to live in a society where men and women are treated equally under the penal code.

You know what they say -- when women are "equal" they are superior!

Human beings are equal in their rights -- however, males and females differ in their abilities -

none less, none more. For instance, pregnancy is a "creative disability."

The Hollywood coupling has given us males who are larger than females -- contrary to reports of

times ago when males and females were the same size.

This makes males more capable of settling issues through violence rather than thru debate, common

sense, negotiation and use of intelligence.

What we should all be seeking is justice -- and what happened in this case was unjust and requires

a greater penalty than what has been applied.

That's about all the time I have for this --

Bye --

[paulsby]

71. we can disagree

i support rule of law.

if you can demonstrate that this offender received an especially light sentence given the offense, then provide the evidence.

i KNOW in my jurisdiction, that's exactly what people routinely get for misdemeanor assault first offense.

justice matters

[defendandprotect]

74. In fact, part of my message was cut off . . ..

it was a PS which said that I've now noted the username . . .

synonymous with "gum stuck to one's shoe" . . .

We haven't reached the stage of "ignore" as yet -- but you're very close.

ta-ta

[paulsby]

76. i have yet to see

evidence that his sentence was not a routine one.

thus, my point stands.

[defendandprotect]

72. When males use violence, they will of course succeed -- as we've seen from

the overturning of females by patriarchy. Patriarchy has kept its power only thru violence.

Violence is not equal to justice -- might does not make right.

We've also seen the severe damage done to our society by right wing political violence.

I think the first decision to be made is that when male violence succeeds we all lose.

I want to live in a society where men and women are treated equally under the penal code.

You know what they say -- when women are "equal" they are superior!

Human beings are equal in their rights -- however, males and females differ in their abilities -

none less, none more. For instance, pregnancy is a "creative disability."

The Hollywood coupling has given us males who are larger than females -- contrary to reports of

times ago when males and females were the same size.

This makes males more capable of settling issues through violence rather than thru debate, common

sense, negotiation and use of intelligence.

What we should all be seeking is justice -- and what happened in this case was unjust and requires

a greater penalty than what has been applied.

That's about all the time I have for this --

Bye --

PS: And, rarely do I look at the usernames of those I'm responding too -- however your

name is synonymous now with more of "gum stuck on the shoe" than debate.

Though not yet qualifying for "ignore."

ta-ta

[Deadric Damodred]

60. The law does take size into account.

There's a little thing in the law called "disparity of force". Basically it means that a victim can shoot (or whatever means of weapon they have availible) and kill an unarmed attacker or attackers because of 1) the attacker is unarmed, but they are much bigger and stronger than you, which puts you at a severe disadvantage 2) the attacker is unarmed but they have martial arts and/or military training, which puts you at a severe disadvantage 3) there are many attackers, which puts you at a severe disadvantage.

Do you remember that story out of florida where 6 teenage girls lured another girl into a home and then videotaped (and put on youtube) kicking the crap out of her? If that girl had known the law, she could have, during the actual attack, grabbed a knife or some other weapon and started killing her attackers without worry of prosecution specifically because she was outnumbered; which fits the guidelines of "disparity of force"....and all she would have had to do was stop as soon as they started running away, since it's no longer self-defense when you start chasing down your attacker (s).

[paulsby]

62. nobody i know disagrees with this

i've testified in scores of trials involving assault, etc.

my point isn't the size cannot be taken into account.

my opposition was to the NUMEROUS posters who kept emphasizing the fact that the victim was a WOMAN as a factor that should make it an AGGRAVATED assault and as justification for harsher PENALTY.

that is just plain wrong.

gender equality means you do not treat people differently on account of gender.

if he had beaten a 100 lb male bartender, the offense would be equally egregious under the law.

[Deadric Damodred]

63. Ok, but let's make sure then that you aren't a hypocrite.

You just said "my opposition was to the NUMEROUS posters who kept emphasizing the fact that the victim was a WOMAN as a factor that should make it an AGGRAVATED assault and as justification for harsher PENALTY.

that is just plain wrong. gender equality means you do not treat people differently on account of gender."

You can not be for that, but then be for adding years to a white person's sentence just because their victim was someone of color, without being a hypocrite. After all, that just sends a message that minorites are different. Equality means you do not treat people, even criminals differently, regardless of their victims. So if you stand by your statement, and you are against so-called "hate crimes", then that's your opinion and I respect it.

[paulsby]

64. two points

1) i am against hate crimes legislation
2) but it's not analogous. a hate crime gets additional penalty based on the INTENT. iow, it's not that a white person gets a harsher sentence because the victim is black. it's that he gets a harsher sentence because he victimized the person BECAUSE he was black.

this case is disanalogous. there is NO evidence he assaulted her BECAUSE she was a woman. even if the victim was a gay black woman, it's only a hate crime IF the MOTIVATION FOR THE CRIME WAS BASED ON BIAS.

so, while i disagree with hate crimes legislation,this is not analogous.

if a white guy beats up a black guy (or vice versa) but the MOTIVATION did not have racial factor, then it's not a hate crime. hate crime is not identified by the class (race, orientation, etc.) of the victim. it is based on the MOTIVATION being towards that victim, as a member of the class.

also note that hate crimes are (theoretically) gender, race, etc. NEUTRAL.

nobody here would be screaming "she attacked a MAN. it's AGGRAVATED" if a female off duty cop assaulted a male bartender.

they are setting up a two tier system, where ONE gender (woman) is the only one that gets a special victim status.

[Deadric Damodred]

68. I disagree...

...because they are adding extra time to someone's sentence based on what they THINK the person's intentions were. When a white person victimizes a black person, as soon as the blacks say racism, then it's done and over with, it's considered a hate crime, and those hate crime charges will never ever get dropped. It's almost an immediate, given, charge if the white person's victim is black. And the worst thing about the charge, is the criminal can not prove they were not thinking hate crime when they victimized the black. They can't prove that wasn't their intention, so the charges stick.

[paulsby]

69. actually, no

fwiw, i agree with you there are politics involved in hate crimes cases. fwiw, there is also a lot of politics involved in DV cases.

it is probably true that prosecutors may be more likely to charge a hate crime, with thin evidence when the victim is "sympathetic" and of the RIGHT class.

but let's get real.

you have it backwards. the defense does NOT have to prove it wasn't a hate crime. the burden of evidence is on the prosecution to prove it, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

look at one case, for example. duke rape case (a false claim of rape, but an instructive one). even in that case, with the primary actors all being white (and so called privileged, etc. rich etc. ) and the victim (alleged, but not actually) being a struggling black sex worker single mother, they didn't charge it a hate crime.

there HAS to be evidence of racial animus and that it was a significant motivator in the case.

i have investigated SCORES of black on white, white on black, hispanic on black, black on asian etc. crimes and only a very tiny percentage are charged as hate crimes.

to state that it's almost an "immediate given" is simply absurd. like i said, i have personally investigated tons of counterexamples, and seen scores more in court or followup investigation.

i agree with you that hate crimes legislation is misguided, despite the fact that i personally have been a victim.

however, it is false that it is just a given when the victim is black and the offender white. that's not even remotely accurate.

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. Tells us a bit about the value of women.

Of course that's just my opinion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. I don't think it makes a difference in this case

Though if it had been a man, their might not have been as much outrage. The kicker was the color blue.

[paulsby]

73. under the law

the value of women is EQUAL to the value of men.

thus, you are correct. it should not matter LEGALLY.

i have no problem with people who feel more moral outrage, cause that's not a legal issue. except it's extremely hypocritical when so called liberals, who are supposed to believe in equality, clearly don't. they think women are special and a woman being victimized is WORSE than a man being victimized. that's a double standard and by definition sexist.

but as long as it doesn't extend into the legal realm, iow how our govt. treats people, people have every right to be sexist imo.

[kimmylavin]

17. Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?

No aggravating factors?

He came behind the bar, and then beat her to a pulp!
(BTW, the brave men standing by should be very proud...)
And he justifies this by saying that she pushed him when he came behind the bar?

WHAT THE FUCK???
The cop should be in prison, and the judge may need a refresher course on justice...

[jberryhill]

35. This is the list of "aggravating factors" in the IL battery statute

Okay, which one of the aggravating factors in the statute was present here:

(b) In committing a battery, a person commits aggravated battery if he or she:

(1) Uses a deadly weapon other than by the discharge
of a firearm;

(2) Is hooded, robed or masked, in such manner as to

conceal his identity;

(3) Knows the individual harmed to be a teacher or

other person employed in any school and such teacher or other employee is upon the grounds of a school or grounds adjacent thereto, or is in any part of a building used for school purposes;
(4) (Blank);
(5) (Blank);

(6) Knows the individual harmed to be a community

policing volunteer while such volunteer is engaged in the execution of any official duties, or to prevent the volunteer from performing official duties, or in retaliation for the volunteer performing official duties, and the battery is committed other than by the discharge of a firearm;

(7) Knows the individual harmed to be an emergency

medical technician ‑ ambulance, emergency medical technician ‑ intermediate, emergency medical technician ‑ paramedic, ambulance driver, other medical assistance, first aid personnel, or hospital personnel engaged in the performance of any of his or her official duties, or to prevent the emergency medical technician ‑ ambulance, emergency medical technician ‑ intermediate, emergency medical technician ‑ paramedic, ambulance driver, other medical assistance, first aid personnel, or hospital personnel from performing official duties, or in retaliation for performing official duties;

(8) Is, or the person battered is, on or about a

public way, public property or public place of accommodation or amusement;

(8.5) Is, or the person battered is, on a publicly or

privately owned sports or entertainment arena, stadium, community or convention hall, special event center, amusement facility, or a special event center in a public park during any 24‑hour period when a professional sporting event, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)‑sanctioned sporting event, United States Olympic Committee‑sanctioned sporting event, or International Olympic Committee‑sanctioned sporting event is taking place in this venue;

(9) Knows the individual harmed to be the driver,

operator, employee or passenger of any transportation facility or system engaged in the business of transportation of the public for hire and the individual assaulted is then performing in such capacity or then using such public transportation as a passenger or using any area of any description designated by the transportation facility or system as a vehicle boarding, departure, or transfer location;

(10) Knows the individual harmed to be an individual

of 60 years of age or older;

(11) Knows the individual harmed is pregnant;

(12) Knows the individual harmed to be a judge whom

the person intended to harm as a result of the judge's performance of his or her official duties as a judge;
(13) (Blank);

(14) Knows the individual harmed to be a person who

is physically handicapped;

(15) Knowingly and without legal justification and

by any means causes bodily harm to a merchant who detains the person for an alleged commission of retail theft under Section 16A‑5 of this Code. In this item (15), "merchant" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 16A‑2.4 of this Code;

(16) Is, or the person battered is, in any building

or other structure used to provide shelter or other services to victims or to the dependent children of victims of domestic violence pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 or the Domestic Violence Shelters Act, or the person battered is within 500 feet of such a building or other structure while going to or from such a building or other structure. "Domestic violence" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. "Building or other structure used to provide shelter" has the meaning ascribed to "shelter" in Section 1 of the Domestic Violence Shelters Act;
(17) (Blank);

(18) Knows the individual harmed to be an officer or

employee of the State of Illinois, a unit of local government, or school district engaged in the performance of his or her authorized duties as such officer or employee;

(19) Knows the individual harmed to be an emergency

management worker engaged in the performance of any of his or her official duties, or to prevent the emergency management worker from performing official duties, or in retaliation for the emergency management worker performing official duties;

(20) Knows the individual harmed to be a private

security officer engaged in the performance of any of his or her official duties, or to prevent the private security officer from performing official duties, or in retaliation for the private security officer performing official duties; or

(21) Knows the individual harmed to be a taxi driver

and the battery is committed while the taxi driver is on duty; or

(22) Knows the individual harmed to be a utility

worker, while the utility worker is engaged in the execution of his or her duties, or to prevent the utility worker from performing his or her duties, or in retaliation for the utility worker performing his or her duties. In this paragraph (22), "utility worker" means a person employed by a public utility as defined in Section 3‑105 of the Public Utilities Act and also includes an employee of a municipally owned utility, an employee of a cable television company, an employee of an electric cooperative as defined in Section 3‑119 of the Public Utilities Act, an independent contractor or an employee of an independent contractor working on behalf of a cable television company, public utility, municipally owned utility, or an electric cooperative, or an employee of a telecommunications carrier as defined in Section 13‑202 of the Public Utilities Act, an independent contractor or an employee of an independent contractor working on behalf of a telecommunications carrier, or an employee of a telephone or telecommunications cooperative as defined in Section 13‑212 of the Public Utilities Act, or an independent contractor or an employee of an independent contractor working on behalf of a telephone or telecommunications cooperative.

[kimmylavin]

37. Congratulations.

Go watch that video again, and think about what you're trying to defend.

And I think a case could be made for either 1, 15, or 21, if a comparison between the job of a taxi driver and the job of a bartender could be made.

[jberryhill]

43. What TF do you think I am "defending"

The question is why did the jury not find one of the "aggravating factors" under Illinois law.

I was responding to a comment about why the jury didn't find any of the "aggravating factors". The point is that the phrase is not some broadly subjective thing. The "aggravating factors" are listed in the law in question.

I haven't watched the video, since I don't get off on violence porn like some here. So, since you have seen it, perhaps you might point out which of the aggravating factors was present.

[Deadric Damodred]

61. "violence porn"?

You mean the evidence of the crooked cop beating his victim? I suppose if it had been an everyday citizen..let's say a random white person beating up a black female bartender... then it would no longer classify as "violence porn" to you, but would then be something vicious and horrible. I'd bet money that says you also come from the point-of-view that only cops should have guns.

[pipoman]

42. Really, an additional

aggravating factor should be 'If the person doing an unjustified beating is a police officer or other law enforcement officer'...Police officers who are trained to fight by the state should be held to a higher standard and punished more severely if they use their training while committing a criminal act.

[jberryhill]

44. That would be a good idea /nt

[Devil_Fish]

51. #8 applies:

(8) Is, or the person battered is, on or about a

public way, public property or public place of accommodation or amusement;

A bar qualifies as a "public place of accommodation or amusement"

[crim son]

23. Jesus Christ.

The fucking pig. Anger management classes? What a joke.

Goddamn, this story is depressing.

[wroberts189]

27. In other news man with cancer caught smoking pot gets 5 years mandatory prison sentence. nt

[paulsby]

34. cite please

[wroberts189]

41. I was just making a joint.. whoops I meant point.

There is no such case I can cite but such cases have been common in the decades old "drug war"

Take a look:

Here is a woman who died in jail for possession from Rawstory ..this article is from TODAY:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/23/houston-police-mum-on-marijuana-prisoners-death/

Here you can find the many states with mandatory minimums for possession ..cancer or not:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

on edit:

They sent Tommy Chong to jail for selling bongs online... this big fat 250 pound bully pummels a 125 pound WOMAN and walks.

[paulsby]

55. i love the way SUPPOSED liberals

keep emphasizing her gender.

it's incredibly revealing.

as to the first point. people do not get 5 yrs in jail for possessing a joint, unless there are incredibly aggravating prior offenses, etc. and even in those cases, i doubt it.

i have been a cop for 20 yrs and researched hundreds of sentencing decisions.

i am 100% against the drug war, but false hyperbolic comments like this just demean the cause to end the drug war.

i am well aware of the chong case. but he didn't possess a joint. it's not relevant.

the average person caught with a joint, IF the cop even bothers with making a case (which many don't. they simply toss the joint), gets a fine.

regardless, back to the instant case.

he assaulted a person. whether that person was a woman does not aggravate the crime. are you claiming that women should have special status under the law? iow, assault a man, that's minor. assault a woman, that's major? that's not the way gender equality works.

fwiw, based on what i saw, that appeared to be a clearly criminal assault.

in my jurisdiction, he would have been convicted of Assault IV. a gross misdemeanor. and i can tell you from experience in scores of cases, that a first time offender, assault IV, gets PROBATION not jail.

iow, "walking" is par for the course for misdemeanor assault with no priors.

i see no evidence of special treatment, based on that.

fwiw, i just recently booked a woman for felony threats (Harassment Felony), felony vandalism (Mal Mischief I), and Attempted Escape from custody.

should the fact that she is a woman and she committed the offenses against a man have any relevance?

of course NOT

[Odin2005]

29. That is fucked up!

:grr:

[zonkers]

31. I can only imagine the hundreds of people this asswipe has bullied. Jeez.

[subcomhd]

36. No Kidding

What are the odds what he did was completely out of character? I saw the video a couple of weeks ago and I find it shocking this guy didn' get some real time for it. Maybe that is how things work in Chicago. We have some real police problems here is Texas - but I can't imagine any Texas judge of any party giving the guy probation and expecting to get reelected. If the bartender had been a young black man, maybe. But beating up a woman like that would have gotten the book thrown at him here.

[zonkers]

49. I hope she files a civil suit. I am sure she will.

[subcomhd]

56. Problem Is

I doubt the city has liability. Just the cop, and he doesn't have any money. I hope she gets whatever he has, but I'm guessing he's broke at this point.

[harry_pothead]

40. Fucking cops

If it was anyone else they would get 10 years. Unbelievable.

[superduperfarleft]

46. Geez, think how much community service the poor guy would have been subjected to if he killed her!

Good thing he only beat her up!

:sarcasm:

Fucking pigs and pig-apologists...

[BreweryYardRat]

48. Gross abuse of the authority the citizens have vested in him.

And people wonder why I'm in favor of executing cops who do shit like this.

The "few bad apples" argument is true -- most cops are relatively decent people -- but what do you do when you have an apple that's a rotten, worm-filled mess?

You throw it away.

[Zhade]

50. Awesome. Another dirty cop goes free. And people wonder why I distrust cops.

The badge doesn't tell you if the one behind it is an inhuman scumfucker like this animal, or a decent honest cop (assuming those aren't a myth like Santa Claus and Jesus).

[Tzimisce]

52. I guess...

...I'm a "pig apologist". Even though I'm the first to say cops should be held to a higher standard, and that's how it's done at the agency in my city. If an officer breaks the law, they're done. Just recently we had two officers in violation of the law. They're both gone. They're both in prison, and good riddance to them. The higher-ups in my city's agency recognize that LEOs, in order to be effective and reliable to the community, must adhere to a higher standard of behavior. In my city's agency, a credible (and that is an important word) allegation of excessive force is investigated by a board of inquiry including personnel from internal affairs AND members of the community.

The number of people on DU who automatically assume all cops are psychopaths disheartens me a little. Virtually every cop I've met and associated with personally does the job because they want to protect and serve their community, and shockingly enough, they'd like to make an honest living doing so. I agree that cops should be held to a higher standard, as I stated above. However, tarring them all with the same brush as "pigs" is just as prejudicial and wrong as it is when a racist stereotypes a black man, or any other minority or ethnicity/religion for that matter.

Case in point, teachers who sexually prey on their students. I've yet to see a thread condemning all teachers as pedophiles because a few of them prey on minors. You just don't see it. Why is that, I wonder? It's just as much an abuse of authority, is it not? If anyone, on a thread discussing such a thing, chimed in with "all teachers are pedophile scumbags and I hate them", people would immediately flame that poster to a lump of carbon. Yet open season on cops is perfectly acceptable. It's a double-standard I find a little offensive, to be honest.

If a cop commits a crime, throw the book at them and put them behind bars to the maximum extent the law allows. They abused the trust placed in them as defenders of the public, and that trust is not easily given nor is it easily repaired. As someone who associates with police officers constantly, and someone who aspires to go to the academy and become an officer, that's my opinion. If that makes me a "pig apologist", then flame away. Just remember how much you hate cops next time someone is trying to break into your home in the middle of the night, and you need someone to come help you. Try to be a little more charitable to the folks who risk their safety to protect you. Is that so hard?

[JayMusgrove]

54. This SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! What if he were NOT a cop?

He'd be in jail for 40 years.

Yeah, fuck this cop privilege for cops, politicians, and lawyers, and people that have fame. Every one judged by the same standards......Michael J got OUT of prison because of his fame remember Michael J said "I will be dead by the age of 40".........

[Nevernose]

58. A plain citizen would get probation, but a cop should get a harsher sentence.

It's a violation of the public trust.

The reason first time offenders usually get probation and "counseling" is that, besides the fact that prisons are overcrowded, first-time offenders rarely re-offend. But a cop is different. Even off-duty, there's an issue of public trust. I think child molesting teachers should get a harsher penalty, too.

[Dorian Gray]

65. This makes me so angry

just as the Chris Brown "sentence" made me angry.

Definitely should serve time.

[lonestarnot]

66. Stupid fucker!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. IOKIYAC.

:mad:

[JuliantheApostate]

75. What a fucking miscarriage of justice

This piece of shit should be locked up. It's to bad no one in the bar had the stones to break a bottle over his thick head, that would have calmed his ass down real quick.