Judge finds Dante Servin not guilty

For those unfamiliar with the case back in 2012:

In March 2012, 22-year-old Rekia Boyd was walking to a store with three friends near Douglas Park. Prosecutors said that Servin, who was off-duty, was upset over the noise and told the group to quiet down. After exchanging words, Servin fired five shots over his shoulder while sitting in his car. Boyd was hit in the head from behind and killed, her boyfriend, Antonio Cross, was hit in the thumb. The group of four had their backs turned to Servin in an alley.

Servin was charged with reckless conduct and reckless discharge of a firearm.

Servin's defense said he feared for his life, and claimed to see Cross pull a gun from his waistband and point it at him, he then fired in self-defense. A gun was never recovered.

So no gun was ever found, and this man, this off duty police officer, approached the group himself, armed, and asked them to quiet down? But his life was threatened? How does this make sense?

Judge Dennis Porter says according to Illinois law, acting recklessly is required to prove involuntary manslaughter. Porter says Dante Servin's actions were beyond reckless, they were intentional - meaning murder is the appropriate charge. Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez disagrees.

Protesters are outraged over Judge Dennis Porter's decision to abruptly end Dante Servin's bench trial by finding the officer not guilty in Boyd's shooting death.

"The evidence presented in this case does not support the charges on which the defendant was indicted and tried," Judge Porter said.

Judge Porter says Servin's act was beyond reckless, it was intentional. The judge says the crime, if any, should be first degree murder.

"His analysis is wrong because the Illinois Supreme Court has consistently held that you can perform an intentional act recklessly," Alvarez said.

abc7chicago.com...

So the judge agrees what this man did was reckless, well, beyond reckless. But because he was only charged for involuntary manslaughter there's not enough to find him guilty? The judge says he should have been charged for first degree murder?? Because he didn't get a heavier charge, he gets let off? Unbelievable. I refuse to believe this judges excuses.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Unless there is a video, the officer's word is all the weight needed to rule for "justified".

I assume he is getting back-pay?

Does that equate to: Too guilty to be convicted?

While the outcome isn't desirable I think the judge was calling prosecutors on a BS charge and trial. I think that's supported by his statement that "the crime, if there be any, is first degree murder."

The cop's actions far exceed any "reckless" act because he intentionally pointed his weapon and discharged it at a group of people. Whether he intended to kill the person he killed or not doesn't matter. His act was intentional.

The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Does that equate to: Too guilty to be convicted?

No, one step closer to having the SS on our streets under another name. All federalized for the good of everybody.

IIRC the family got like 4 mil in a wrongful death suit, pretty sure that had a lot to do with this.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

sick.

Its so absurd to even take it to court. What did anyone expect? An American LEO behind bars? HA HA.

Yes and my dog will learn to change diapers and do the dishes.

Please, why even go to court? Its the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

dumb.

It took over three years, and now he's not guilty?


If I fired into a crowd in march of 2012, and survived being arrested, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life before june of 2012.

Why are the police above the law? I don't get it. This isn't a sustainable practice.

It's why people riot. and more to come, no worries though they are training the military how to view you as an enemy/aggitator/terrorist/in the way.

a reply to: tadaman

Brother, this is why it is unwise to become entwined with Law Enforcement for any reason whatsoever.

We're just societal serfs. When one has no standing in their community, and the outcome of events are fluid, you take what is delivered. If you're dead ... you wind up with no voice in a court of law.

These individual incidents remian somewhat anecdotal. The bigger picture is harder to deny.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

O'course, it doesn't hurt that now the cop can't be retried.

So the judge gets to chastise the DA AND appease FOP.

Nice bank shot.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

O'course, it doesn't hurt that now the cop can't be retried.

So the judge gets to chastise the DA AND appease FOP.

Nice bank shot.

I can't see it any other way.

Win for the courts. Win for LE.

Lose for the thugs. Lose for the taxpayer.

Balance achieved!!

This guy is clearly a psychopath to be able to fire a weapon into a group of people with their backs turned....far out and he is let off after a massive payout to the family of the deceased......

The family should be using that money to expose the guy and the judge for this but i bet they will just live it up and turn a blind eye as that is what would have been contracted as part of the deal....

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well there is some method to the madness....

By letting him off on the manslaughter charge, double jeopardy is attached, so he can not be tried again on the same charge. He can however be charged with murder and tried again on the new charge.

I see this as a shrewd move by the Judge. What he has basically done is dropped this case on the lap of the D.A. By giving his opinion that the charge was not correct, and leaving the door open for a new charge to be brought before him- the only way this Officer "gets off" is if the D.A. refuses to do his job.

In my opinion we need more Judges like this. He is not going along to get along. In all actuality he is putting the pressure on the District Attorney's Office to do the right thing.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yep. A craptastic result all around. Some kind of conviction would've been better than nothing.

Still, somewhat nice to see a prosecutor thrown under the bus. Other articles about it are saying the prosecutor's office is "enraged" with the judge.

Good. Nobody likes their dirty laundry aired, much less pointed out.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

O'course, it doesn't hurt that now the cop can't be retried.

So the judge gets to chastise the DA AND appease FOP.

Nice bank shot.

And this is a good example of how people do not understand our legal system.

The Cop CAN be tried again- he CAN NOT be tried for manslaughter again.

originally posted by: MrWendal

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

O'course, it doesn't hurt that now the cop can't be retried.

So the judge gets to chastise the DA AND appease FOP.

Nice bank shot.

And this is a good example of how people do not understand our legal system.

The Cop CAN be tried again- he CAN NOT be tried for manslaughter again.

What? LOL

You got any examples of that in case law?

a reply to: MrWendal

Wouldn't double jeopardy apply if it's the same incident/crime? new definition of said crime notwithstanding.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: MrWendal

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

O'course, it doesn't hurt that now the cop can't be retried.

So the judge gets to chastise the DA AND appease FOP.

Nice bank shot.

And this is a good example of how people do not understand our legal system.

The Cop CAN be tried again- he CAN NOT be tried for manslaughter again.

What? LOL

You got any examples of that in case law?

Double jeopardy.
If a judge says you're not guilty of charge X incident Y, you cannot be charged for that incident/crime again.
But you can be charged for something else- there's got to be about a thousand laws this asshat broke by open firing into a crowd.

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: MrWendal

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The acquittal is disgusting, but I truly think this judge was calling the prosecutor's office out for giving a soft charge to this cop.

O'course, it doesn't hurt that now the cop can't be retried.

So the judge gets to chastise the DA AND appease FOP.

Nice bank shot.

And this is a good example of how people do not understand our legal system.

The Cop CAN be tried again- he CAN NOT be tried for manslaughter again.

What? LOL

You got any examples of that in case law?

Double jeopardy.
If a judge says you're not guilty of charge X incident Y, you cannot be charged for that incident/crime again.
But you can be charged for something else- there's got to be about a thousand laws this asshat broke by open firing into a crowd.

I agree. After the 'Not Guilty' verdict it is incredibly doubtful this cop's gonna see the inside of a criminal court on any matter related to the discharge of his firearm in that incident. Had the judge dismissed the charges procedurally, instead of declaring him not guilty, there'd be a little more rope to tug on.

Looks like somebody wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Sour grapes if you ask me. They took the money not me.