Judge declares hung jury in videotaped beating case Second officer not guilty of false report charge Tuesday, July 29, 2003 Posted: 5:50 PM EDT (2150 GMT) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A California judge declared a hung jury Tuesday in the police brutality case against a white former officer who punched and slammed a handcuffed black teenager onto a squad car during a videotaped arrest. The jury deliberated more than three days without reaching a verdict in a case that raised racial tensions and drew comparisons to the Rodney King beating. Jeremy Morse, who was fired from the Inglewood Police Department after three years on the job, had faced one count of assault under the color of authority. If he had been convicted, he could have faced a maximum sentence of three years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Morse's partner, Bijan Darvish, was acquitted of filing a false police report. He had also faced three years in prison. Morse was caught on amateur video shot last summer that showed him picking up then-16-year-old Donovan Jackson, slamming him onto the trunk of a patrol car and punching him in the face -- all while the teen was handcuffed. Morse had been on the Los Angeles suburb's police force for three years. The jury was deadlocked 7-5 in favor of conviction in the case against Morse. Upon hearing of his acquittal, Darvish and his attorney banged their fists on the counsel table and quietly uttered "yes" as the verdicts were read. Someone in the courtroom yelled, "No justice here!" and was silenced by Superior Court Judge William Hollingsworth Jr., according to a report from The Associated Press. On Monday, jurors asked for a clarification on the instructions given to them by the judge about how to determine whether the use of force was "lawful and necessary." Bijan Darvish celebrates the verdict. And during more than four hours of deliberations Thursday, the jury asked that the entire testimony of the prosecution's "use of force" witness -- a member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department -- be read back to them. The arrest sparked protests, raised racial tensions and led to comparisons to the Rodney King beating. While the jury was deliberating, a coalition of government, church and community leaders urged calm. The Associated Press reported that hundreds of volunteers, including some former gang members, planned to flood the streets after the verdict to plead for peace. People standing outside the courthouse on Tuesday during the verdict held signs saying "Peace After the Verdict," hoping to prevent riots like the ones that devastated the city after four white police officers were acquitted of state charges in the videotaped beating of King in 1992, according to the AP.
I think this is a good sign. I always thought the post-Rodney King verdict riots were nothing more than a bunch of thugs using the verdict as an excuse to steal and destroy. The LAPD should've gone in there and not stood on the sidelines like a bunch of wimps. My problem is that we are often too quick to jump on our police for "brutality" when they are just doing their jobs. People should understand that if they resist arrest and threaten the LE folks, they are going to have to react forcefully and they aren't going to be gentle. On the other hand, if an officer is being abusive without any resistance of the arrested because of their race or whatever....the officer should be held accountable.
Unfortuately, we've had far too many cases when this was the case but prosectors or juries were unwilling to do anything to the officers. Had this arrest not been videotaped, I don't think it would've even made it to trial. And I know that it looks like excessive force on the tape to me. But I'm no expert.
Justice was served. At least the 'victim' in this case wasn't high on drugs at the time, a la Rodney King.
So the next time you list the O.J. trial as one of the worst events in American History, when I respond Justice was Served I expect you not to have anything to say.
Even if one thinks the officer was just doing his job, I don't see how a hung jury is "justice served". It's entirely possible that this just means he has to pay for another defense attorney and sit through another trial with those three years still on the line.
Well, that's at least better than getting excited because he thought each member of the jury was hung.
The city of Los Angeles should be thankful that these officers were not convicted of these crimes. For the police to be effective, they must have the ability to use force when necessary. I have heard reports that this 'handcuffed victim' grabbed the crotch of the officer in question. If this in fact is the case, and apparently some jurors must have thought it was, then force was certainly justified. A police force stripped of its ability to threaten those who commit crimes is an ineffective squad. An ineffective police squad leads to unrest and lack of safety. The black community in Los Angeles hasn't exactly endeared itself to the courageous men and women in uniform through their past behavior. How can you blame the officers for being cautious and using force?
I quit, there is no need for me to blow a gasket over this idiot's posts and Rocket River, Timing, I would advise you guys to do the same. He does not want to entertain a logical a discussion about these events he only wants to upset you. Don't let him do it. Please.
No kidding. They shoulda shot the kid. I mean, if the level of force used is unimportant in the debate of what constitutes excessive force. The question is not whether there is ever a justification for force. The question is whether there was excessive force given the situation encountered. It's a matter of degrees. If a police officer feels that punching a handcuffed suspect in the face repeatedly and slamming him around was the only way to stop the crotch grabbing (if that's what happened), then he can attempt to defend that. If, however, one watching the tape feels the officer could've stopped the crotch-grabbing (if it happened) some other way, taking a step back, for instance, then they might see that as excessive force - or force beyond what was necessary to get the situation under control. One could also argue that once the crotch-grabbing had stopped, any justification for the use of force had ended. If you are coming at me with a knife, I can threaten force or use force for my own safety or to control the situation. If my brandishing a gun makes you drop your knife and turn and run away, I cannot shoot you in the back as you run. If the officer continued to punch the kid after he was subdued and no longer engaging in any crotch-grabbing (if that ever happened), his use of force for that was no longer justified, and it is then, by definition, excessive.
He seeks to irritate me? What did I do? Of course, now I've engaged him. Darn it! I don't particularly feel all that passionate about this anyway. Looking at the tape, it looked excessive to me, but I wasn't on that jury, so it doesn't really matter what I think. It is an interesting line, though. When does force become excessive? Sometimes it's not so easy to tell.
mr. paige -- It is difficult to go through that entire decision tree when your crotch is being grabbed. Self-preservation instincts kick in and you respond in a manner which leaves no doubt that the crotch grabbing will cease. Clear, rational thought isn't the first reaction I would expect a police officer to have upon having his testicles squeezed. Let's also not overlook the fact that this 'victim' was in the process of being arrested. It's not like the officer punched Mother Teresa in the face.
I'm sure it's in the LAPD training manual. Stimulus......................................Response crotch grab...................................punching face tea bag....................................automatic weapons fire
