COURT DOCUMENTS - WISCONSIN SHOOTING VICTIM WAS IMPULSIVE

 

 Court Documents Show  Madison, Wisconsin

 Police Officer Shooting was Impulsive

 “Madison police officer Matt Kenny shot Robinson late Friday while investigating a call that the young man was jumping in and out of traffic and had assaulted someone. The officer heard a disturbance and forced his way into an apartment where Robinson had gone. Authorities said Kenny fired after Robinson assaulted him. The shooting is the latest in a series of incident involving white police officers killing unarmed black men over the past year, including in Ferguson, Missouri, where officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown in August. That shooting sparked weeks of unrest.”  

... This report according to the Aspen Times, 3/10/15 

I have a lot to say about the above issue, but right now, I will address two other related paragraphs contained within this article:

“The file connected to 19-year-old Tony Robinson’s conviction last year for armed robbery shows he was diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder and anxiety and depression. The documents were contained in a report by a state Department of Corrections agent.”

“According to a criminal complaint in the armed robbery, Robinson was among a group of five people who staged a home-invasion robbery in Madison in April 2014 looking for marijuana and money.”

As an Officer of the Court, having worked with police officers indirectly daily for almost twenty years, I have no disparaging remarks to say about police persons, because we all know “who-you-gonna-call” when you’re in trouble.  Officers are to be commended for the dangerous work that they do for us citizens, but sometimes the human element such as stereotypes come into play even with the best of us.  So my comments are strictly for clarification to those who say that “Black” men are all criminals  - stay tuned for my in-depth Blog on this issue.

The tenant of the law is "not guilty" until "proven guilty".  When a criminal case is being tried, the defendant’s criminality:  criminal record, convictions or previous charges are not allowed into evidence barring some extenuating circumstances.   The jury is to consider only the evidence presented before them in the case at hand.  The defendant is not tried for his or her previous conduct, propensities, or criminal history.  That evidence is not allowed to be presented because it is prejudicial and can sway the jury into finding the defendant guilty even though the evidence proves that the person did not commit the crime he or she is currently being tried for. 

So why is this young man, and the other cases I have read about previously, being tried for previous "suspected" activity.  The media is mistakenly using that evidence to sway the jury of public opinion.  If previous conduct is not admissible in court, why do the authors of articles, and/or the police department suggestively lead us to believe it’s okay so shoot someone dead because he or she was "suspected" of a previous, a while ago, crime and not convicted of anything yet?  This seems to be the premise regardless of any suspect wrongful human element that may or may not exist within the officer's motive.

It is also common practice, I belief, that after the use of deadly force, the officer is ”desked" immediately until an Internal Affairs investigation is completed.  Were any of these officers in the  above mentioned  cases subjected to that?




 #wandascafe