There was an odd confluence of events in Hartford Superior Court yesterday: an expert witness testified in the trial of police officer Robert Lawlor, who is accused of fatally shooting a suspect, while at the same time Dwayne Powell was in court for his second appearance in the shooting of a Hartford police officer.

And when the odd confluence combines with the full moon (did you look at the moon today? absolutely gorgeous), we get knee-jerk behavior. This time, the knee jerk behavior is calls for mandatory-minimum sentences for assault on an officer:

“We want the community to know that any comments and or actions that advocate the assaulting or the killing of a police officer should not and cannot be tolerated by the very society we serve,” [Officer Richard Rodriguez, president of the Hartford police union] said. An assault on a police officer is an attack on “the very fabric that holds society from falling into chaos,” Rodriguez said.

Robles and two other state legislators who attended Monday’s rally said they’d propose and work to pass legislation enhancing the penalties for those who assault police officers. The legislative session opens in February.

“Being assaulted is not, I repeat not, part of this job,” Rodriguez said, adding that police officers would like to see a minimum mandatory prison sentence for those who assault police officers.

Now, before you jump on my back and call me a commie sympathizer let me assure you that I do not condone violence, whether it be against a police officer or any other “normal” person. If I had my way, we’d all wear tie dye and listen to the Dead all day long. I think a majority of police officers are good, conscientious people trying their best to keep order in our hectic cities.

But let’s not get carried away either. [A look at an absurdity in the statute and more after the jump]

It is absurd to impose mandatory minimum sentences for all “assaults” on police officers. For not all assaults are assaults. There is a distinct difference between an officer who trips in the chase and sprains his ankle and the officer who gets shot while wrestling with a suspect. The former most certainly does not deserve any punishment, while the latter most certainly does. But when laws are passed in the heat of the moment, on the back of some tragic event like the shooting of an officer, it invariably is a poorly thought out piece of legislation that is either too vague, overbroad, just plain stupid or some combination of the three.

Let’s take a look at the Assault on a PO statute (53a-167c):

(a) A person is guilty of assault of public safety or emergency medical personnel when, with intent to prevent a reasonably identifiable peace officer, [blah, blah, blah] from performing his or her duties, and while such peace officer, [etc.] is acting in the performance of his or her duties, (1) such person causes physical injury to such peace officer, [etc.] or (4) such person throws or hurls, or causes to be thrown or hurled, any paint, dye or other like or similar staining, discoloring or coloring agent or any type of offensive or noxious liquid, agent or substance at such peace officer, [etc.]…

I’ve highlighted to subsections here. The first is that there need only be physical injury not serious physical injury. According to the “definitions” section, physical injury means impairment of physical condition or pain. That’s it. I cause you pain, I have cause physical injury. Minor causes of “physical injury” are: broken fingernail, stubbed toe, pulled hamstring, and so on.

I also mention subsection (4), partly because I didn’t know of its existence until now and partly because it’s just so damn silly. Throwing paint at an officer is assault on an officer? Was the legislature following my advice and taking a hit listening to the Dead when writing that subsection?

Now, if someone wants to propose a bill whereby a mandatory-minimum is enacted for any assault on an officer resulting in serious physical injury, I might be willing to give it more than a second’s thought. But then we get into the area of whether shooting at an officer, but missing, is a crime [hint: it is not. attempted assault on an officer cannot be a crime under our statutory scheme, but that's a post for a whole 'nother day]. So, moving on.

I’d also like to point out that there are several existing options: first, assault on an officer is already a Class C felony, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years. Second, that’s not the only crime someone can be charged with when they assault an officer. There are others, such as, I don’t know…assault (20 years), attempted murder (also 20 years), murder (death penalty). If someone assaults an officer by shooting at him, you can be damned sure there isn’t going to be a 1 year offer.

So what would a mandatory-minimum do? It would ensure that anyone charged with assault on an officer, no matter how slight the “assault”, would serve a stiff sentence. That can mean only two things: there would be a hell of a lot of trials, or not very many pleas to assault on an officer, because the State would be forced to bargain away that charge if the “assault” doesn’t warrant the mandatory-minimum.

I don’t want to get into it here, partly because I couldn’t do it justice, but there’s a greater force at work here: the strained relationship between the police force and cities like Hartford. The Hartford police haven’t exactly had the best reputation over the years and it has resulted in a lot of friction between them and the residents of some parts of the city.

The police should continue doing the fine job that they do, while letting the criminal justice system with its already onerous penalties deal with those that show a blatant disregard and dangerous disrespect for the upstanding citizens that struggle to keep order.

Mandatory minimums are never a good idea and here they would be an especially bad one.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print This Post