Across the country, police have undermined and resisted reform. To protest a prosecutor, one detective was willing to let murder suspects walk free, even if he’d arrested them and believed that they should be behind bars.
Across the country, police have undermined and resisted reform. To protest a prosecutor, one detective was willing to let murder suspects walk free, even if he’d arrested them and believed that they should be behind bars.
The most relevant part of the article:
My response is…
First of all, how would defense lawyers know he was on the list if the list wasn’t made public? This seems like an obvious lie to me. He wasn’t stuck in a Catch-22. This was not about the outcome of the trial, but about him getting revenge for the prosecutor essentially ending his career of arresting criminals. He’d probably be stuck with a desk job or something like that.
He was mad that his past actions had finally caught up with him, but blamed the person who finally held him accountable. It’s not like the prosecutor was randomly adding names to the list of officers without credibility.
And if you needed any proof to back up his character, it’s that he was willing to let nine murderers go free in revenge. Nine deaths he was willing to let the murderer get away for personal reasons. It sounds like the prosecutor made the right call.
That’s a good point. My first read I thought maybe it wasn’t entirely black and white, maybe he had a reason (however unethical his reaction was). But you are right, he was probably on the list for good reason, and his actions show that he probably belongs on it.