Chavalia trial verdict: NOT GUILTY!

I guess you got that one wrong.

Pull the fire trucks out and keep the engins running, and stay inside.

BraneRift,

I didn't get it wrong, the jury did. It did not surprise me, though, as juries are almost always loathe to convict cops.

~tjl~

It's a sad, sad day for ALL residents of Allen County and I'm very, very disappointed.

This verdict sends the unfortunate message that it's acceptable to the citizens of Allen County for officers of the Lima Police Department to shoot and kill anyone ... for any reason.

Sgt. Chavalia made a mistake and I'm sure he's sorry. I believe he never had the intention of killing anyone. No one has been able to convince me otherwise.

But most of us learn early on: if you're playing ball and you break someone's window, it doesn't matter how sorry you are, you're still going to pay for breaking the window.

Chavalia will pay - I hope - in that Tarika Wilson's family will file a civil lawsuit against him. He took the stand and admitted in court that he fired the shots that killed her. He's gonna need his retirement paycheck to cover some of what he owes to Wilson's children.

Winning a civil suit against Chavalia will be the last - and only - other deterrent keeping law enforcement from making the same mistake in the future. Should Wilson's family not file against him, they will continue this travesty against their family and all residents of Allen County.
I put a lot of the blame on Jeffrey Strassburg. He didn't ask many of the questions that needed to be asked. The jury didn't have enough of the proper testimony. The picture of him in The Lima News holding his weapon the way he did the night he shot her directly contradicted his testimony.

Yes, it's a sad, sad day in Allen County for sure.

Are you people nuts? Sgt. Joe did what he had to do. Shame on you for wanting to see him found guilty. What if you had been in his place? Oh wait, that wouldn't have happened. You don't have the guts for it. It's nice and safe behind that computer, isn't it?

Lovealot,

First, it's not a matter of "wanting" him found guilty, its a matter of respect for the rule of law, which you apparently don't have. Apparently you think it is OK for a city employee to shoot and kill and unarmed woman holding a baby as she complied with his orders to get down.

And don't you question my bravery. I did not see you in the Iraq war, where I spent a year of my life. I did not see you grabbing a weapon and standing to post for the last 23 years as I did. I did not see you in Atlanta protecting the people there from a mad bomber and gang members who wanted to shoot a cop or soldier as initiation rights.

So watch your accusations and keep to the topic.

~tjl~

CBrown, I couldn't agree with you more. Lucente had it right when he said Chavalia should be found guilty of negligence, and given probation as punishment. I think that that is a fair sentence for this. I think everyone needs to understand that we just can't go around acting out our 'feelings'. If we did that, we'd all be in a world of trouble.

Now let's see just how much flames the Lima News can fuel with their upcoming headlines. Don't think for a minute that they aren't sitting at their desks right this very minute trying to come up with the most instigating headlines they can think of.....

I'm sure there will be a civil suit. I'm also sure that Tarika's children won't see a dime of any money the family "wins".

What is really going to hurt this city by this not guilty verdict is the fact that people will (already are) using it to accuse our public officials, law enforcement, judicial system, etc, of being racist... or of being stuck in the "good ole boy" mode... or of letting cops get away with anything...etc. People need to remember that it wasn't the police, or the city/county government, or the judge who have come back with this verdict. It was 8 ordinary citizens of Allen County. 8 people from various walks of life, no different than each of us. They are the ones who came to the conclusion of not guilty. After hearing the various statements made by both attorneys, I can see why they had no choice but to deliver that verdict. Reasonable Doubt. Plain and simple. No matter how much any of us thinks that he was "negligent", the fact remains, Kluge did exactly what his job is to do, he provided reasonable doubt.

Tom, I respect your service. However, even though I haven't been to Iraq, I have a grandson in Afghanistan, a grandson who just enlisted in the Marines. I have a son who will be leaving for Iraq soon. There are those who have been in the military who are in support of Chavalia, so that is a moot point.

However, I take offense that you degrade a woman who has not served. I would rather it be me in harms way than my children and grandchildren. I have lived a personal death up close and personal during the Vietnam war. I will never get over it. Mothers suffer the war, too.

Happy,

You misunderstand. I am simply responding to lovealots accusation that I am a coward. I do not denigrate anyone for not serving.

~tjl~

Keeping the public off balance? A jury found this man not guilty. The residents of this county should be careful when they invite known "drug thugs" into their homes, because a jury of their peers may permit anyone in their homes to loose their life if that "drug thug" is wanted for dealing drugs, should the police come busting through the door.

Is it right or wrong? These 8 jurors said it "not guilty". It's sad drugs bring death, as a result of choices by each individual, it sure is sad. Don't ever think you are safe in your homes when a "drug thug" is sitting with your childern, watching your television, or just plain "hangin" at your "crib"!

Standing Tall,

None of which excuses a police officer's negligence if he accidentally kills you.

~tjl~

Dear Mr. Lucente,

Thank you!

Tom you forget. He was not negligent. The jury said so, remember? Oh I know, when the trial began, you were critical of an all white jury. They can't possibly be fair and impartial. A special prosecutor came in, one who has not worked with Chavalia on cases. But that's right. You covered that base too by saying he was doing a poor job and speculated he really didn't want to try this case.

But you overlook what this case was about. Pure and simple, was it reasonable for Sgt. Chavalia to believe his life was in danger and Wilson was a threat. It doesn't matter if she was armed or not. It doesn't matter if she was shooting at him or not. She may have been in a kneeling position, but that does not mean she was complying with Chavalia's orders. A kneeling or prone position is also an excellent shooting position. You point out that the man behind Chavalia did not believe they were under fire. You ignore that the man behind the officers shooting the dogs thought they were under fire. I don't know how many houses you have cleared. I know how many I have. And under tight quarters it is very difficult to recognize the source of gunfire.

You talk of body armor. Body armor does not stop all rounds. In fact, many rounds are now made to defeat body armor. Moreover, you point out Wilson was five feet away. Almost anyone can make a head shot at five feet, and Chavalia's face was not armored. It is not a police officer's job to be shot. It is not a police officer's job to die. It is a hazard, it is a possibility, but it is not a fact of the job. Police are under no obligation to be puching bags or to have to wait to be shot first to respond.

Pure and simple, it was reasonable for Chavalia to believe his life was in danger and Wilson was a threat. And because it was reasonable for him to believe that, there was reasonable doubt as to him being guilty of negligent homicide. The jury made the right call. If they hadn't, the judge could have set aside their verdict. He didn't. They are right, you are wrong.

Bill,

Actually, I never criticized the all-white jury.

Second, his testimony contradicted the physical evidence. If he were not a cop, I suspect you would not be so forgiving.

Third, it is not so easy for a judge to throw out a jury's verdict.

Fourth, it was not reasonable for him to think his life was in danger, when the officer standing inches away did not labor under the same bad judgment.

Finally, we all know juries are more about emotions than the law. I doubt the same verdict would have been reached in front of a three-judge panel.

~tjl~

Lovealot,

When you say "you people," you're lumping in the lot of us without knowing us or our experiences.

I am retired from Army National Guard with 21+ years of service, five of those on Active Duty, one of those serving in Iraq in 2003.

I went in with the 4th Infantry Division at the beginning of combat hostilities. For several months, I had various encounters with the enemy,taking both direct (knowing where it's coming from) and indirect fire. I was awarded the Bronze Star for my service.

Conducting combat operations is different from conducting law enforcement operations, although many cops will tell you, without actually having experienced it for themselves, that it's "like war."

Being a member of the military also has you being trained to conduct Stability and Support Operations - commonly called SASO. Under SASO, our rules of engagement are different than in combat. Our rules of engagement are much tighter, more restrictive - so that we don't shoot...kill...anyone we're not supposed to have killed. Law enforcement operations fall under SASO.

Years of training to conduct such operations are necessary to ensure we overcome those situations where feelings and thoughts of fear might cause us to react improperly. We know, based on our training, how we, and others with us will react, regardless of the situation. 31 years of training on the force apparantly failed Sgt. Chavalia in that tragic moment.

Any time you get the argument that cops are engaging in "war" against its citizens, like in an ill-conceived, ill-prepared drug raid, you should be frightened. It doesn't matter what the target of the operation is doing or has done; the target of the operation has rights; this is true more so for the innocent victims of the operation - Sincere Wilson.

I don't buy the argument that Sgt. Chavalia feared for his life. He accepted that risk when he accepted his badge. He accepted even more risk when he became a member of a high-risk operational team. I, and Tom, accepted the risk of death when we took our oaths of service to defend our country.

Sgt. Chavalia is "sorry;" the jury was satisfied with his remorse. I'm not.

"Fourth, it was not reasonable for him to think his life was in danger, when the officer standing inches away did not labor under the same bad judgment."

How can you make that assessment? You cannot claim to know what is in a person's mind. Any thinking person knows that if you put ten people in a situation of chaos and high stress, all ten of those people will experience it from their own perspective and each will have their own perception of what happened, and often times, there will be several differing accounts even though each and every one of them will be absolutely sure without a doubt that their perception is exactly the way it happened. You are working overtime trying to make Chavalia into something other than what he is, a human being. There is absolutely no reason to think that he's lying when he says he thought he was being fired upon and he thought his life was in danger.

What happened was a tragic accident. No doubt. Was Sgt. Chavalia negligent? I don't believe so. The fact that he shot and killed her has never been in dispute, but from what I have heard and read so far lead me to believe that he was not negligent. I believe any prudent man in this case would have acted the same way.

Mr. Lucente, as a law student you should by now truly understand what is required to prove negligence. If you would be so kind to enlighten us with that knowledge maybe all of the "little" people in Lima who are not so well educated and not an angry libertarian might understand your musings.

I agree with some of the other contributors to this, I can only begin to imagine the headlines tomorrow. What has struck me as odd in all of this is the Lima News' lack of reporting on this topic. Anyone reading the paper would believe that Tarika Wilson was some angelic college student just trying to make a life for herself. She lived with a known drug dealer, she herself ha done time for drug crimes. I must have missed that in the Lima News. None of the above justify what happened. But, I am damn tired of seeing newspaper columnists cry foul and only tell half the story. Mr. Lucente, I realize that you are veteran, and I truly do respect that, but, I really do tire of hearing you remind all of Lima about your time in Iraq and how wrong everything is here and there. If one takes all of your comments regarding the war and the rule of law literally, well, I am sure your will be the first 5 star general on the supreme court. I realize I deviated from the topic a bit, but, a rant is just that.

CBrown, you said, "Being a member of the military also has you being trained to conduct Stability and Support Operations - commonly called SASO. Under SASO, our rules of engagement are different than in combat. Our rules of engagement are much tighter, more restrictive - so that we don't shoot...kill...anyone we're not supposed to have killed. Law enforcement operations fall under SASO."

Does that mean every soldier that has been responsible for the thousands of innocent civilians....children...accidentally killed Iraq should and will be charged with a crime and punished? We always hear, "casualty of war"...like that makes it excusable. Since we're not hearing of thousands of soldiers being charged and convicted of crimes for all those accidental deaths, I can only assume that I misunderstood what you meant when you said, "Our rules of engagement are much tighter, more restrictive - so that we don't shoot...kill...anyone we're not supposed to have killed."

Perhaps all this could have been avoided if Tarika simply yelled out "Don't shoot, I've got a baby" while she was bobbing in and out of the darkened doorway. I know I would have screamed it at the top of my lungs if I were holding my child.

The topic is an innocent man was found "not guilty." That's what counts. Your wanting to see him go to jail for protecting the community is ludicrous at best. Tarika and Terry were at fault here. Not the police.

I have a CHL. I hope I never have to squeeze that trigger to protect myself. However, if I have to I certainly will. The Sgt. acted on his situation. As far as the jury makeup, I'm a 47 year old white male, so if I get charged out of an incident, I'd expect other 47 yr. old WM CHL holders on my jury. Sounds like peers to me.
At any rate, I'm saddened that Tarika was shot. It's too bad she put herself in a house where dope is sold. A reasonable person might think that they shouldn't be around a crack dealer in case some trouble goes down. Let alone allow a druggie to set up shop in the same house with my babies. I'm certainly not saying a person deserves to die because of it, but you gotta think about the possibilities when you live the druggie life. I hope no fools burn the town, and I really hope they don't come to my house.

Susan,

While servicemembers are conducting combat operations in Iraq or any theatre of engagement for that matter, the rules tend to be less restrictive, depending on your operational rules of engagement, and thus the unfortunate "casualties of war." I was there, and I weep for every loss of innocent life, especially children.

President Bush announced on May 5, 2003 that MAJOR combat operations in Iraq were over. There's since been no announcememnt that ALL combat operations were complete. There's never been a declaration that our fine soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors were or are soley conducting SASO. We are fighting a cowardly enemy that hides among the civilians and in the resulting fight, innocents are harmed, yes even killed.

And, those soldiers & marines who have acted improperly - with malice - against unarmed civilians and other non-combatants, when exposed, have been tried and convicted of their crimes against those we're there to help protect. I might go so far as to stipulate it has happened more than has been admitted. But, there is assuredly the protection of the "BIG,GREEN SHIELD OF PROTECTIVE SILENCE." And that is just as wrong.

But we're not talking about combat operations. And we're not talking about Iraq, either; we're talking about right here in Lima, Allen County, Ohio, United States of America.

Many here would place the blame squarely on Wilson and her decision to cohabitate with a drug dealer. That Wilson served time for whatever crimes of which she may have been convicted doesn't matter you most of you.

But Wilson had served her time, paid her debt to society for her crimes; yet society continued to require her to pay for them. Making bad choices, being a bad mother, otherwise & unfortunately, isn't against the law.

In one wrong gut reaction, Sgt Chavalia failed to protect the community - one-year-old victim, Sincere Wilson is prime proof of that failure. Ok, I might believe - by a huge stretch of my imagination - that he was not guilty of the negligent homicide charge. But he is absolutely, positively guilty of the misdemeanor assault charge. If you don't know what the target is at which your weapon is pointing, you don't discharge it.

He testified that all he saw was a shadowy figure. I have two problems with that.

1. His weapon was equipped with a flashlight that illuminates everything at which he pointed the muzzle. If the house was dark - and in the wee hours of the morning, it would have been - you conduct these raids with the element of surprise on your side; what better time than when you think everyone in the house might be sleeping. The added benefit of these flashlights is they are SO PAINFULLY BRIGHT as to temporarily blind anyone at which it is pointed at the range Chavalia was to Wilson - it's an environmental weapon.

2. He reported he didn't see Wilson's hands, saw no weapon aimed at him, and saw no muzzle flash. Ever fire a weapon in the dark? In a room or hallway where the light was so dim that Chavalia could only identify a "shadowy figure?" It brightens the room like the fireworks on the Fourth of July; even the candlepower from the aforementioned flashlight pales in comparison. Had a weapon been fired at him from the "shadowy figure," Chavaila would have known, without a doubt. A split second more of evaluation by Chavalia and Tarika Wilson's children still have their mother today.

Toprhrly,

You want the definition of negligence? Shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby while she was kneeling on the ground complying with your orders.

Clear enough?

~tjl~

CBrown, I realize we're not talking about Iraq here, I only asked about it because you were talking about it. Also, don't misunderstand me, I wasn't referring to the soldiers who acted with malice in killing innocent women and children. We all know that there have been many many many innocent civilians (men, women and children) killed over there by soldiers by complete accident because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is those soldiers that I was wondering how many end up charged and punished. Any of them? It seems like it's considered OK to kill an innocent person in time of war in a combat situation... they say it's tragic, but still...just casualties of war. Clearly, the situation in Iraq cannot be justly compared to this situation. That is exactly why people using their military experience as though it makes them experts on what happened in that drug raid, what was going on in that officer's mind and what he should or shouldn't have done is just completely ludicrous. I'd take the experience of someone like Bill, a person who is a cop and knows exactly what it's like over people who have never been in this situation.

I also find it interesting that you should use the word "malice". That makes an important point in the case here at hand. People are choosing to believe that Chavalia killed that woman and shot that baby out of malice, a "cold-blooded murder" is what they've been so bold as to accuse him of. Even Tom sounds like that's what he's accusing him of. Oh I know he adamantly denies that, but when someone keeps screaming that the officer shot "an unarmed woman holding a baby while she was kneeling on the ground complying with orders"... it sure sounds to me like the guy is being accused of cold blooded murder. And that is blatantly wrong.

The two questions you asked, about the light on the gun, etc, are legitimate questions. Did the prosecution direct any of those questions to him? Did the prosecution direct those questions to the "experts" that were brought in?

Tom, you just told Top that the definition of negligence is, "Shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby while she was kneeling on the ground complying with your orders."

You've just shown why the jury could NOT come back with a guilty verdict. NO one, could say with any certainty whether or not she was complying with the officer's orders. She might not even have been holding the baby in her arms, maybe she had knelt down to pick the baby up off the floor...or put him down on the floor. Had she been armed, it would have been an understandable position for her to get into if she were going to fire at the officers coming up the stairs. Whatever the reason, we do NOT know for certain that she was complying with orders. Just because you assume it, does not make it fact. This is what justifies "reasonable doubt".

Bill, it pains me greatly to say this, but I agree with you on this one. Well said.

Susan,

You'd take the experience of another cop, yet all too often when a prosecutor brings in another cop to testify on behalf of the state, the defense always asks said "expert" if he was in exactly the same situation. All too often, the answer is that all situations are unique. So the "expert" witness testimony gets debunked because the "expert" wasn't present for the actual event being tried. Therefore anything any "expert" might say about the case in Chavalia's favor is "Monday-morning quarterbacking" too.

Yeah, I place huge fault on the part of the prosecutor for not asking the necessary questions, the hard questions of the witnesses and experts giving testimony. He was a "special" prosecutor brought in from outside the jurisdiction of Allen County so as not to bring bias into the case one way or the other.

But, Strassbaugh is an elected prosecutor in his home jurisdiction. How would it look to voters if their prosecutor brought forth a successful conviction against a member of law enforcement for "doing his job." His opponent would eat him up. Yeah, I fault him for being soft, not pursuing the necessary protections of our liberties, as he was elected and sworn to do.

Had she been armed, it would have been an understandable position for her to get into if she were going to fire at the officers coming up the stairs.

Susan,

The testimony and evidence proved she wasn't armed...there wasn't a weapon anywhere within reach of where she died. With what would she have been taking a defensive posture ... a shoe? a pillow? her baby?

He saw no muzzle flash, no gun, couldn't even see her hands from his vantage point. He thought he was taking fire...but not knowing from where. So out of sheer fear for his own life, he GUESSED and fired his weapon!!!

Those of us in the military draw on our experiences because we are trained to conduct the same types of operations as civilian law enforcement. In addition to combat, we are trained to stop criminal activity.

I expect law enforcement officers to KNOW at what they are shooting. He guessed, and one-year-old Sincere Wilson will grow up knowing he was injured because a cop made a mistake - he guessed WRONG!!!!

Simply put:
1. A tragedy happened.
2. A person was charged.
3. Said person went through the greatest and fairest leagal system known to humankind.
4. Said person was found innocent.
5. Life should now go on and said person should be able to put this behind him forever.
BUT
people have opinions and newspapers need to be sold so we will hear about this forever and ever until the Lima News can't get any more revenue out of it.

Jounalism today is to fond out the common and view of the populace, take a different stance and proclaim how right the journalist is and sell sell sell those papers!

Report the news, do not be or create the news! Mr Lucente - After reading many of your comments, I firmly believe you are trying to create events and therefore create the news.

CBrown,

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Once again we have an ininformed participant. SCLFan, Tom's job at The Lima News as an Editorial Columnist IS to write his opinion. He is not a journalist in the sense that he doesn't report the news; they have a whole staff of reporters there just for that purpose. Tom gets paid by the paper to write his opinion. It's just a shame that he's been limited to writing only generally about topics that have local interest. He's not allowed to publish his opinion in the paper on specific local topics, like this case, actually. His blog is his only outlet for direct comment on issues of local interest.

Those who would argue that any columnist sharing his/her opinion just doesn't understand the true purpose of the "Fourth Estate."

Now, Tom and I both believe a grave injustice was placed at the threshold of society's door when the Not Guilty verdicts were handed down. It matters not that the defendant was an 31 year veteran of law enforcement with an impeccable service record. The true spirit of our liberties were eroded with that verdict.

The Constitution guarantees that we are secure in our persons and our papers against unjust goverment intrusion - or at least we should be. That we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - or at least that we should be. Where was that guarantee for Tarika Wilson? Where's that guarantee for her children?? Where's that guarantee for all of us??? The jury's decision saw that for the residents of Allen County that guarantee was used as tissue to wipe our collective behinds and flushed down the toilet.

We should all be afraid, all residents of Allen County. This jury's verdict all but hands down a license for our cops and deputies to kick in our doors and gun us down, and the mere testimony of the officer who pulls the trigger will be enough to justify the actions taken.

You're sitting there coming up with the argument - I already hear it rattling around in your catlle-brain - that as long as you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

There are all too many instances reported nationwide every year about raids conducted at the wrong location, against the wrong people and all too often conducted based on misleading statements given by those who would be concealing the truth. In many of those instances, the wrong person is shot and killed. But the raids are conducted nonetheless without proper and correct pre-raid intelligence, just like this tragedy.

The jury in this case made it even more possible - and acceptable - for it to happen again right here at home.

This tragedy happened because:
1. The target of the raid wasn't picked up sooner. Multiple drug buys were being conducted by various departments conducting their own investigations into a subject. The argument by Lima Police Chief Greg Garlock said some of the buys were made by his staff, some of those by other law enforcement agencies. If all those buys were happening within the Lima city limits and the LPD was uninformed of other investigations, then no necessary coordination among departments was taking place.

2. The raid was conducted on a house not known by law enforcement to house children. The SWAT officers had to step over toys on the porch of the house when they kicked in the door. What person without children - even a drug dealer - keeps toys?

3. There was no pre-raid surveillance of the house. This was evident in that the officers openly admitted they had no idea children were in the house. Why not watch the house for 24 more hours before the raid and see who comes and goes. They already know Anthony Terry is in there and he's obviously not going anywhere - they would see him leave the house and follow him where ever he might try to go. And on the possibility it appeared he was leaving town, they'd stop him instantly. Pre raid intelligence would identify Wilson as Terry's companion. Law enforcement surely would have asked if she was complicit in Terry's activities, AND identified her children. Even if Wilson was not living at the same address, maybe she was there all the same.

And in all this we have a cop who made a mistake, killed an allegedly innocent woman, and maimed a definitely innocent child. And the jury decided that was ok.

It sounds like some people think Chavalia should bear the burden of guilt for the entire raid taking place. If there is a problem with the system, with the standard that the police SWAT goes by, it is the system that should be questioned, blamed and changed. The criticisms of the raid, ie, why Terry wasn't picked up outside the house, why they didn't appear to know there were children in the house, whether they should have raided even if they did know their were children in the house, etc, are ALL irrelevant to and being used as a distraction in the case against Chavalia.

Personally, I believe the system worked. I am glad that a jury was able to follow their instructions and not let their emotions override the known facts of the case. There was clearly enough evidence presented by the defense to cause "reasonable doubt". Sure, it would have been easy to make up their minds before the trial started and stick to that opinion no matter what, ignoring testimony of other "experts" and officers, and going so far as to outright accuse them of lying when they say things that don't fit their preconceived opinion (as Lucente and others have done), but these jury members were instructed to judge the case based on the evidence presented in court..and ONLY that evidence. They were instructed that unless the prosecution could show, beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was negligent, they must return a not guilty verdict. The prosecution did NOT successfully do that. I do not want a judicial system that hears the evidence but still hands down the verdict that was already chosen in their minds before the trial ever started.

"The Constitution guarantees that we are secure in our persons and our papers against unjust goverment intrusion - or at least we should be."

Isn't it illegal to harbor criminals?

Before you even say it, no, I am not saying that having a drug dealer living with her makes it OK for her to be killed and her innocent child to be injured. Just pointing out that one cannot use that Constitutional right as a reason why the raid should not have taken place. The Constitution does not guarantee criminals to be secure in their homes, whether there are children there or not (don't forget, Wilson herself was a criminal too, and still had an outstanding warrant in Indiana). Were that the case, drug dealers (and every other criminal) across this country would be sure to shack up with women who have children just so that they could be guaranteed immunity as long as they are in their home.

I think we put ourselves in grave danger when we start telling criminals that they have a right to be safe from arrest while inside their homes. If I had a boyfriend that was a convicted drug dealer (or any other kind of criminal) living in my home, I wouldn't have the nerve to even suggest that I shouldn't have to worry about my home being invaded, either by cops or other criminals.

Since some of you are so eager to cry about the injustices of the police raiding a house where there were children.... why isn't anyone crying about the lack of protection for those children BEFORE this tragedy happened? Her whole family knew she was living with a drug dealer, they knew she was also a convicted criminal herself... yet no one cared enough about those six little innocent children to get them out of that bad situation before this happened. Now, all the sudden, they "care". Would they "care" so much if she had been killed by her drug dealing boyfriend? Or by another dealer or gang breaking in the house? Would they be protesting and screaming for "justice" if it hadn't been a cop that shot her? (I doubt it). Think for a moment about all the drug houses across this city...if you can imagine how many there must be. Then try to imagine how many of those houses have innocent children living in them, right this very moment. Is ANYONE doing ANYTHING to keep these children safe? Or, as in the Wilson case, maybe it's not important to anyone until another tragedy happens.

He should never have even been indicted! They only did because of pressure fueld by the lima news and Jesse Jackson. If they waited 2 months tio take it to the grand jury we would not even be having this discussion. Case closed, Not guilty. Get over it. Like it or not.

I am reading all this with interest because I had relatives that lived in Lima, I currently live in California. I work in the crimnal justice system, and I was lead to believe that TRAINED PROFESSIONALS are held to a higher standard of conduct and expectations than the average citzen. Sgt Chavalia with over 30 years law enforcement experience SHOULD have had the training and experience to know when he is being fired upon and what to expect in an operation such as the one he was involved in. How he made such a tragic mistake really needs to be addressed. A well TRAINED and CONFIDENT officer or solider for that matter handles the very diffcult situations with skill, restraint, and PROFESSIONALISM. That is what TRAINING is for. What trained officer shoots at an UNIDENTIFIED target? Had he clearly identifed the target he would not have shot that young woman. I am sure he made a mistake, however it cost someone their life, and that should not be forgotten. No matter that young woman circustances, it is Sgt Chavalia's RESPONSIBILITY as a PROFESSIONAL to carry out his duties skillfully. That didnt happen and a young mother is dead.

Susan,

I never suggested that the criminal - in ths case, Anthony Terry - be secure. That's absolutely ridiculous. Innocent persons will often be present at the places many raids take place. But they should be assured that EVERY effort is taken to assure they are secured and protected.

That Wilson allegedly had an outstanding warrant in some other jurisdiction at the time this raid took place bears not at all on her innocence; she wasn't the target of the raid; she wasn't even a person of interest at that point. Therefore, as far as the conduct of that raid goes, she was an "innocent" civilian.

That Wilson's children were present, epecially her baby boy Sincere, bears only to the fact that Wilson was probably a bad mother cohabitating with someone of Terry's unsavory background.

The job of law enforcement is to protect those unable to protect themselves - to protect Sincere. That didn't happen. It matters not that Chavalia didn't know, nor possibly couldn't see him. He had the duty to protect that child from harm. That didn't happen; Chavalia failed in his duty. He had no positive identification of his target; if he had Sincere would have never been harmed by the officer's bullets. In that moment, it mattered not at all to Chavalia that he didn't know what his target was; he fired anyway

The jury decided that the only standard important in this case was the officer's frame of mind. Awwww, he was scared. I don't want a frightened law enforcement officer having to deal with me.

I was recently stopped by law enforcement for operating my vehicle with expired registration. I had been stopped for breaking a traffic law - an all too common mistake - and now I was about to be charged with a crime.

It is the procedure for law enforcement to approach a stopped vehicle on the driver's side and with one hand on - or near - their sidearm. In a state with an active concealed carry law, that seems to me an especially prudent precaution to be taking.

But, what if me and my vehicle fit the profile of a violent crime being investigated, and the subject of that crime was known to be armed and dangerous?

I had my son in his car seat behind me and our windows were opened. What if my son had innocently reached his hand holding one of his toys out the window and the officer instantly and improperly viewed that as a hostile action and opened fire killing me and maiming my son.

This is not as far-fetched a story as you might think.

The jury in this case made sure that the only thing relevant in the Chavalia case, in future cases like it and my hypothetical scenario is that the officer feel threatened. That no proper restraint is necessary.

I had hoped the jury would have decided that way and I was severely disappointed.

You'll wish the jury had decided differently, too, especially should you ever find yourself at the working end of a law enforcement weapon.

You misunderstood, Cbrown. Harboring a criminal is illegal, is it not? That makes Tarika a criminal as well (even without counting the other convictions and outstanding warrants already against her). You act like she was just an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry dude, she lived there, she knew who he was and what he did, shd did it herself, and she allowed him to live there. She knowingly harbored a criminal in her home. Neither she nor Terry should have felt any reason to be "secure". Those children were the ONLY people in that home with a right to safety. The system failed them a LONG time ago, way before this incident happened because those children should have been removed from that home years ago. (And no, I'm still not saying that because she let him live there that it was "ok" for her and her son to be shot.)

If you think cops aren't and should not ever be "scared" in the line of duty, I suggest you have some pretty high and unattainable expectations on these human beings. That's like expecting a soldier in combat not to be scared. Some fear is a good thing, it keeps you on your toes. I knew a corrections officer who had no "fear". He was so confident in his safety and unafraid for his life that he could actually sit down at his desk in a room of 200 inmates and no other officers and sleep in his chair. Common sense tells me that it would be stupid to even turn your back in a room of 200 convicted criminals, but to actually take a nap in there with them??? When a cop has no fear, he will take more unnecessary risks putting himself and his fellow officers in danger.

Your analogy to your son holding a toy out the car window really is far fetched if you're going to use it in comparison to the Wilson shooting. Your story is missing some extremely significant similarities. In your story, there is no mass chaos, there is no screaming, there is no complete darkness, there aren't several other officers, there aren't other shots being fired from an unkown location... etc. You'll have to come up with a better one than that.

Lastly, people (ie, you, Tom, others) like to say things like, "You'll wish the jury had decided differently, too, especially should you ever find yourself at the working end of a law enforcement weapon." You know what? If I am a law abiding citizen, raising my children in a safe home, with a husband who is also a law abiding citizen and we aren't allowing anyone doing illegal activities in our home, then we won't find ourselves "at the working end of a law enforcement weapon"... but on the off chance that a mistake is made and we do... I'd have good reason to expect a jury to decide differently. There is no comparison to what happened in Wilson's home to what goes on in my home.

You know, Susan, I understand human beings experience fear.I agree with you that fear does help "keep you on your toes." I'm sure the cops on that night were on an extremely heightened sense of alert even before the raid began...possibly even as early as learning the raid would take place and they would be participating.

Even I was fearful several times, while deployed to Iraq.

But our extremely repetitive training to conduct dangerous operations is designed to help us overcome our fear and allow our expertise to prevail. Unfortunately for Wilson that night - and for all residents of Allen County - Chavalia's fear was stronger than his training. His fear got the better of him and he took the wrong action. None of you who are apologizing for this officer just don't see it that way, and I don't understand why.

Even in my scenario, the officer's frame of mind in that situation is all that matters. That's what the judge told the jury before he allowed them to retire to deliberate. Did you miss that?

And let's hope you never have to find out if a cop kicks in your door and it's the wrong door..because, yeah the jury might find differently if it were to happen, but you'll still be dead. That's the tragic reality, but it's preventable.

@ susan, I disagree with you blaming the victim. Mr Chalavila is supposed to be a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL Peace Officer. Therefore should be held to HIGHER STANDARDS of CONDUCT, ABILITY, and PERFORMANCE in carrying his duties. Shooting 101, "see what you shoot, shoot what you see". In shooting at an UNIDENTIFED target he took an innocent civilian life ( she was innocent, she was not the target of the raid). Shooting because he FEARED for his life is unacceptable, especially since he could not indentify his target. That right there is negligence. When peace officers discharge their weapons out of fear, innocent civilians are killed. Scared peace officers on the street are a danger to the community, fellow officers, and civilians. If Mr Chalavila is supposed to be a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL Peace Officer, he is EXPECTED to exercised better judgment and restraint before discharging his weapon at a target he could not identify. Blaming the victim for HIS MISTAKES is wrong.

Thank you, Rush! Finally we have someone out there who gets it. There is hope for our society after all.

@CBrown, I do get it. How some people can completely overlook his actions is beyond me. Now you see why the jury didn’t convict him. I am not saying he wasn’t in a tough situation nor had enough information and time to make the right call. However that is where TRAINING comes in, so when that exact situations arises, the officer should have a though t process or policy to guide his actions.
FEAR clouded his judgment, he was wrong about the direction and vicinity of the gunfire, and his target. How could that not be called negligent? I am not saying he didn’t have a right to be scared, I am saying that being scared and doing that job professionally and with restraint doesn’t work. Any officer too scared to do the job competently needs to turn in their badge and find another line of work. Tell me he had poor training and I can cut him some slack. If the citizens of Lima are ok with a poorly trained police force, I wish them luck.

CBrown, we're never going to agree on this issue.

RUSH, I never blamed the victim.

Susan, you didn't blame the victim?!? Shame on you! You wrote:

Harboring a criminal is illegal, is it not? That makes Tarika a criminal as well (even without counting the other convictions and outstanding warrants already against her). You act like she was just an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry dude, she lived there, she knew who he was and what he did, shd did it herself, and she allowed him to live there. She knowingly harbored a criminal in her home.

And you're right, we're not going to agree and that's unfortunate. Freedom and liberty took a "three-round burst" from the jury in the form of an acquittal.

It will be interesting to see what the Lima PD review board will find in their investigation. I can not believe Mr. Chalavila didn't either break policy or training guidelines by shooting at an unidentified target. Our military in Iraq and Afghanistan have rules of engagement. They do not fire upon any position if there a possibility of civilians there; even if they are sure they are being fired upon by the enemy. If soldiers in war are EXPECTED to follow exercise restraint in an environment where they are actually taking fire, why should I not expect the same from a supposedly trained peace officer in a situation where he wasn’t taking fire?

Shame on YOU, Cbrown for taking something I said out of context. The ONLY reason I mentioned harboring a criminal was in response to YOU talking about a person's constitutional right to be safe and secure in their home. I said that she was harboring a criminal, making her a criminal and therefore had no reason to expect to be secure in her home. NOWHERE did I ever say that it was her fault for getting shot.
'
GEEEZ...I really expect better from you.

Correct, Susan. Tarika not only harbored a violent criminal, but two vicious pitbulls trained to kill, and who had their vocal chords removed. Had she not been killed, she would be in jail, too, along with losing her children. The sad thing is, there are many Tarika's who are putting themselves and their children's lives in danger. ...And the beat goes on...

@ happyG, are you implying that because of the young woman's circumstances that being shot to death by a peace officer is a reasonable expectation? How crazy is that? My expectations of a peace officer in the performance of his duties are to PROTECT exactly that type of woman in those circumstances. Forgive me for holding a supposedly TRAINED PROFESSIONAL Peace Officer to HIGHER STANDARDS of JUDGEMENT and RESTRAINT in the performance of his duties.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Rush. Hell no, it isn't a reasonable expectation for a cop to kill Tarika and people like her. I didn't say anything like that. However, if you would read what I typed, and not what you interpretted, I feel that women who allow drug dealers to live with them, especially with two mute killer pitbulls, puts them and their family's lives in danger from other drug dealers. It happened on Eureka St. and Leland Ave., where children were burned to death and/or shot, execution style ,because of drugs. When you allow drugs in your midst, you open yourselves up to violence from like people.

Well put Happy. I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know that it will burn me.

Cbrown:Rush etel,
You say you "GET IT". Clearly you don't. Was negligance involved? Yup. At the LPD level. Was reasonable doubt proven? Yup. This jury had no choice. They were insturcted to consinder Chavalias "belief at the time"...thats the nano second before pulling the trigger. If you say he was not in fear for his life, then you are saying he choose to shoot an unarmed woman holding a child. That would be premeditated murder. Is that what you are saying? If not, you really need to shut up. Because if you don't believe it was murder, then you have to go back to what the jury was told to consider. It could not be any easier than that.
The judge gave instructions...the jury heard them and did the only resonable thing they could. Hope this clears it up and you finally do "GET IT"

@happyg, I am curious why no one is questioning Mr Chalavila compentence as a peace officer here. Fact is , he shot and killed an innocent woman. Fact is, he shot at a target he could not positively ID. Doesnt that make anyone there nervous that an officer is willing to discharge his weapon without knowing what he is shooting at? That is poor law enforcement. Personally, I wouldn't work with an officer like that. Would you hunt in the woods with someone that didnt verify his target before shooting?

Blaming that young woman is crazy! Mr Chalavila is the supposedly TRAINED PROFESSIONAL and I dont get how the posters(except for CBrown) here find NO FAULT in the office's actions. PROFESSIONAL means doing it better, smarter, faster, and with restraint. Mr Chalavila showed none that and a young woman is dead.

Look at it this way, a doctor is suppose to perform a liver transplant on a patient who needs one because of years of heavy drinking. The doctor operates and instead of removing the patient's liver, the doctor removes the heart, and the patient dies on the operating table. Now who is to blame for the patient's death?

@danimal, I understand the jury may have had very narrow instructions to consider. However, the posters that blame the young woman for getting shot, for the posters that find no fault in that officer;s actions need awake up. I work for a law enforcement agency, and I have seen, done, and been aroiund long enough to know hat i am talking about. Mr Chalavila was NEGLIGENT for discharging his weapon at a target he could not verify.

Rush, Chavalia is a 31 year veteran of the police force. He has an exemplary record. He's been on hundreds of similar raids. This was the very first time he shot someone. Does that sound to you like an incompetent officer? If it does...then clearly, you expect perfection and you will be disappointed every time.

You keep accusing some of us of "blaming the victim" or finding "NO FAULT in the officer's actions". Listen to Happy when she said to READ what she (and the rest of us) write instead of interpreting it into something we didn't mean. You and CBrown both are getting pretty good at that.

Oh, and your analogy to a surgeon removing the wrong organ.... lame, pure lame. Now, if you were to make it a surgeon, operating in a darkened operating room, maybe with only a flashlight, make the nurses all scream and run around in mass chaos, and then have someone fire off multiple rounds with a gun...and then for added pressure, make him have to complete the surgery in under two minutes, it would be understandable how he'd remove the wrong organ. A surgeon has the benefit of time. Clear light. Calm atmosphere. No concerns of a violent criminal trying to kill him. There would be no reason to remove the wrong organ other than pure negligence. It just doesn't compare to this situation.

Maybe Rush and Bill need to duke this one out because clearly, we have two law enforcement officers with opposing opinions on this situation.

I for one am glad that they found Joe not guilty!!! If Tarika had not been living with a known drug dealer then the police would of never been knocking at her door that night. Also if it hadnt been the police it could of very well been another drug dealer that had been "SCREWED" over and they just might of shot and killed Tarika and all 6 of her babies that night. It has happened here in Lima before.

Here's an analogy, albeit, a tad different, but true. Some years ago, my niece was riding in a jeep with her boyfriend. When he attempted to pass a car, pulling a boat, his car clipped it in the rear, he lost control, and my niece died instantly. He said the boat swerved, but we will never know because the car did not stop. However, my niece's parents did not file a suit against him, and even asked the prosecutor for mercy. The reason? Because he didn't intend to kill her...AND she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. She flew out of the jeep and landed on her head. This isn't the same situation, but my family recognized fault, and new the difference between an accident, or rather, this type negligence, and criminal negligence. And, my niece would be alive if she wore her darn seatbelt. Tarika would be alive too, if she obeyed commands. It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Happy, you have my sympathies, what a tragic thing to have happen to your family. The way your niece's parents handled it is exactly the way I think I would feel (although I have never been in that situation, so I cannot say for sure). This is very much the way I see this incident as well. Thanks for sharing.

It really boils down to this...only Chavalia and Wilson were face to face in that fateful moment.

He couldn't see what he was shooting at and said so in his testimony. Even Bill (if he really is law enforcement) can't condone that.

Even the officer standing right behind Chavalia testified he didn't view the events the same way Chavalia did.

Testimony for the prosecution said that the position of Wilson's body suggested she was in the process of complying with Chavalia's orders.

The judge couldn't just throw the case out of court, so he did the next best thing...he instructed the jury to consider only the frame of mind of the officer at that very split second...NONE of the other testimony mattered...to consider only how would a reasonable person react in that situation? This was tantamount to jury nullification.

Training to deal with these kinds of situations hopefully makes you BETTER than a REASONABLE person. Makes you stronger and more qualified AND keeps you from acting out simply on your emotions. Hopefully, a peace officer is no longer your ordinary reasonable citizen. I don't want just any Sammy Citizen out there making a "reasonable decision" about whether I'm going to live or die. Do you?

Had Chavalia been convicted an automatic appeal would have been filed...lose that...then another...until he's finally acquitted. This will surely be the case when he's indicted and subsequently convicted on federal charges. The fact that he was acquited in local court will have little or no bearing on the outcome of the federal case.

It will go to trial in the federal system. There was enough evidence to bring it to trial locally so there'll be enough evidence to bring it federally.

The judges there...the prosecution...they'll have no intimate local connections, so they'll have no fear at the polls of repercussions for convicting a cop - who made a bad decision - when their terms expire.

I feel sorry for Chavalia...I really do...it was a misplanned raid, with little or no preraid surveillance having been conducted. This raid was doomed the moment it was conceived. The LPD should be ashamed collectively that this one went down the way it did.

But the LPD didn't pull the trigger...Chavalia did...and in the end, he gets slapped on the wrist and a "Just make sure you don't do it again." He won't...his career is over.

But it sure has to be a relief to every other law enforcement officer in the county that if they shoot - and possibly kill anyone - all they have to do is claim there was a threat. That's all that mattered in this case.

And for you Susan, unfortunately the acquittal in this case solidified that if a SWAT team did kick your door AND it was the wrong door AND shot and killed you and maimed one of your children, it wouldn't matter if they had a ton of evidence against the officer - evidence was presented at Chavalia's trail against him. All the judge would have to do would be to instruct the jury that the only thing that mattered was the frame of mind of the frightened cop who viewed you as a threat. The judge did it once ... he'll surely be apt to do it again. And that doesn't bother you - tsk, tsk - one little bit.

But without the conviction...who out there really believes there is going to be anything other than lip-service to change for the better? Prove it to Wilson's family. Prove it to me.

Rush, By the book, yes Joe was negligent. Was there resonable doubt yes. I will give Joe the benifit of the doubt, because of his 31 years of service to the city of Lima without, as far as I know, any personal issues, disaplenary or mental problems. I don't think Tarika deserved to die or had it coming to her. You are making broad statments about everyone who disagrees with you. No one is glad Tarika is dead. I do think she was living life on the edge, living with Terry and around drugs thats a pretty risky life choice to make. You say you work for law enforcement, wouldn't you say someone living in that kind of life style are living a risky life. Not to sound crass, but is it a suprise that her life was filled with trouble. Tarika was young and she may have gotten out of that life some day, there are many that have and have lead a awsome life, maybe she would have been one of those people. I will not try to say what was going through Joe's or Tarika's mind at that moment in time, it's not something many persons have to go through. Sgt. Joe was trained and been on many other drug raids, but I read that some think that Joe should have never made any mistakes, he is human, like you are. Rush can you tell me that with all of your training in what ever field a person happens to be in that they can't make a mistake, not even once in 31 years?

@Rush and ohters.
All of these analogies mean nothing. None of it has anything to do with the facts. Rush, if you feel the trial did not prove reasonable doubt, then you must think he was charged with the wrong crime. Because reasonable doubt was proven and thats the way our system works.
But consider this. Chavalia is about my age. At the age where the EDGE wears off. Hearing starts to go, vission is not as keen as it once was...reaction times slow down..may be he was more unfit for the SWAT duty than he was negligent. Either way, not guilty does not mean innocent. It means that jury doubted the charge, period.

I know that in cases like this(Amadou Diallo, shot at 41 times by NYPD), juries are usually instructed to only consider the officers frame of mind at the moment the shooting began. Too many officers shooting of innocent civilians happen because officers let their fear over take their training. I have been in situations where I feared for my life, and it was my TRAINING that allowed me handled it without myself or the felon getting hurt. As a civilian, I need to be able to TRUST that if I encounter a peace officer, I will be treated fairly and with respect. TRAINING + POLICY = PROFESSIONALISM. Mr Chalavila obivously forgot one or both things the night of the shooting. He is human, and he made a mistake. It happens. Most peace officers I know would rather take a bullet doing the RIGHT thing as oppose to taking a life doing the wrong. anytime man is given the power of life and death, I do expect that man to be darn sure about taking a life. so yes, I do expect any peace officer ina life or death situation to make darn sure that taking another man's life was the ONLY OPTION. That young woman is dead because Mr Chalavila made a mistake, and I can not understand why most posters here blame her. As the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL , Mr Chalavila is SUPPOSE to make darn near perfect choices when he is carry a weapon in his hand and there are civilians around.

I'm posting this in two places:

Some of the discussion here sickens my heart.

The prosecution did prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sgt. Joe Chavalia acted negligently when he shot and killed Tarika Wilson. Even Chavalia’s own testimony proves this. The jury, as is often the case when a cop is on trial, exercised jury nullification and said to cops everywhere, “Kill whomever you wish without accountability.” This often happens when the state, using a state court, charges an agent of the state with a crime. The cards are stacked against justice in those cases.

The undisputed facts are that Sgt. Joe Chavalia was standing on a stairway five feet from Tarika Wilson, who was holding a 1-year-old baby. Chavalia was in the dark, but Wilson was in a lit room. Chavalia had a flashlight aimed at Wilson.

Chavalia heard gunfire. Not being able to determine where that gunfire was, he DECIDED to discharge his weapon, which was set on automatic, into the lit room despite the fact he saw no gun, saw no hands and saw no muzzle flashes. In fact, he had no indication whatsoever, besides hearing gunfire from somewhere, that there was even a threat.

As I said before, those are the undisputed facts of the case. In addition, despite Chavalia’s testimony to the contrary, Wilson was in a kneeling position, which leads one to reasonably assume she was complying with Chavalia’s commands to get down.

To meet the requirements of negligence under the law, you just have to determine if Chavalia’s actions were reasonable. They were clearly not. It cannot possibly be reasonable for a police officer to RANDOMLY discharge his machine gun into a room full of children just because he heard gunfire somewhere. And even if he were under fire, he has a responsibility to determine where that fire is originating before discharging his weapon. He failed to exercise due care as required by his profession. That is negligence. Pure and simple.

That is all that matters. Those of you who keep bringing up how bad of a mom Wilson was or that she put herself in that situation are only obfuscating the issue. Chavalia could have shot the Antichrist, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao and Satan all rolled into one and it would not make one lick of difference in determining whether Sgt. Joe Chavalia negligently discharged his weapon.

The raid clearly was ill-conceived and should not have taken place. However, that does not matter either in the case of State v. Chavalia. All that matters is what Chavalia did.

Again, all that being said, I don’t think he should be crucified. I think he should have been convicted for his negligence, fined, given probation and allowed to retire, as would be the case had any other otherwise decent citizen had the misfortune of accidentally causing another’s death.

This is not an anti-cop position and it is certainly not a pro-criminal position. This is a position supporting the rule of law. The law must be applied equally to all. Carrying a badge is not a license to commit crimes.

~tjl~

CBrown said: "And for you Susan, unfortunately the acquittal in this case solidified that if a SWAT team did kick your door AND it was the wrong door AND shot and killed you and maimed one of your children, it wouldn't matter if they had a ton of evidence against the officer - evidence was presented at Chavalia's trail against him. All the judge would have to do would be to instruct the jury that the only thing that mattered was the frame of mind of the frightened cop who viewed you as a threat. The judge did it once ... he'll surely be apt to do it again. And that doesn't bother you - tsk, tsk - one little bit."

Mr. C., One obvious fact, the SWAT team did NOT kick down the wrong door in this incident. But hey, I'll play along with your attempt at a comparison anyway. If a SWAT team kicked down my door because they had the wrong house, as you suggest, there would be WAY more problems than just the one officer who shoots me. The entire SWAT team would be in court and they would be found GUILTY. I am quite certain of this because I am not a criminal, my husband is not a criminal, my children are not criminals. We do not harbor criminals in our home. We do nothing that looks even remotely suspicious to anyone watching our home. There would simply be NO excuse for raiding my house by accident. IF the police made THAT big of a mistake, it would mean beyond a reasonable doubt that they were negligent. They have full access to all the information they need to know who lives at every address in this town. Raiding my home by mistake would mean that they did not carry out any sort of legitimate investigation or surveilance of this address. Every single step in the entire raid process from start to finish would be faulty. How you can compare that hypothetical situation to what happened in Derry Glenn's rental house is so beyond me, I've heard more reasonable arguments from a bunch of drunk guys at my husband's poker nights.

Susan,

I never compared what happened that night to what could happen by mistake to you. I merely offered as a possibility that it's unfortunate it could happen. Your husband clearly believes that possibility exists, now doesn't he?

And you keep making my argument for me....sure I absolutely agree with you that since you and your family are such upstanding citizens of the community, it would be an absolute travsety should anything even closely remotely resembling this happen to you and yours, or even me and mine. And I agree that every cop - in my hypothetical situation - would be guilty for NOT CONDUCTING SUFFICIENT PRE-RAID SURVEILLANCE. But that doesn't just happen in my hypothetical situation ... it happened to the Wilson family the night of January 4th. There were comments by law enforcement before the trial and testimony to the fact during the trial ... they DID NOT KNOW CHILDREN WERE IN THE HOUSE!!!! 24 hours of surveillance before the raid would have surely given them that information.

But I don't buy they didn't know...there were children's toys on the porch the night the raid took place. On their way in they had to step around/over them. Even if you try to make the case that Anthony Terry had those toys on the porch as some sort of deterrent, shouldn't the prudent course of thought be: "Wow there's a big wheel here...there might be children present. We should be careful." But testimony offered after the fact continued to state the case they were unaware of the presence of children.

You can't want law enforcment to do the job properly before raiding your house ... and not have wanted the same thing for Sincere Wilson. That's NOT justice for all.

Something like this is probably never going to happen to you or to me...but our circumstances change now don't they? And sometimes are changed for us...beyond our control. We cannot say without a doubt that it will NEVER happen.

But that it's even the remotest of possibilities something like this could happen to ANYONE is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Nope...We are no longer secure in the constitutional guarantee to be secure in our persons and papers from unjust government intrusion. Not here in Allen County. The acquittal of Joseph Chavalia guaranteed that.

I think Mr. Benjamin Frankiln said it best: "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

CBrown, more lameness. If you're offering possibilities of what "could happen" to me (or anyone else), we'll be here all year. ANYTHING "could" happen to anyone. Tarika and her children "could" have been murdered in a rain of gunfire from rival drug dealers as they played in their yard or slept in their beds. But that has no bearing on the charges filed or the verdict in this case now does it?

In case you've forgotten, the trial against Chavalia had absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the SWAT team knew there were children in that house. NOTHING. Any idiot can see that they must have had a pretty good idea that children lived there (although, they would not necessarily have known if the children were home at the time). I don't know why you're even bringing the subject up.

I've never once said that I believe the police policy is "right" in conducting raids of this nature. Had I been in charge, I would have had serious problems sending in a SWAT team knowing there were children there if there was any other way they could nab the guy outside the home or when the children weren't there (which, in this case, I believe they could have). There are definitely some problems that exist and need to be changed in the department policy. HOWEVER, all of those problems with the departmental policy have no bearing on the trial against Chavalia. You must separate your extreme feelings about the LPD and the way they conduct their raids from the issue with Chavalia. In this case against him, if you were on that jury, you would be wrong to make your decision based on all of the outside unrelated factors you have clouding your mind. It looks like it is impossible for you (and Lucente) to put aside ALL preconceived notions, forget any information (fact or gossip) that you had already heard before the trial began, put aside already existing prejudices against law enforcement, and make a decision based SOLELY on the evidence presented in the trial. You and Lucente both are so full of bias in your attempts at preserving "our" constitutional rights that you refuse to admit that there was reasonable doubt provided to that jury. You both expect the jury members to disregard the rules and do as you have done, present a verdict based on personal feelings and prejudices. Open your eyes and see that many people have said they believed Chavalia was negligent, BUT the prosecution FAILED in their attempt to show without reasonable doubt that he was. The jury saw reasonable doubt and they decided accordingly. You may not like it, but that's the system we have, and this time, that system worked. Doesn't mean you or I have to be happy about the verdict. Someday, if heaven forbid, you ever find yourself in court with charges against you that you do not feel are fair, you will be glad to have a jury that will acquit you based on reasonable doubt, even if their emotions, the media and the public are telling them that you're guilty. If you don't like the system, get in there and work to change it. And if you want to be pissed off at someone, be mad at the prosecutor for not doing his job.

Susan,

The judge's instruction made it all but impossible for the jury to consider ANYTHING OTHER THAN Chavalia's frame of mind - what would a resonable police officer have done in that situation. There was testimony from other "reasonable" police officers for both sides making opposing statements. Now how does the jury decide; in that case they have to use the physical evidence presented. Untampered physical evidence tells no lie.

None on the jury were police officers...so how could they make that determination without testimony, without evidence? They couldn't and didn't consider all the evidence provided. If they had, they'd have found differently. I'll have to stipulate they exercised their own collective assessment, and must have decided that since they too might be scared in that moment, it was reasonable Chavalia, too, was scared, and in their determination, might just as well have said it's ok for cops to shoot at unidentified targets.

It'll be interesting when the first juror in the case decides to tell (maybe, sell) the story of what went on during the deliberation. I'm telling you in almost every argument I've made on here about the case specifically, Like Tom, I'm only using the evidence presented at his trial.

The problem with going on evidence, CBRown is that the evidence did not prove one very important thing. It did not prove beyond doubt that she was complying with orders. It suggested that she "might" have been, but in no way says that she actually was. We've hashed this many times and there have been other equally believable explanations for why she could have been in the position she was in. It is every bit as believable that she was in a position of attack. The fact that we now know that she wasn't armed does not change the fact that at the time it happened, Chavalia did NOT know that she wasn't armed and combine that with the way she was popping in and out of the doorway and it is very reasonable to think that he would have seen her as being in a firing position . (remember what I said, hindsight is 20/20 and that's all you and Lucente are going on). For me, right there, that's reasonable doubt.

Rush - THANK YOU! You have eloquently stated my opinions completely. I am baffled by lack of compassion in our community, especially since the majority agree with those who believe Ms Wilson brought her death upon herself. Or, as many also believe, "it was Anthony Terry who killed her, not Chavalia."

To all those who repeatedly say that it could just as well have been another drug dealer breaking in and shooting Ms Wilson, this is a valid argument only if we then agree that police officers are no better than drug dealers. I really hope we can hold law enforcement to a higher degree of accountability and professionalism than drug dealers.

To the high and mighty Susan - guess what? A couple of years ago, the local SWAT team threw a smoke bomb on my sister's enclosed front porch, broke down her front door, and threw another smoke bomb into her house. They stormed the house, wore NO identification, did NOT identify themselves as police officers, and with guns cocked and held to the side of her head, repeatedly screamed "get on the fucking floor, bitch!" Yeah, you better believe she got on the floor. She tried asking what was going on but was repeatedly told "Shut Up, bitch!" while they held a COCKED gun to her head and tore her house apart. She had no idea what was happening and totally believed murderers had broken in and were planning to kill her. They NEVER once identified themselves as the police.

I'd like to stop to mention that my sister is a law-abiding citizen who has never broken a law in her life. She works in a supervisory position at one of our local banks. Ironically, in the end she realized that she knew most of the SWAT officers from dealing with them at her job.

Well, guess what? They were at the wrong house. She lives in a duplex and they should have been at the house on the other side. They realized their error and went next door to terrorize the older couple whose son was dealing drugs.

Did the SWAT team apologize to her? No. Did the police department ever apologize to her? No. Did they fix her front door? No. Could she have taken on the city of Lima (and their entire legal department) and sued for unlawful entry? Maybe if she had several thousand dollars lying around with nothing better to spend it on. Would she have won such a lawsuit? With a jury like the one who just acquitted Chavalia, it's doubtful. I'm sure they could have simply said "they THOUGHT they were at the right house" and who could say that's not what they REALLY thought at that moment in time?

So, Susan, maybe you should come off your high horse long enough to realize that yes, bad things like this do happen to good people who have done nothing wrong! After it was over, my sister was glad just to be alive and was thankful that her grandchildren, who freqently stay all night, were not there. After the recent events, she now realizes how lucky she was.

To all those who have repeatedly asked "why didn't Ms Wilson identify herself and yell that she had children with her?" I ask, how do you know she didn't? With multiple shots being fired, how would anyone know whether she said anything? The gunfire would have been deafening.

This is just one more loss of liberty being given away by the American public. I hope they're really proud of themselves.

"sclfan wrote:
Simply put:
3. Said person went through the greatest and fairest legal system known to humankind."

Wow, talk about rose-colored glasses.

@ laura, I was just amazed at the lack of compassion most of the posters here and on the newspaper website for this young woman. Mr Chalavila made a mistake, yet most posters put the blame on that young woman for living w/a drug dealer. Dealing drugs is a VERY harzardous occupation, and people that associate with drug dealers put themselves at some sort of risk. However that RISK should not be in the form of being shot to death by the local police when INNOCENT civilians are involved(the woman was an innocent victim because she WAS NOT the SUBJECT of the raid). I would expect a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL Peace Officer to handle the confusion, stress, and noise of a raid better than a scared woman and her children. So placing ANY blame on that woman for her own death is wrong. Are people in Lima really that misinformed? It is unacceptable for a peace officer to discharge his weapon at an UNIDENTIFED target and out of fear. That is reckless and unprofessional. Most of these posters wouldnt hunt with anyone that reckless with a hunting rifle, yet find it acceptable for a peace officer to do that in the performace of his duties. How crazy is that?

Laura, get your undies out of a bunch long enough to actually read what people say before you go off on them.

Just as RUSH did, you also made assumptions about what I and other people here have said that are not true. If what you have said about your sister is true (remember, I don't know you from Adam, anybody can get on here and say anything they want), then there was absolutely a serious SERIOUS problem with the department. I am not one to blindly support the police just because they are the police. I am also not so naive as to think that they don't make mistakes and bust down the wrong doors. In fact, I tend to agree with Lucente on the idea that no-knock warrants are almost always a bad thing. If your sister, truly innocent, had this horrible thing happen to her, believe me, I have nothing but sympathy for her. I cannot imagine the terror she must have felt. I, along with Lucente and several others, believe that there are definite changes that need to be made. While Tarika could have avoided ever being in that situation had she stayed away from drugs herself and never have allowed a convicted felon to live in her home with her precious babies, I certainly do NOT believe the Tarika deserved what she got or that she was to blame for it happening. And I certainly don't think anybody believes that little Sincere deserved what he got (that is the most heartbreaking part of the whole thing, in my opinion.) But there is a VERY big difference between the situation at the Wilson home and the incident with your sister. With your sister, she wasn't a criminal, or harboring a criminal, and the police had the WRONG house. There is no excuse, in my mind, for the police raiding the wrong house. I cannot fathom how a mistake like that can ever be made if they do even the smallest amount of surveillance. They are as capable of reading the housenumbers on a home as I am. No reason for it. In Wilson's case, they had the right house. The criminal they were after was inside. I believe that there should have been a better way to nab him without having to raid the home. I'm still waiting to hear an explanation from the LPD as to why they felt they had to raid instead of grabbing him when he walked out the door. That baffles me. BUT, this is about one person, Chavalia. Chavalia is not accountable for the police procedure and the decision to raid the house in the first place. The ONLY thing he is responsible for is the shooting of Tarika and Sincere. Yet, unfortunately, people are taking their anger at the whole system, preconceived biases against law enforcement, personal feelings due to other situations (such as your sister's), anger at the police for raiding a home with children, etc, and they are throwing ALL of that on Chavalia's shoulders. Crucifying one man because you hate the whole system is not the right way to get justice.

@ susan, I agree the jury ruled as it was instructed to do. Lots times in cases with police shootings of innocent civilians, the charges, evidence, and instructions make it hard to convict. Since the average juror has not done any law enforcement, when an officer claims that he thought his life was in danger or he FEARED for his life, the average juror can relate to the fear. Therefore the mistake was made because the officer feared for his life and that is enough to not convict in accidentally shooting deaths. Had I ben the the jury, the moment I heard he discharged his weapon at a target he could not identify, he's negligent.

Rush, I see what you are saying. But that also goes completely against the duty of a juror. As a juror, you have to be able to put your preconceived ideas, opinions and biases aside and follow ONLY the evidence that you are presented with in the trial (or whatever the judge instructs you to consider). It's a pretty difficult thing for most normal people to do, especially in a case like this where I cannot imagine a single person in this whole county who had not already been well aware of the case through the media all these months before they were even selected for the jury. I thought from the very beginning that the only fair trial (for BOTH sides) possible would be out of state where they could find an entire jury who had not heard of the case before and had no pre-formed opinions. But, that wasn't allowed, so even though it may have been what you or I or many other people believe is a wrong verdict, the jury did do what they were instructed to do and they made the correct decision based on that. I would think that Lucente et al, would be taking the judge and the pr