Chavalia verdict a defeat for rule of law

It must have come as some surprise. You had commented that "Chavalia looks guilty" in one of your rantings. The jury, thank goodness, saw through all that. The truth is this officer did what he was supposed to do. His job. Sometimes it is tough and it is dirty, but it still needs to be done.

OK Tom,
I also hope the city/county re-evaluates it's policy about street level durg dealer raids.
No doubt they go overboard playing Army.
But you see, the jury had no choice in their verdict. They were given an instruction that said (something like) they were only to consider Chavalia's belief/mind set at the time he fired that three round burst. Although you don't like it, the jury came back with the only verdict they could. Resonable doubt was all it took, and THAT MY FRIEND is THE RULE of LAW...period. No need to rehash all this. Its the policy that should be put on trial. It's the way these raids are conducted, thats what is wrong.
But given all testimony, you have to agree that resonable doubt was proven, the split second timming, the other shots being fired, at least one other SWAT team member saying he also believed he was under fire. The weapons (former FBI) expert. The Columbus officer/SWAT team member. Sure, she MAY have been in a kneeling or crouched position, but in my mind, that is a fighting position. And you know that too. Make yourself as SMALL a target as you can. So in a raid like that, with gunfire included in the mix, his actions are understandable and his reactions excusable. The jury had spoken.

This is an absolute irresponsible article and I will be writing The Lima News to share my disappointment that they would agree to post this on their website. First, the jury heard the case, and whether or not you like the verdict the system of justice worked. Second, to put this in the news when a city is torn in two is irresponsible and negligent.

I have disagreed with your political views, but you went too far with this article. I WILL NOT read, purchase or subscribe to The Lima News any more until you are no longer a columnist for them.

Most of his articles are irresponible, Matt. But the Lima News does not care. They are pretty much for the criminals and not the police. Sad, but true.

I agree that Mr. Lucente's comments were inflammatory and irresponsible. Unfortunately, the same Constitution that guaranteed a fair trial for Sgt. Chavalia, also guarantees that Mr. Lucente is able to state his opinion.
My suggestion would be that since, Mr. Lucente has combat training, he don the same gear as the SWAT team and enter with them on the next drug raid. Maybe then he can understand what our law enforcement community experiences.
We are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution, my dear father would tell us as we were growing up. Which are you?

Our Founders were Slave Owners. What does he mean by that. America is a better place than when the Founders ruled. Also, I see that you are a law student. It is obvious that you need to go back and study. "Rule of law" was obivously followed. If there would not have been a reasonable doubt, Chavalia would have been convicted. You should be ashamed to call yourself an American. I am ashamed that you are an American.

Over the years, I have agreed and disagreed with Mr. Lucente's remarks. One thing I know is how he so hates the police. He takes personal time to find articles of negativsim against the police. Mr. Lucente, your life experience has probably made this way.

Mr. Lucente: Yes, you do write quite well and clearly state your opinions. But, you must be a true wimp in life. You must have been beaten up as a kid, and now you are thinking the pen is mighter than the sword. Trust me, you are still a wimp. As a combat veteran myself, I do not brag upon like you. And, to brag about going to law school to other people, shows how your big fat ego in a little man's body works. Please, if you have the balls, contact me. I will leave my e-mail with you. I look forward to it.

Great article Mr Lucente. At least you are not affraid to speak the truth no matter how hard it may be. No one wins in a case like this. No one is right or wrong in a case like this. If the officer made a mistake, then be a man of God and admit it. I don't think he intentionally meant to kill the lady, he just made a spilt second decision that he thought was right, unfortunately it was wrong and he should just step up and admit that. Plain and simple, its the same things we would encourage our own children to do.

Juries are wrong all the time, this is just another one of those times. I hope it was ignorance, not racial, that lead to this bad ruling.
And contray to lovealot, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SHOOT THE WOMEN AND KIDS, while arresting a thug. And y'all think lberals got it mixed up? LOL

BTW I understand HOW IT happened, that dont excuse his duty, NOT TO KILL OR HURT people while doing it. If he cant tell the diff between a scared woman and a child, and danger for his life, maybe he should have retired sooner! Was it that, it was a black thing, so nobody cares about OUR RIGHTS?
I dont agree with TL much, but the laws are for everyone, even cops!
TL is right

Mr Lucente, You have fought for your right and are paid to express your opinion. Although I sometimes disagree, I to have served to protect your right to speak freely. The one thing that you and so many others fail to mention or intentionatly leave out is that neither Mr. Chavalia or his defense never denied he shot her, They proved beyond doubt that it was without criminal intent. If you are indeed a law student you should understand the differance. I do have a question? Are you paying your own way thru Law school as a true libertarian would do? Or are you using my tax money to further educate yourself? Its a personal question, And I dont expect an answer. But it would go along way as far as your crediability.

I love the irony of a man saying he supports the rule of law yet opposes the men charged with enforcing them. Laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. You can't have one without the other.

WOHA>>>WAIT a minute....MATT>>>lovealot>>>Wayneskid>>>SCOTT>>>CRAIG STEVENSON....hold on people. This paper and it's emplyees have the RIGHT of freedom of the PRESS. WHat don't you understand about that? Scott I am ashamed that you feel like that because the very Constitution of the UNINTED STATES of AMERICA that you tout, gives TOM his right to say and feel AND WRITE in the free press what he chooses and what his editors allow. All these LAME personal attacks are uncalled for and you are infringing on HIS right to speek his mind. As you see, I have not agrred with Tom on this either, and I have been very criticle at times of his stance on many issues, but I will be damned if I will let anyone say he does not have a right to his opinion and the freedom to express it. What the hell is wrong with you people? And Craig...those were very cheep shots my friend...very cheep indeed. Calling someone out to a fight (yes you were) over an opinion? Tom has stuck to his guns on this issue and I for one...agree or not, respect that. But I have trouble finding any respect for those of you that would slander and threaten someone over an opinion.OUTRAGED? Are you?...Well look into the mirror people, that is where your outrage should lay.

Get over it Danimal, You screaming at people for expressing their opinions. But yet defend Mr Lucente for expressing his. Total Nonsense, I have been in combat also, So what does that mean? Have you?

I'm not sure where you get your total disdain of authority figures, particularly the police, but , Our police forces have HAD to become paramilitary in style for their own self defense! ( in order to Protect and Serve in this nation!)

The right to bear arms as set forth by our country's founders didn't invision the types of weaponry that exists today. We were deemed the right to bear arms to defend ourselves, not to attack others within our society. The criminals have arsenal's,
trained attack dogs - without voice boxes so they can not bark no less - and to top it all off, they hide behind women and children as shields. Something we cry out in opposition to when it happens in other countries, but apparently it's ok here at home?
( Not that women are by any means not the criminals themselves.) They spend their time thinking up ways to use and get around the systems that are put into place to protect us. The very lifestyle they lead threatens the average citizens in the area we live in. Police have become the average citizens last hope of not being gunned down as you drive down the major streets in town by the warring gangs. They aren't perfect, but in my mind they definetely are a thousand times preferred to the criminals and gangs. And, by far, our system outweighs the legal /justice available any where else.

That being said.... A trial has taken place in which a pair of lawyers presented the two oppossing sides of the case. The prosecutor Had the job of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the officer was neglient.

What does it mean? well according to about 10 random web sites negligence is the failure to act in a reasonable fashion, as another person would under similar circumstances. Or, if you prefer, to act with carelessness, indifference, and without thought.

The Defense lawyers' job was to provide doubt. To do this He had to present that the person on trial acted in a reasonable manner based on his knowledge, and personal perecption of the activity and then show how other persons would react in a similar situtation.

Guess what has happened (much to my surprise - i must admit - i didn't think he would succeed based on previous trial record) Kluges' defense was able to prove that he did what another reasonable person placed in the same place would have done. They didn't have to prove Everybody in that place would do the same thing. Or, that the people in high offices thought it would be done differently. He provided the doubt that carelessness happened. Seems like how most trials in the USA work.

The law worked. Did you like it ?? Apparently not. oh well! The job has been done!
It doesn't help our community to continue to rant and be negitive because you and/or the lima news, didn't like the outcome.

Our community needs more and more people to be a little bit like Mr. Lowe who had the guts to stand on the street corner when the fellows across the street very well might have shot him and say THIS IS MY Country, and My Community and I damn well am not going to hide from the creeps and crooks and let them just walk off with things by force. Drugs and the violence and crime that come with them are destroying us as a nation and a people bit by bit - and if you think Our Country's Founders would be proud of our apathy and condoning of drug abuse, use, and ignoring the crime that follows hand in hand with it to support the ugly habit, you need to take a bigger, deeper and longer look at history.

denise
do you think OJ was innocent?

Danimal,
You stole my thunder dude. I could not believe the absolute disdain and pettiness of some of these poster's. I didn't agree with Tom on this either, but to say some of those things these people did shows how small minded they are. Tom, does not go around in his blogs bragging about his time in the service, unless someone has asked him or he is trying to make a point. Whats-his-face, calling Tom out, pathetic!! What is it with some of these people throwing out statments like - Did you serve? Like if you didn't, you can't have an opinion on a subject, pleaseeee.

This is Toms blog, and his opinion's. This one was not printed in the paper as far as I know, but some of his columns do. He can state any opinion on his own blog he whishes.

I have disaggred with Tom many times, but he never is hateful or discourtios too any one I have seen. Go back and forth with Ron Lederman if you want your a--ses kicked, why his blog is not as popular as Toms IMO. You people don't like it, don't come back.

For all those people who think it was right for Chavalia for shooting and killing the unarmed woman and casuing injury to her child I hope you will have the opportunity to experience a policeman kicking in your door so you can experience the nightmare that woman died from. How many of you would like to have been in her place since you think he was right?

Daron...gee, yer an idiot...very clearly. IMO. Opinions are fine. Name calling and inviting to fight etc, are not acceptable. Bashing is not debate. A blog is a blog.
Oh and I have not been in combat. I did serve 10 years though, but was not subjected to grunt fighting. However, that was because my job was a bit up the ladder from there. about all I can and will tell you. 1/214th FA. And just what does that mean? I took the same oath as you, but as I look at it, i am sorry you took it, because you have no idea what it ment. These people were calling for him to retract his opinion and inciting violence. And That, my foolish friend, I do not have to stand for.

2real4u
more stupidity.
I have never had them kick in my dorr, nor do I fear it. KNOW WHY? I live within the law...wether I like it or not. Try it sometime.

Those who give up liberty for security get neither liberty nor security.
Ben Frankline

Danimal and Scant, you both said just what I was thinking. I don't agree with some of Tom's position or the way in which he chooses to express it on this topic, but that handful of posters who jumped all over him today were just completely out of line and way overboard. There's no room here for name-calling and threats.

2real4u, I must have missed where someone here said it was "RIGHT" for him to shoot her. I think you are not seeing the difference between someone being able to "understand" how/why he felt he needed to shoot her and someone thinking he was "right" in doing so. Obviously, it was a mistake, a tragic mistake. There is no disputing of that.

Susan,
I think when lovesalot, said that the office did what he was supposed to do comes damn close. Anmd most have said, they agree he did no wrong, like the jury. That also comes pretty close, dont ya think?

I am a subscriber to the paper and I will continue to be subscriber because of guys like Tom. I don't always agree with him, but in this case he has a point. I will disagree with the personal attacks on the man. He was doing what he was trained to do on a faulty SWAT team that shoudn't even have busted into the home in the first place. Similar issues happen over in Iraq where soldiers follow orders and then are thrown into jail while their superiors get off relatively scotch free.

The leadership of the Lima Police Department needs to be held accountable for questionable decisions in allowing these military like SWAT operations happen in the city. Every Lima police officer I have ever met have been upstanding citizens who put their best into their jobs. I could very much see these guys being like the cops and firefighters that responded to 9-11. Could their be corrupt ones, of course... but my opinion is this is definitely a case of a possible good man following orders and his training in a bad situation his superiors put him in.

Actually, dan. This may not sound like it makes sense to you, but sometimes, a person can do things that aren't necessarily wrong... but also aren't right either. Here's a simple example... Say you're in line at Walmart, the lines are long, there aren't enough cashiers working, you've got a full cart full of stuff. The person behind you is an elderly person, obviously in poor health, with a cane, and only one or two items to purchase. You can either let him go ahead of you and save him some time having to try to stand longer in line, or you can go ahead and leave him in line behind you and not think another thought about him. If you choose to go ahead and checkout and leave him to wait behind you, you haven't done anything "wrong".... but can you honestly say you did what was "right"?

You know how they say "two wrongs don't make a right"? Well, sometimes, "ONE wrong doesn't make a right either."

dan:
No, I don't think OJ is innocent in his current case, nor was innocent in his trial years ago....I also think the prosecutor in that case was pretty slow to not bring in some "expert witness" that could have easily shown how wearing Plastic/rubber gloves while trying on a pair of leather gloves that had once been blood soaked and had a chance to dry would have made the whole "if they do not fit , you must acquit " defense void... anyone who wears leather gloves on a regular basis knows what happens to them after they get wet...but regardless of the outcome...and the number of people disliking the out come a trial was held and concluded. My personal feelings won't change it.

If the lawyers in the case aren't presenting the information in a convincing way to a jury, and they lose the case, who is at fault??

Danimal, I appreciate you dont like name calling after calling me an idiot. Wow, If someone doesnt agree with you, They are just an idiot. What kind of tolerance is that? The point I was trying to make with Mr Lucenete was he claims to be a libertarian, But says alot of left wing almost marixts statements. I appreciate your service as I do Toms. The oath I took said something about the consitution. Something that has been almost forgotton by you and many others!

BrutusTheBuckeye,

Sgt. Chavalia DID NOT act according to his training when he shot and killed Tarika Wilson; he pulled that trigger out of fear. Heck, the judge all but told the jury that in his instructions before he released them to deliberation. That only his state of mind - he was in fear for his life - when he fired his weapon was relevant. That scares the living daylights out of me ... as it should you and every other freedom-loving citizen of this country.

And here's another thing that really bothers me about the whole thing:

If only his state of mind was relevant when he killed Tarika Wilson:
Why the need for a Grand Jury?
Why the need for an indictment?
Why conduct an investigation?
Why hold a trial?
Why call witnesses to testify?
Why offer evidence into the trial?

If all that was relevant was his state of mind, then the following trial could have saved us all a whole lot of money:

Trial Begins

Judge: Mr Strasbaugh, call your first witness.
Strassbaugh: The state rests, Your Honor.
Judge: No witnesses to offer testimony?
Strassbaugh: No, Your Honor.
Judge: Ok...Mr Kluge, your first witness.
Kluge: The defense calls Joseph Chavalia to the stand.
-Chavalia takes the stand, and after being sworn in...-
Kluge: Officer Chavalia, who killed Tarika Wilson?
Chavalia: I did.
Kluge: Why did you shoot her?
Chavalia: Because I was scared.
Kluge: The defense rests.

Actually Denise, the right to bear arms was not only to protect ourselves, but also so that the gov't didn't have more fire-power than the citizenry, in case we needed to overthrow it. The point at which the citizens do not have access to the same weaponry as the gov't (and we don't) is when we lose that capability, and oppression begins.
Also just want to throw some support over to Mr Lucente. This is a divisive issue, and yours is an unpopular view, but I still admire you for standing up for what you believe in.

Well, Tom, I disagree with you, but unlike some of these... well, people, I don't think it was irresponsible to voice it.
Street dealer or not, these dealers all too often outgun your average street officer. I have no problem with them carrying serious gear on these raids.
I, too, think there should be some accountability for this. But, I don't think the guy should be convicted strictly based on a need for accountability; he should be convicted, or not convicted, of the specific crime, and in this case, as one of those above said, the crime calls for criminal intent, and I personally don't believe there was any. Was he negligent? I don't know; it's hard to even imagine being in his shoes. That's what the civil trial will determine, I guess. But in this case, at least, negligence wasn't the charged crime.

Mr. Lucente, I disagree with you about this case, and with your apparent attitude toward the police themselves, but you are absolutely correct that we are becoming a police state. We are also becoming a part of the NAU. That will destroy what vestiges are left of our constitutional rights. So, while we might not always agree, let's use our right to free speech as long as we can.

Lovealot,

The Lima News is "not for the criminals" and saying we "don't care" is simply ignorant. We are people doing a job and we all have different opinions. And it is our job as a media outlet to serve as a check on the government. If you don't like that I suspect you must enjoy living in a dictatorship.

~tjl~

Scott,

Are you really that naive? Give me a break. And I say what I do because I want America to be the place it is supposed to be. But you would rather live in a police state, apparently. That, my friend, is not the America I love.

~tjl~

Craig Stevenson,

You don't even know me. But I guess ignoramuses like you would rather insult people instead of challenge their opinions.

And for the record, I brag about nothing. I only mention my service when others challenge me about sitting on the sidelines or being a coward. And I never bring up law school, others do.

And, for the record, I was never beaten up as a child or as an adult, as if that makes a difference to anyone accept the likes of you who clearly think physical force is the answer to everything.

~tjl~

Daron,

I never claimed there was criminal intent. There was negligence, however. I do know the difference. He failed to exercise due care before discharging his weapon.

And yes, I am paying my own way through law school. Want to donate?

~tjl~

John and a few others who have made similar comments:

I am not anti-police, I am anti-police state. I am pro rule of law and that means even the law enforcers must follow the law. Cops should not get a pass because they have a badge. That is how life is in a free country.

~tjl~

Daren...can't believe you didn't understand that my NAMECALLING to to express a POINT.
Freedom of speach does not mean that threats and profanity are part of that freedom.