CPD officer sentenced to 5 years in Iowa

Status
Not open for further replies.

eric.cartman

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
827
Location
Florida
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5478651

July 13, 2007 - A Chicago Police officer has been sentenced to five years in prison. He says he was defending himself against a drunken attacker while off-duty in Iowa. A judge in Dubuque, Iowa, says the police officer should have simply run away.

Patrolman Mike Mette was convicted of felony assault. He has been removed from the Chicago Police Department and faces a stiff prison term in Iowa.

"I feel it's a complete miscarriage of justice," said Officer Michael Mette.

The case raises questions about fairness and just who was the victim.

This is not just a question of whether the punishment fits the crime. Chicago Police Officer Mike Mette says there was no crime. Nevertheless, a judge in Iowa this week sentenced Mette to five years behind bars for slugging a Dubuque college student, even though the judge admits Mette was being attacked at the time. No one is disputing the facts of the case of what happened that night, only the outcome is being questioned.

"My younger brother Marc was living in Dubuque, he went out there for his 25th birthday," said Michael Mette.

The party weekend took place October, 2005, near the University of Dubuque campus. Eleventh District Chicago Patrolman Mike Mette, his brother Marc and several friends went to a late night beer party in a nearby home thrown by a pair of university students, one of them 20-year-old Jake Gothard. According to authorities, Gothard was extremely drunk at the time.

"Yelling, makin' derogatory comments about us being six guys with no women with us," said Michael Mette.

Michael Mette says when he and his brother and their four friends tried to leave, Gothard became angry.

"He was just mad that we didn't want to stay and drink with him anymore," Michael Mette said.

Gothard and his roommate began chasing Mette and the five other men, claiming they had stolen his cell phone, until they all ended up on the front lawn of Marc Mette's house.

"Mr. Gothard approached me and told me he was going to beat the crap out of me, and he actually hit me with his two fists like this in the chest. Hit me three times. I pushed him away from me. Told him to leave. He comes back at me a fourth time and that's when, you know, when I hit him. I hit him in the left side of the face," said Michael Mette.

Moments later, when city police arrived on the scene, Gothard was still on the ground, having been cold cocked by Officer Mette's right hook. When Mette and the others described what happened, Dubuque Police arrested Mette, charging him with felony assault causing serious injury.

"Just because I am a police officer doesn't mean I'm supposed to take a beating," Michael Mette said.

"His conduct wasn't warranted," said Timothy Gallagher, assistant Dubuque County attorney.

The prosecutor who brought charges against Mette says it wasn't self-defense.

"Mr. Gothard received, as I recall, numerous cuts, abrasion bruises, head/brain bleeds," said Gallagher.

When the case went to a bench trial in December, Dubuque County Judge Monica Ackley found that Chicago Police Officer Mike Mette "was not the initial aggressor of this incident," Jake Gothard was. Nevertheless, Judge Ackley ruled that Mette was guilty, because even after Gothard struck him three times, Mette should have just ignored it and retreated.

"If I'm being attacked on my own property I should have the right to defend myself within reason," said Mette.

On Monday, Mette was sentenced to five years in prison.

"The court has no discretion in that matter. It's mandatory incarceration," said Gallagher.

Jake Gothard wasn't charged, although he has since been arrested for driving under the influence. He returned to compete in college golf tournaments and, apparently, to the party circuit, having displayed dozens of drinking photos on his Facebook page.

Jake Gothard, the official victim in the case, agreed to an interview Friday but then backed out on advice of his lawyer because he says they plan a civil suit against Officer Mette.

Former Officer Mette, who has been placed on unpaid status, is off the job as he appeals the conviction and sentence in Iowa.

Does Iowa have "stand your ground" laws?
 
I saw this on a Chicago cop's blog http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com.

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for any injustice, three things introduce a degree of ambivalence on my part:

1. It's a Chicago cop. That alone pegs the skepticism meter... and rightfully so. See below.

2. He apparently was not truthful to the Iowa cops when questioned. If lying to the cops gets me into a bind, why should it not get a cop into a bind?

3. The comments by Chicago cops regarding this incident are simply astonishing. There have been threats of retaliation by multiple cops on that blog against totally uninvolved Iowans who might visit Chicago. Not exactly the best way to win sympathy for a cause...
 
Five years for punching someone seems pretty harsh in any case. A felony for one punch seems obscene, unless the punch was between two people of very dissimilar size (don't punch granny). The judge's logic is flawed that after being hit three times he should have "ran away" rather than punching back. This seems like a reasonable use of proportionate force to me. I would have found him not guilty.
 
"I didn't see anything in the article about a gun...

Gothard sounds like a drunken idiot. He just got what he had comin'."


You're right, 2TransAm's...I misread it...

Gothard may well have been an idiot (a lot of folks, including me, are when inebriated)...but the cop should have retreated.
 
no, that is the point, nobody should have to retreat...especially on family property that was being trespassed on by that point by Gothard.

where are Gothards criminal trespass and assault charges?

btw, the way it reads, they had attempted to retreat once already...and were chased by the aggresors.

not trying to ruffle feathers, but this is the way i see it.

jamie
 
...but the cop should have retreated.

Uh huh... he should have gone in the house, and let drunk guy pee on his bushes and push over his mailbox, and then punch through a plate glass window and bleed to death, at which point he would have gotten a manslaughter rap, right?
 
We all have our thoughts about what we think should have been...since none of us were there, we (ME!) can't make judgements.

So, I was probably being too harsh...but I guess I've got a problem with Chicago cops since that dude kicked that lady bartender's butt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dont get me wrong either glockman17366.....i have a big problem with chicago period (like the fact that it still exists in its current state), and i agree about the bar incident.

i am not defending CPD officers in general, however I believe this guy was in the right on this, as far as i can tell from the article.
 
5 years is a long time for brawling.

However, it was hardly self-defense if the injuries were accurately described. Hitting someone in anger is not self-defense.
 
he had already been hit three times, and they guy was coming back for more.....sounds exactly like self defense to me...he just had a better punch.
 
Depends on the nature of the "punches" from a guy who doesn't sound like he could stand up straight, he was so drunk.

The injuries were not consistent with a single blow to the face, either. They are consistent with beating the crap out of a guy on the floor.

Still, 5 years is excessive.
 
OK. Allow me to flip the script. And, I say "flip the script" because in this case the cop was convicted, and I'm usually accused of constantly siding with the cops.

This is an instance in which a judge has access to a lot more facts than we do. Could this judge be a pinhead? Absolutely- certainly the paraphrased statements attributed to her give me pause. Could there also be a lot more to this story than what is being recounted in the media by the defense attorney and the defendant? Absolutely.

I trust the details of the encounter, as revealed by the media, not one bit. They constantly get stuff wrong. Add in the inherent bias in statements made by the defense, and you have a recipe for complete ambiguity about what happened.

Any cop who has worked more than one week on the street has gone on this run, if you take away the fact that one of the parties involved is a LEO. Beer party, both sides probably drinking (not specified in the article). Mouths start running. Fighting words exchanged. One side starts the fight, the other side finishes it according to some, the reverse is revealed by others.

Where are his trespass and assault charges? I dunno. Is that a case of the cops not doing their job, or is it a sign of there being a lot more to the story than we know? Hmm! If you assume the former, it means that the local cops conspired to deny justice to another cop who was assaulted. I'm not going to say that this could not or did not happen, but it certainly requires the usual L&P Ranting Poster to invert his world view for a moment. ;)

Mike
 
Drunken brawl erupts after stupid words are exchanged.

Nobody stops it, and it doesn't fizzle by itself.

One guy ends up on the floor with massive injuries, likely from multiple blows and probably kicks. Other guy ends up standing without a scratch on him, claiming that he was in physical danger, from a guy who was dead drunk, and punched him three times with no effect.

He had every right to get the guy off of him. Evidence shows that he did far more than that, and that he certainly didn't just punch the guy once and leave him on the floor.

It goes to court. What do YOU decide?

Off-duty cops do get into brawls. So do off-duty X-ray technicians, programmers, sales reps, and beauticians, men and women. There are laws in place to try to stop brawls, and to differentiate "defending one's honor" from real self-defense.

Like Coronach wrote, the local cops did not try to "protect" these guys from the consequences of their own actions.

It seems that the case was pretty straightforward, except for the usual contradictory testimony. I've been on a jury in a fight case. Couldn't reach a verdict. You should have heard all the BS and whitewashing -- each side accused the other of using foul language, "fighting words", etc., and each side claimed to have said, "Pardon me, what's the problem, ma'am?" That's par for the course in these cases.
 
Last edited:
It has at least been established that it was a beer-fueled (and possibly one-sided) fight. I've seen them,and cops hate them. Gothard hit the cop three times to no effect and got clobbered in return. Mop up and go home. The end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top