In October of 2020, we discussed the arrests of several individuals for conduct that, under normal circumstances, would constitute self defense. As we also discussed, there were obvious political motivations for the arrest of each of these people, motivations which led prosecutors to ignore each defendant’s inherent right to defend themselves, others and their property.
Readers can be confident that the American justice system remains strong. Each of the defendants we discussed more than two years ago has had their case resolved in their favor. However, in Parts 2 and 3, we shall examine the continuing threat of criminal prosecution based upon political considerations.
We began our 2020 review with the arrest of Police Officer Garrett Rolfe in Atlanta Georgia, for the shooting of Rayshard Brooks. During an investigation, Brooks had grabbed the Taser from off the belt of Officer Rolfe’s partner, and then pointed that Taser at the Officer. Rolfe then shot and killed Brooks.
Officer Rolfe was arrested and charged with murder by Atlanta District Attorney Paul Howard within days of the shooting, despite a Georgia law which states that “Sheriffs and peace officers…may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others…”
Why the rush to judgment by the Atlanta District Attorney? According to the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, “(t)he District Attorney, Paul Howard, is under criminal investigation himself, for allegedly misappropriating over $100, 000 in taxpayer funds. He also faces a runoff election against a string (of)challenger(s). Politics, rather than faithful adherence to the law…led Mr. Howard to wrongfully pursue these charges against Officer Garrett Rolfe.”
As we noted at the time, “(t)he shooting of Brooks led to more riots in a city already suffering from the effects of riots after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis… (t)here is an argument to be made that (the case was) brought in an effort to quell further protests and riots.”
We are happy to report that in August of 2022, “Peter J. Skandalakis, the lead prosecutor appointed by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, determined Garrett Rolfe was justified in shooting Brooks in 2020 and dismissed charges against him…(t)he investigation and analysis of several video sources determined Brooks took (Rolfe’s partner’s) Taser and fired it at him. Investigators said Rolfe determined Brooks posed an immediate threat when wielding the Taser. ‘It’s my conclusion that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable,’ investigator and former prosecutor Danny Porter said.”
Currently, Officer Rolfe has been reinstated by the Atlanta Police Department, with back pay, and is “suing the city of Atlanta and former city officials for the violation() of (his) constitutional rights and false arrest.”
We then discussed the case of Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St Louis, Missouri; “the McCloskeys sat in their backyard together having dinner. Suddenly, as they ate, a mob of hundreds of screaming people destroyed a wrought iron gate with a no trespassing sign on it and came pouring in, moving toward them quickly…(t)his mob was clearly intent on violence…the mob threatened to murder him and his wife. Then they threatened to kill the family’s dog. Panicked, the McCloskeys called the police. Then they called the neighborhood security patrol, but no one came. They had no choice to protect themselves.”
In that effort at defense of themselves and their property, “Mark McCloskey…came out with (an) AR-15 rifle, according to court records, which said Patricia McCloskey…displayed a semi-automatic handgun. No shots were fired.” Yet, St Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner wasted no time in charging the McCloskeys with felony unlawful use of a weapon. “Gardner said their actions created the risk of bloodshed during an otherwise peaceful protest.”
Gardner brought these charges against the McCloskeys despite a Missouri law which states “(a) person may…use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.”
In spite of their self defense claims, in June of 2021, the McCloskeys both plead guilty to reduced charges, but only after Circuit Attorney Gardner was removed from the case. In December of 2020, “a city judge…disqualified Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner from prosecuting Mark McCloskey… Circuit Judge Thom Clark II stated that a special prosecutor shall be appointed to take over the case…’Seeking to enhance her personal interests, Ms. Gardner distribute(d)…two different emails following the June 28 event,’ Clark wrote. ‘Importantly, the emails solicit(ed) donations while highlighting Defendant and the event surrounding his alleged criminal conduct. Both emails (were) created within a five-day window of her decision to charge Defendant on July 20, linking her prosecutorial discretion to money solicitations.’”
Since then, Gardner has been reprimanded by the Missouri Supreme Court for ethical violations unrelated to the McCloskey case. As she is described by the St Louis City Journal, “Gardner remains focused not on law and order but on social justice – and on bizarre self-aggrandizement. During her short tenure, the circuit attorney’s office has had more than 100 percent turnover, the equivalent of losing 470 years of collective experience. In January 2020, Gardner filed a federal civil rights suit against the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, and the St. Louis police union, alleging a racist conspiracy to oust her from office, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Gardner soon appeared on PBS to declare St. Louis ‘ground zero’ for criminal-justice reform efforts and likened any attempt to hold her accountable to a ‘modern-day night ride.’”
Like Atlanta DA Paul Howard, St Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner had obvious political motivations for the arrest and prosecution of the McCloskeys – in this case, Gardner wanted to signal her support for those protesting in favor of “social justice.” Once more, however, the slowly grinding wheels of actual justice came to a fair resolution that was very different from the original inflated charges.
Then there is the now-infamous case of Kyle Rittenhouse. discussed more fully here. Rittenhouse was arrested for the shooting of three protestors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, two of whom died. As is well known, after a jury trial in November of 2021, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges. The evidence established clearly that Rittenhouse had been defending himself, as even the only survivor of the shootings, Gaige Grosskreutz, “admitted under cross-examination that Rittenhouse did not shoot him when he had his hands up after a confrontation. Instead, he admitted, Rittenhouse shot only after Grosskreutz pointed his own 9mm handgun at Rittenhouse’s head.”
The only difference between the Kenosha DA, Michael Graveley, and the prosecutors in Atlanta and St Louis, is that Graveley was less overtly political. Unlike Gardner and Howard, Graveley and his trial attorney, Thomas Binger, did not comment on the Rittenhouse case, even after the acquittal.
Nonetheless, as in Georgia and Missouri, Wisconsin law on self defense states “(a) person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person…(t)he actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”
As we stated in 2020, “(o)nce more, the strength of America’s legal system is displayed to full effect. Though the arrests and prosecutions of Officer Rolfe, the McCloskeys and Kyle Rittenhouse were rushed to satisfy the appetite of an angry and violent mob, the deliberate process of the rule of law has come to the aid of each.”
But the proper resolution of these matters has not ended the use of political motivations to justify the arrest and prosecution of individuals involved in self defense that is not approved of by the powers that be.
The Report concludes tomorrow
Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC
Photo: U.S. National Archives