Newsflash to the “a jury convicted him” crowd. (Btw, in a unique political moment in history. Overcorrections happen. Not to be facetious? But ever been to Salem?).

There is NO appetite to sentence him. He will not see the inside of a jail.

Again, terribly sorry about the death as I’m sure is the cop. But it’s not a just conviction albeit it might still be lawful at this moment in time

I thought you didn’t want to discuss just/unjust, just lawful/unkawful.

Is it lawful this guy goes to prison for 40+ years? Maybe.

Is it just this guy goes to prison for 40+ years? Absolutely not.

That’s how sane logic works

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

Source? Or just making assumptions like usual

rtfa

so your source is a blog post by some guy? All along the official story was he was being stopped because he wasn't wearing a helmet but now the story is that they "knew" he was head to kill someone?

Given the sweeping indictments of the Kennedy St Crew just after this happened, and that Hylton had a weapon and $1000s in cash on him and was high, I’m inclined to believe that Hylton was not a nice young man out for a ride.

So what? That doesn't make it ok for the police to chase him in violation of policy, obstruct justice, and engage in conspiracy. If he weren't dead now, he could be prosecuted [for something], but he is dead.

It was a terrible policy that has since been rolled back by Bowser. Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But the reason we have a spiked crime rate in DC is in part because of nonsensical policies that limit the police’s ability to target actual criminals.

"Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But..."? You're excusing police misbehavior.

Misbehavior, lying, and obstruction isn’t murdering someone. Just because low IQ, emotional jury rules that way doesn’t mean it is the honest to God truth. Juries have put many innocent men behind bars over the years.

No, however second-degree murder is murder.

For people who claim to support law and order, they sure don't seem to have a lot of respect for law.

There have been enough very public cases of jury verdicts that were overturned. The evidence presented or not presented matters. Yes, political climate and biases matter. See: Adnan Syed. Central Park 5. And on and on.

The Central Park 5 were innocent - they had nothing whatsoever to do with what they were accused of doing.

Terence Sutton is not innocent - he did what he was accused of doing. You just don't think that should be second degree murder.

Let’s go with your argument. Maybe also stay with the theme of antisemitic crazy context. It was perfectly lawful to take away property from Jews in some countries or Japanese here. You still good with lawful?

Feel free to start a new thread about how our laws are unjust. Go ahead and compare convictions of police officers for conspiracy and obstruction of justice to dispossession and internment of Japanese citizens. Or do you believe that the convictions for conspiracy and obstruction of justice were just?

Talk about a miscarriage of justice.

Anonymous wrote:To everyone here defending this horrendous verdict and then complaining about the crime in DC......

Good luck getting police officers to work in the city. I sure as hell would never consider working in DC, as a police officer - or any other job for that matter.
The "laws" in DC clearly are intended to protect the criminal and punish the victims.

So police officers won't work in DC unless they're allowed to break the law? Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criminal is a risk. Balance that

Just plain the existence of a criminal?

Because no, someone riding a moped on the sidewalk is not enough of a risk to the public to justify a police pursuit.

Police officers should behave lawfully. I expect police officers to behave lawfully. Don't you?

Define lawful. In fact, sane people must define lawful not vomit out an emotional manifesto and call it a law.

Again, here is who’s defining “lawful” in DC. This guy!

I expect our lawmakers to be sane or scrap the Council. Don’t you?

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own definitions of what is and isn't lawful (with a possible exception for Supreme Court justices).

This police officer received due process of law.

And that’s why there’s the first recall. And why Trump will federalize the city permanently if we don’t get our act together first. As we are running out of time and the Council is showing no urgency, it’s time to scrap it

People who call for law and order don't actually support law and order, or at least they don't support law.

Officer Sutton broke the law and was duly charged and convicted. Police officers have to obey the law just like everyone else.

To everyone here defending this horrendous verdict and then complaining about the crime in DC......

Good luck getting police officers to work in the city. I sure as hell would never consider working in DC, as a police officer - or any other job for that matter.
The "laws" in DC clearly are intended to protect the criminal and punish the victims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

Source? Or just making assumptions like usual

rtfa

so your source is a blog post by some guy? All along the official story was he was being stopped because he wasn't wearing a helmet but now the story is that they "knew" he was head to kill someone?

Given the sweeping indictments of the Kennedy St Crew just after this happened, and that Hylton had a weapon and $1000s in cash on him and was high, I’m inclined to believe that Hylton was not a nice young man out for a ride.

So what? That doesn't make it ok for the police to chase him in violation of policy, obstruct justice, and engage in conspiracy. If he weren't dead now, he could be prosecuted [for something], but he is dead.

It was a terrible policy that has since been rolled back by Bowser. Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But the reason we have a spiked crime rate in DC is in part because of nonsensical policies that limit the police’s ability to target actual criminals.

"Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But..."? You're excusing police misbehavior.

Misbehavior, lying, and obstruction isn’t murdering someone. Just because low IQ, emotional jury rules that way doesn’t mean it is the honest to God truth. Juries have put many innocent men behind bars over the years.

No, however second-degree murder is murder.

For people who claim to support law and order, they sure don't seem to have a lot of respect for law.

There have been enough very public cases of jury verdicts that were overturned. The evidence presented or not presented matters. Yes, political climate and biases matter. See: Adnan Syed. Central Park 5. And on and on.

The Central Park 5 were innocent - they had nothing whatsoever to do with what they were accused of doing.

Terence Sutton is not innocent - he did what he was accused of doing. You just don't think that should be second degree murder.

Let’s go with your argument. Maybe also stay with the theme of antisemitic crazy context. It was perfectly lawful to take away property from Jews in some countries or Japanese here. You still good with lawful?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criminal is a risk. Balance that

Just plain the existence of a criminal?

Because no, someone riding a moped on the sidewalk is not enough of a risk to the public to justify a police pursuit.

Police officers should behave lawfully. I expect police officers to behave lawfully. Don't you?

Define lawful. In fact, sane people must define lawful not vomit out an emotional manifesto and call it a law.

Again, here is who’s defining “lawful” in DC. This guy!

I expect our lawmakers to be sane or scrap the Council. Don’t you?

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own definitions of what is and isn't lawful (with a possible exception for Supreme Court justices).

This police officer received due process of law.

And that’s why there’s the first recall. And why Trump will federalize the city permanently if we don’t get our act together first. As we are running out of time and the Council is showing no urgency, it’s time to scrap it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

Source? Or just making assumptions like usual

rtfa

so your source is a blog post by some guy? All along the official story was he was being stopped because he wasn't wearing a helmet but now the story is that they "knew" he was head to kill someone?

Given the sweeping indictments of the Kennedy St Crew just after this happened, and that Hylton had a weapon and $1000s in cash on him and was high, I’m inclined to believe that Hylton was not a nice young man out for a ride.

So what? That doesn't make it ok for the police to chase him in violation of policy, obstruct justice, and engage in conspiracy. If he weren't dead now, he could be prosecuted [for something], but he is dead.

It was a terrible policy that has since been rolled back by Bowser. Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But the reason we have a spiked crime rate in DC is in part because of nonsensical policies that limit the police’s ability to target actual criminals.

"Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But..."? You're excusing police misbehavior.

Misbehavior, lying, and obstruction isn’t murdering someone. Just because low IQ, emotional jury rules that way doesn’t mean it is the honest to God truth. Juries have put many innocent men behind bars over the years.

No, however second-degree murder is murder.

For people who claim to support law and order, they sure don't seem to have a lot of respect for law.

There have been enough very public cases of jury verdicts that were overturned. The evidence presented or not presented matters. Yes, political climate and biases matter. See: Adnan Syed. Central Park 5. And on and on.

The Central Park 5 were innocent - they had nothing whatsoever to do with what they were accused of doing.

Terence Sutton is not innocent - he did what he was accused of doing. You just don't think that should be second degree murder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criminal is a risk. Balance that

Just plain the existence of a criminal?

Because no, someone riding a moped on the sidewalk is not enough of a risk to the public to justify a police pursuit.

Police officers should behave lawfully. I expect police officers to behave lawfully. Don't you?

Define lawful. In fact, sane people must define lawful not vomit out an emotional manifesto and call it a law.

Again, here is who’s defining “lawful” in DC. This guy!

I expect our lawmakers to be sane or scrap the Council. Don’t you?

We're all entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own definitions of what is and isn't lawful (with a possible exception for Supreme Court justices).

This police officer received due process of law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

Source? Or just making assumptions like usual

rtfa

so your source is a blog post by some guy? All along the official story was he was being stopped because he wasn't wearing a helmet but now the story is that they "knew" he was head to kill someone?

Given the sweeping indictments of the Kennedy St Crew just after this happened, and that Hylton had a weapon and $1000s in cash on him and was high, I’m inclined to believe that Hylton was not a nice young man out for a ride.

So what? That doesn't make it ok for the police to chase him in violation of policy, obstruct justice, and engage in conspiracy. If he weren't dead now, he could be prosecuted [for something], but he is dead.

It was a terrible policy that has since been rolled back by Bowser. Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But the reason we have a spiked crime rate in DC is in part because of nonsensical policies that limit the police’s ability to target actual criminals.

"Obviously the obstruction is wrong. But..."? You're excusing police misbehavior.

Misbehavior, lying, and obstruction isn’t murdering someone. Just because low IQ, emotional jury rules that way doesn’t mean it is the honest to God truth. Juries have put many innocent men behind bars over the years.

No, however second-degree murder is murder.

For people who claim to support law and order, they sure don't seem to have a lot of respect for law.

There have been enough very public cases of jury verdicts that were overturned. The evidence presented or not presented matters. Yes, political climate and biases matter. See: Adnan Syed. Central Park 5. And on and on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criminal is a risk. Balance that

Just plain the existence of a criminal?

Because no, someone riding a moped on the sidewalk is not enough of a risk to the public to justify a police pursuit.

Police officers should behave lawfully. I expect police officers to behave lawfully. Don't you?

Define lawful. In fact, sane people must define lawful not vomit out an emotional manifesto and call it a law.

Again, here is who’s defining “lawful” in DC. This guy!

I expect our lawmakers to be sane or scrap the Council. Don’t you?

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how he was prosecuted for second degree murder?

My understanding is that for second degree the killing must be intentional, albeit not premediated. The death of the young man was regrettable, but how was it intentional?

Police policy is that you are only allowed to chase a fleeing felon. The reason you don't chase someone for a petty crime is because the risk of them dying or somebody else dying is too high.

The police knew that his actions would likely result in the death of another so he intentionally did something he know could kill someone.

That is how the law works and this is not a "DC law", it's a very common law.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how he was prosecuted for second degree murder?

My understanding is that for second degree the killing must be intentional, albeit not premediated. The death of the young man was regrettable, but how was it intentional?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/former-mpd-officers-convicted-death-20-year-old-karon-hylton-brown


Jurors Found Evidence of a Conscious Disregard of the Extreme Risk of Harm

A jury sitting in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia returned guilty verdicts against two former members of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in connection with a fatal police pursuit, on Oct. 23, 2020, in Northwest Washington, that caused the death of Karon Hylton-Brown, announced Matthew M. Graves, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Wayne A. Jacobs, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office’s Criminal Division.

Terence Sutton, 38, an officer, was found guilty of second degree murder, conspiracy to obstruct, and obstruction of justice. Andrew Zabavsky, 54, a former lieutenant, was found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction of justice. The trial was heard before the Honorable Paul L. Friedman in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled.

The jury found that Sutton caused Mr. Hylton-Brown’s death by driving a police vehicle in conscious disregard for an extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury to Mr. Hylton-Brown. The jury further found that Sutton and Zabavsky conspired and combined to hide from MPD officials the circumstances of the traffic crash leading to Mr. Hylton-Brown’s death.

At the time of the police pursuit, Sutton was assigned to the Crime Suppression Team in MPD’s Fourth Police District. Zabavsky supervised the Fourth Police District’s Crime Suppression Team officers, including Sutton. The pursuit began at approximately 10 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 23, 2020, after officers observed Mr. Hylton-Brown, 20, driving a moped on a sidewalk in the Brightwood Park area of Northwest Washington. The pursuit continued on neighborhood streets for more than 10 blocks and into an alley off the 700 block of Kennedy Street NW. Immediately upon exiting the alley and entering Kennedy Street, Mr. Hylton-Brown was struck by an oncoming civilian vehicle. He suffered severe head trauma and died on Oct. 25, 2020.

The charge of second-degree murder carries a statutory maximum of 40 years in prison. The conspiracy charge carries a statutory maximum of five years and the obstruction of justice charge carries a maximum of 20 years. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

This case was investigated by the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
Updated December 21, 2022