Jefferson Tap beating trial: Police sergeant to testify in own ...

A Chicago police sergeant accused of beating two brothers at a West Loop bar is expected to take the witness stand Tuesday at the bench trial for him and two other off-duty officers. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
EJ from Palatine

Chicago, IL

#1 Mar 31, 2009
"Sgt. Jeffery Planey, likely the only one of the three officers to testify,...."

OK, coppers, why is it that a innocent cop will NOT testify? If the other two cops are innocent, they would speak to the court and explain the video tape. The only hope for them is the judge is in pocket. Oh, wait, the Feds are waiting in the wings with federal charges. Never mind, these three cops are going up the river, no matter what happens in this trial, your union dues used to pay for their lawyers are all wasted for nothing...enjoy!
Its about Money

Springfield, IL

#2 Mar 31, 2009
Ok, Mr Perry Mason, you obviously have had little dealings with Lawyers and our "How Much Justice Can You Afoord" Legal system. The truth takes a back seat to the way the Lawyers present and manipulate the facts. Remember all those high profile cases like "OJ" etc. This case is about money and nothing more. The greedy lawyer was his cut and the so called victims wants his.
EJ from Palatine wrote:
"Sgt. Jeffery Planey, likely the only one of the three officers to testify,...."
OK, coppers, why is it that a innocent cop will NOT testify? If the other two cops are innocent, they would speak to the court and explain the video tape. The only hope for them is the judge is in pocket. Oh, wait, the Feds are waiting in the wings with federal charges. Never mind, these three cops are going up the river, no matter what happens in this trial, your union dues used to pay for their lawyers are all wasted for nothing...enjoy!
EJ from Palatine

Chicago, IL

#3 Mar 31, 2009
Its about Money wrote:
Ok, Mr Perry Mason,
I'm not Perry Mason, I am just following this story daily, the cops show up here and make all sorts of claims about the victims. Here's one for the cops, "It's common knowledge that guilty people don't testify in their own defense."
anyportinastorm

United States

#4 Mar 31, 2009
These idiot cops are arguing that there were no injuries, I suppose to keep the $$ damages down. This is also about whether or not there was an assault. I believe the tapes and witnesses will show there was definitely an assault as well as a coverup. The made up reason for the attack is a crock and everyone with any sense should know it.
Mike

Tinley Park, IL

#5 Mar 31, 2009
EJ from Palatine, if your following the story daily I'm suprised you did not comment on the Doctor's testimony regarding one of the "victim's" lack of injuries.

As an astute observer, I'm sure you noticed that not only was the "victim's" alleged beating not caught on tape, but the victim showed absolutely NO SIGNS of injury when he was medically evaluated four days later.

Also, as an astute observer, I'm sure you noticed that while the "victim" had enough good sence to hire a lawyer and refuse to cooperate with investigators only A DAY after the incident, he didn't seek medical attention for his "horrific" injuries until four days later.

Finally, as an astute observer I'm sure your picking up on my heavy sarcasm, because I'm laying it on pretty thick. IDIOT
BID Ed

Chicago, IL

#6 Mar 31, 2009
Also, as an astute observer, I'm sure you noticed that while the "victim" had enough good sence to hire a lawyer...... " Yo Mike, the "astute" observer, do a spell check next time!
These cops extended their authority and it was wrong. Now, they are trying to lower their jail time. The extent of injuries is another matter. The fact is they abused their power.
Mike

Tinley Park, IL

#8 Mar 31, 2009
Sorry BID Ed, I spelled "sense" wrong. Glad you took the time to point that out.

My point was not to absolve these officers of any responsibility, but instead to point out that EJ (like many readers) pick and choose which portions of the story they want to hear. It is obvious that this “victim’s” claims are suspect and will most likely not lead to a conviction.(Again, I’m talking about the victim that had NO injuries after the alleged beating.) And since when is putting on a defense a bad thing? You dismiss their case as merely an “effort” to lower their jail time, I hope when you or a family member is accused of a crime you take the same one-sided view of the criminal justice system and decide NOT to put up a defense.
NOTT

Chicago, IL

#9 Mar 31, 2009
Remember the only reason the Cops are charged with Felonies is because it was an ELECTION YEAR. Never should have been charged with felonies in the 1St place. State's Attorney will look bad at the end, but she got elected.
rebel music

United States

#10 Mar 31, 2009
Mike wrote:
EJ from Palatine, if your following the story daily I'm suprised you did not comment on the Doctor's testimony regarding one of the "victim's" lack of injuries.
As an astute observer, I'm sure you noticed that not only was the "victim's" alleged beating not caught on tape, but the victim showed absolutely NO SIGNS of injury when he was medically evaluated four days later.
Also, as an astute observer, I'm sure you noticed that while the "victim" had enough good sence to hire a lawyer and refuse to cooperate with investigators only A DAY after the incident, he didn't seek medical attention for his "horrific" injuries until four days later.
Finally, as an astute observer I'm sure your picking up on my heavy sarcasm, because I'm laying it on pretty thick. IDIOT
Mikey...that 'doctor' you are referring to was not the doctor who attended to the VICTIM in this case, he's is the 'doctor' who was hired by the perps in this case, the officers, who instigated this fight. Watch the video Mikey, it's quite plain to see the officers who messed the balls on the pool table was the first instigator. Then watch as the officer, in plain view of the camera, goes into the wasteband of the other perp and removes his gun before begining the assult on the VICTIMS(looks premeditated if you ask me). Nobody in thier right mind would discuss this case with another cop(or 'investigator' as you call them)following the assult without first consulting a lawyer. Lest we forget that several 'cops' showed up after the 911 call to help but were shooed away by the drunk perps (I guess they had it all under control). Did those hard-drinkin cops sustain any injuries in the fight or are they well versed in fighting drunk citizens? Any idiot trying to defend these jackasses that were caught on tape instigating and assulting the VICTIMS in this case must be either a COP, an IDIOT, or BOTH. Most likely the latter.
Grace

Chicago, IL

#11 Mar 31, 2009
So I guess that EJ from Palatine believes that anyone who does not testify at his or her own trial is demonstrating their guilt? Such objective thinking....
Apparently EJ isn't aware that a good defense attorney will usually advise the client not to testify even when the client is innocent, as not to give opposing counsel any chance to taint the presumption of innocence (which, by the way, EVERYONE, including police officers, is supposed to have).
Grace

Chicago, IL

#12 Mar 31, 2009
rebel music wrote:
<quoted text>
Mikey...that 'doctor' you are referring to was not the doctor who attended to the VICTIM in this case, he's is the 'doctor' who was hired by the perps in this case, the officers, who instigated this fight. Watch the video Mikey, it's quite plain to see the officers who messed the balls on the pool table was the first instigator. Then watch as the officer, in plain view of the camera, goes into the wasteband of the other perp and removes his gun before begining the assult on the VICTIMS(looks premeditated if you ask me). Nobody in thier right mind would discuss this case with another cop(or 'investigator' as you call them)following the assult without first consulting a lawyer. Lest we forget that several 'cops' showed up after the 911 call to help but were shooed away by the drunk perps (I guess they had it all under control). Did those hard-drinkin cops sustain any injuries in the fight or are they well versed in fighting drunk citizens? Any idiot trying to defend these jackasses that were caught on tape instigating and assulting the VICTIMS in this case must be either a COP, an IDIOT, or BOTH. Most likely the latter.
Whenever a doctor offers an opinion in a trial, the other side hires its own doctor (no quotation marks necessary) to back its case/rebut the other doctor. You would be a fool not to. I am not defending these cops - they may very well be guilty, but with no audio and limited video, and considering we are not in that courtroom hearing all of the evidence, I think it's ridiculous to make the assumptions being made in some of these posts.

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#13 Mar 31, 2009
Can someone please tell me - because I admittedly have NOT been following this every day - whether any of the defendants are denying the beatings took place? So far, I've read their "justification" (i.e., the "grieving son" defense), and their attempt to reduce damages (i.e., that the victims couldn't have suffered the types of injuries they claim), but I haven't read: "I/We didn't do it!" Am I missing something?!@
Mike

Tinley Park, IL

#14 Mar 31, 2009
Rebel musis, I realize the doctor testifying was hired by the defense,,, but do you realize that his testimony was based on the medical reports generated by the independent doctor that treated your victim? So if the medical records generated by an independent doctor show no signs of injury, where is the bias?
Its about Money

Springfield, IL

#15 Mar 31, 2009
JAMc wrote:
Can someone please tell me - because I admittedly have NOT been following this every day - whether any of the defendants are denying the beatings took place? So far, I've read their "justification" (i.e., the "grieving son" defense), and their attempt to reduce damages (i.e., that the victims couldn't have suffered the types of injuries they claim), but I haven't read: "I/We didn't do it!" Am I missing something?!@
Here is the whole thing in a NUT shell:
City Cops in bar drinking and mourning, Mouthy Yuppies with beer muscles have confrontation with already edgy cops. Testosterone level rise, words exchanged which escalates to physical altercation. Mouthy Yuppies in over their heads in a physical confrontation with city cops, and subsequently take a few lumps. Some of the action captured on Video. Mouthy Yuppies later see a posiblity for Money and consult with a Hungry Lawyer, of which there are many. Lawyer can sue the cops with good paying jobs, the bar, and the city who is used to paying lawyers off. I may have missed some things but as I said before ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY.
rebel music

United States

#16 Mar 31, 2009
Mike wrote:
Rebel musis, I realize the doctor testifying was hired by the defense,,, but do you realize that his testimony was based on the medical reports generated by the independent doctor that treated your victim? So if the medical records generated by an independent doctor show no signs of injury, where is the bias?
Doctors.. no doctors, broken ribs... no broken ribs, who cares. The scary part of this whole debacle is the fact that off-duty drunken cops (a fireable offense BTW for a cop to be drunk in public) beat these guys up without threat to them or provocation. Did the business guys have it coming, maybe, should the cops have used better judgement, of course. However the real scary part is that the squad cars that responded to the call at 3:30 am to a 'cop bar' for a fight, never even got out of their cars to investigate what was happening and just drove off. The tape clearly shows that the cop in the bar went to the pool table to start up trouble(declaring the pool game over by pocketing all the balls) as well as removing the greiving officers gun before comitting the felony battery with his buddies. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I don't need to hear the outcome of this case to know that the way this scene was handled by the CPD was frightening.

Since: Feb 09

United States

#17 Mar 31, 2009
Its about Money wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the whole thing in a NUT shell:
City Cops in bar drinking and mourning, Mouthy Yuppies with beer muscles have confrontation with already edgy cops. Testosterone level rise, words exchanged which escalates to physical altercation. Mouthy Yuppies in over their heads in a physical confrontation with city cops, and subsequently take a few lumps. Some of the action captured on Video. Mouthy Yuppies later see a posiblity for Money and consult with a Hungry Lawyer, of which there are many. Lawyer can sue the cops with good paying jobs, the bar, and the city who is used to paying lawyers off. I may have missed some things but as I said before ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY.
Nice summary. I have been following this daily and I'm getting the feeling that this trail isn't going well for the "victims".

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#18 Mar 31, 2009
Its about Money wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the whole thing in a NUT shell:
City Cops in bar drinking and mourning, Mouthy Yuppies with beer muscles have confrontation with already edgy cops. Testosterone level rise, words exchanged which escalates to physical altercation. Mouthy Yuppies in over their heads in a physical confrontation with city cops, and subsequently take a few lumps. Some of the action captured on Video. Mouthy Yuppies later see a posiblity for Money and consult with a Hungry Lawyer, of which there are many. Lawyer can sue the cops with good paying jobs, the bar, and the city who is used to paying lawyers off. I may have missed some things but as I said before ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY.
Okay, forget my damages comment in my first post, because as I understand it, this is a CRIMINAL trial for aggravated battery (not a civil suit for money damages).

So, thanks for your synopsis, but I guess my next question is: how is what you've said relevant? If it's a criminal prosecution, then the STATE has brought the charges and, at least for now, the victims aren't seeking any money from anyone.

Then, my next questions would be:(1) Are any of the defendants denying that they were involved in a phsyical altercation (i.e., are they denying the "battery"); and (2) Are any of the defendants claiming that they got physical with the "victims" because they faced imminent bodily harm (i.e., that there was legal provocation and they acted in self-defense)?
mikea

Westmont, IL

#19 Mar 31, 2009
The cops think they can get away with anything. The bartender testified that she saw the cops grab the guy and pull him outside. The tapes show the cops started the aggresive action. If they were being verbally attacked they should have made themselves known as officers and tell them to shut up, but no they decide to take the law into their hands and beat these guys up for maybe saying something. Chciago police have the idea and mindeset they can do whatever they want the law does not apply to them but only tho others
Grace

Chicago, IL

#20 Mar 31, 2009
rebel music wrote:
<quoted text>
Doctors.. no doctors, broken ribs... no broken ribs, who cares. The scary part of this whole debacle is the fact that off-duty drunken cops (a fireable offense BTW for a cop to be drunk in public) beat these guys up without threat to them or provocation. Did the business guys have it coming, maybe, should the cops have used better judgement, of course. However the real scary part is that the squad cars that responded to the call at 3:30 am to a 'cop bar' for a fight, never even got out of their cars to investigate what was happening and just drove off. The tape clearly shows that the cop in the bar went to the pool table to start up trouble(declaring the pool game over by pocketing all the balls) as well as removing the greiving officers gun before comitting the felony battery with his buddies. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I don't need to hear the outcome of this case to know that the way this scene was handled by the CPD was frightening.
Did I miss something? Where has it been confirmed that the police officers were drunk? And without audio from the bar, how do you know that there was "no provocation?" Again, I am not trying to defend these officers, but your remarks are specious, at best.
mikea

Westmont, IL

#21 Mar 31, 2009
How come none of the officers deny attacking the men? Why did the officers pick abench trial as opposed to a jury? Is it maybe because the judges tend to agree with law enforcement whether they are right or wrong?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min harmonious 1,124,781
Father Of Hans Peterson Speaks Out (Oct '07) 24 min Getagrip 44
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 28 min Boy G 50,587
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 55 min casting director 98,497
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Frank 179,261
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr Eric 69,964
Birth mother 3 hr It is me 3
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]