THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

Cop’s Defense Disingenuous

To the Editor:

In his letter of Oct. 16, retired NYPD Lieut. Joseph Marchese takes this paper to task for allegedly prejudging Police Officer Andrew Kelly, currently under indictment for vehicular manslaughter and DWI. From his opening sentence onwards, it’s quite obvious that the Lieutenant would like to minimize Officer Kelly’s words, actions and behavior when this tragedy occurred along with the actions of other police personnel who endeavored to “help” him.

Lieutenant Marchese’s reference to “the Police Officer whose car killed a pedestrian” sets the tone right away. As if the car had a will and a mind of its own and decided to smash into the lady despite Officer Kelly’s best efforts to prevent it from doing so. Maybe we should put the car on trial and not Officer Kelly.

And yes, Lieutenant—we all know about the presumption of innocence. But that only applies in the courtroom. I would hazard a guess that there isn’t a single person in this city who, having read and seen the news reports about this case, would have any doubt, let alone a reasonable one, that this man was indeed intoxicated at time and place of occurrence. And while Officer Kelly’s freedom cannot be taken away without due process, if he opts for a jury trial he’ll be committing suicide. Because the 12 people who would be sitting in judgment of him here in Kings County would come from that “court of public opinion.” I predict that he’ll either take a plea in hopes of getting a reduced sentence if the DA consents to it or he’ll go for a bench trial. Because if he goes for a jury trial, he’s toast.

The Lieutenant says that “all prisoners are entitled to food to eat and water to drink”—implying that there’s nothing untoward or suspicious about Kelly being given two bottles of water to drink by fellow officers in the immediate aftermath of the crash. Well, Lieutenant, it’s not like Kelly was thrown into a dungeon and deprived of food and water for 48 hours in violation of his human rights. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that his brother officer who gave him the water did so in an obvious attempt to try and dilute the alcohol in Kelly’s bloodstream and flush it out of his system before a BAC test was administered.

I’m sure you must be an intelligent man, Lieutenant, and you know that’s the reason why he was given the water, so you’re being disingenuous because you know what happened here. You know Kelly was drunk. Why else would he refuse a Breathalyzer and tell the responding officers that there was no way they were going to draw his blood and that they would have to tie him down to do so? Sure doesn’t sound like the words and actions of an innocent man to me.

If he was not intoxicated he would have readily consented to a breath test or a blood test because he would have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Why not do the test if it will clear you right away? If he really was sober, wouldn’t it be in his best interest to do it and clear up any doubts right away? The only time you refuse is when you know it’ll hang you. An innocent man doesn’t need to hide behind the Constitution because he has nothing to hide.

And as far as the scientific evidence that you speak of proving the allegations of guilt to be wrong, how very convenient, Lieutenant, that it took over seven hours before his blood was finally able to be drawn and by that time, miracle of miracles, his BAC registered zero. No stonewalling or cover-up here, that’s for sure.

You say that “the implication of wrongdoing undermines the public’s perception of the integrity of all members of the Police Department.” Well, Lieutenant, police officers are held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. They’re expected to know the difference between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior—and to act accordingly. That’s why we entrust them with arrest authority and with the power of life and death over others.

We all know they do a dangerous job and they put their lives on the line for us every day. And we appreciate that. We appreciate what they do to keep us safe. And we love them for it and pray that they return to their families safe and sound when their shift is over. But in a case like this which is so blatant and which involves a human fatality, an attempt to try and stonewall the process on behalf of the accused officer can only produce undesired results. If a civilian tried that, he would be placed under arrest for Obstructing Governmental Administration and Interfering with a Police Investigation.
STEVEN I. DANKO
State Court Clerk (Ret.)