Chicago cop in Iowa prison while drunk is on the loose

If everything in this letter is true and has been verified, it should go to the highest court in the land. we are in the USA . and file attempted murder for not having the wrongfully accused cop given a medical exam instead of a laxative; which is like a gun to an infected appendix..

The continued speculation like the "number of people railroaded" by the police and the gloating is getting disgusting.

Once again, that is not the issue. Put your own personal prejudices aside, if you can. The issue is the severity of the punishment for someone in this situation. For anyone in this situation.

I have read a lot of articles elsewhere criticising the police for having a "us vs. them" mentality. Do you blame them? Your anger and hate against this guy for the non-crime of being a cop is pitiful.

I guess the actual does-the-punishment-fit-the-cr ime discussion is over. Sip your favorite Merlot and continue to vilify those that work to keep you safe, for doing that very thing. The unjustness of that position is obviously lost on you, and you are unresponsive to the truth.

Good by and good luck.

The Fuzz wrote:

<quoted text>No, they didn't note anything. The only officer on scene who placed Mette in custody is the only officer who was close friends with the family of the idiot. When Mette wished to sign cross complaints against his attacker he was denied. The other officers on scene were visibly bothered with the situation. No I wasn't there but I did read a letter from Mette that was placed on a bulletin board at the police station.

If a convicted felon wrote it on a letter that was placed on a bulletin board, then every word of it has to be true.

Have people lost the ability to think critically? Do people no longer try to weigh what they are told with any kind of common sense or look to the source of information they are given? Would this guy believe a letter from a teacher convicted of child molestation if the teacher wrote a letter proclaiming his innocence for his ex-collegues to read on a bulletin board at the teachers' lounge? What is the difference? Just because this guy is a cop, all logic flies out the window? I know that police officers are smarter than this. The ones I know are embarrassed by this guy.

justsaying wrote:

The continued speculation like the "number of people railroaded" by the police and the gloating is getting disgusting.
Once again, that is not the issue. Put your own personal prejudices aside, if you can. The issue is the severity of the punishment for someone in this situation. For anyone in this situation.
I have read a lot of articles elsewhere criticising the police for having a "us vs. them" mentality. Do you blame them? Your anger and hate against this guy for the non-crime of being a cop is pitiful.
I guess the actual does-the-punishment-fit-the-cr ime discussion is over. Sip your favorite Merlot and continue to vilify those that work to keep you safe, for doing that very thing. The unjustness of that position is obviously lost on you, and you are unresponsive to the truth.
Good by and good luck.

Thank you from a member of CPD. Your comment hit the nail on the head. Despite what many people on this board may think, we do like to hear nice things about our professon. After all we are only human...just like Mike Mette.

Just trying to form an opinion here... why did Mike Mette refuse a jury trial? It seems to me that at least one in twelve jurors would have recognized that it was reasonable self-defense, or at least one in twelve would have said that the drunk had it coming to him. The odds would have been a lot better for him with a jury trial if he were to claim self-defense.

interested wrote:

Just trying to form an opinion here... why did Mike Mette refuse a jury trial? It seems to me that at least one in twelve jurors would have recognized that it was reasonable self-defense, or at least one in twelve would have said that the drunk had it coming to him. The odds would have been a lot better for him with a jury trial if he were to claim self-defense.

It is possible that Mette believed that if 12 impartial people heard all of the facts, they would NOT find him innocent. They might just see him as a bully who was kicked out of a party, was with a group of guys who stole a cell phone from the host, beat the host senseless when he tried to get back his phone, and gave three different versions of what happened to the police. Anyone who is truly innocent of charges has nothing to fear from a jury trial.

If this was such a miscarriage of justice, rest assured that the Iowa Supreme Court (that monitors abuses of power) would have stepped in a long time ago with all of the publicity that this case has garnered. The Supreme Court has certainly looked into this case already and found no impropriety.

Conspiracy Man wrote:

<quoted text>
It is possible that Mette believed that if 12 impartial people heard all of the facts, they would NOT find him innocent. They might just see him as a bully who was kicked out of a party, was with a group of guys who stole a cell phone from the host, beat the host senseless when he tried to get back his phone, and gave three different versions of what happened to the police. Anyone who is truly innocent of charges has nothing to fear from a jury trial.
If this was such a miscarriage of justice, rest assured that the Iowa Supreme Court (that monitors abuses of power) would have stepped in a long time ago with all of the publicity that this case has garnered. The Supreme Court has certainly looked into this case already and found no impropriety.

I guess he found out that judges in Iowa are not for sale.

WAAAA!! I got screwed by the justice system. WAAAA! He got the same justice the rest of us get every day. Let him sit and think about his actions. No sympathy here.

HUH wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you from a member of CPD. Your comment hit the nail on the head. Despite what many people on this board may think, we do like to hear nice things about our professon. After all we are only human...just like Mike Mette.

There are a lot of nice things to say about Chicago Policemen. You guys do an incredibly difficult job. You get the blame if anything goes wrong (which in a City of millions is going to happen), but you never get credit for things going right. That being said, Ex-Officer Mette is not someone you should be trying to take pride in. Like you say, he is human and he screwed up. Let him do his time and pay for what he did. His crime does not tarnish the CPD. Let it be.

Don't you see that by embracing a thug, you are giving yourselves a black eye? Don't you see that by claiming that the system/Iowa cops are corrupt, you are admitting the possibility that the system you serve can screw someone capriciously if it so desires?

The Fuzz wrote:

<quoted text>Mette did not beat the guy, he hit him one time. This was after he was struck 3 to 4 times. Every person, cop or not, has the right to defend themselves. No one should have to stand there and take a beating, no matter who they are. They certainly shouldn't be given 5 years in prison for it.

He had cuts on his hands. He had blood on his hands. He had blood on his shirt. It was a brutal beating of a guy that wanted his cell-phone back so he could call the police. The guy was in the Emergency Room Trauma Ward. The Hospital saved his life. He would have died. Mette did not have any injuries. It was like give me my cell-phone back. Mette took the cell-phone from him at the under-age Keg party because the guy was going to call the police because Mette would not pay the $5.00 cover charge. The guy was so drunk, he could'nt fight his was out of a wet paper bag. What Mette did was brutal. I sure hope he did'nt do the same thing to little old winos on Chicago's skid-row.

Sam Stray wrote:

<quoted text>He had cuts on his hands. He had blood on his hands. He had blood on his shirt. It was a brutal beating of a guy that wanted his cell-phone back so he could call the police. The guy was in the Emergency Room Trauma Ward. The Hospital saved his life. He would have died. Mette did not have any injuries. It was like give me my cell-phone back. Mette took the cell-phone from him at the under-age Keg party because the guy was going to call the police because Mette would not pay the $5.00 cover charge. The guy was so drunk, he could'nt fight his was out of a wet paper bag. What Mette did was brutal. I sure hope he did'nt do the same thing to little old winos on Chicago's skid-row.

DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MIKE STOLE THE CELL PHONE? THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT... what I gather it was someone else he was with. But you are assuming guilt without being proven.
Most of you who think Mike Mette "got what he deserves" do so because he is a cop, whether you admit it or not. I thinks Mike conviction and sentence are way too harsh. You all think he "beat" the guy... which the judge never stated... it would be interesting to see the court transcripts.
One last thing... Mike was a good cop, with a good record. I am sure if he did the slightest thing wrong we would have heard about!!

interested wrote:

Just trying to form an opinion here... why did Mike Mette refuse a jury trial? It seems to me that at least one in twelve jurors would have recognized that it was reasonable self-defense, or at least one in twelve would have said that the drunk had it coming to him. The odds would have been a lot better for him with a jury trial if he were to claim self-defense.

He was told by his first lawyer not to go to a jury... Conspiracy Man only will tell you what he thinks...

JuGe wrote:

<quoted text>
He was told by his first lawyer not to go to a jury... Conspiracy Man only will tell you what he thinks...

That is true. I have no inside information.

JuGe wrote:

<quoted text>
He was told by his first lawyer not to go to a jury... Conspiracy Man only will tell you what he thinks...

In case you have not been following all of the developments, I will summarize. It is the judge's fault. It is the drink kid's fault. It is the Iowa cops' fault. It is his first lawyer's fault. What happened was everybody's fault except for Mike Mette's fault. He did nothing to deserve this and everyone is acting against him in a concerted effort to ensure that he goes to jail. Everyone in the state of Iowa dislikes Chicago cops and they are all acting together to get him. His first lawyer really was in cahoots with the victim and took Mette's money and then got him thrown in jail.

For those of you who think this is unusual, you are wrong. It happens all of the time. If you go into a prison, you will hear the same proclamations of innocence from most of the convicted felons. No prisoner is to blame for how he was thrown in prison ... just ask the inmates and you will hear incredible stories of how each and every one of them was framed by the judges. They will also tell you how their lawyer was incompetent, and if they only had a good attorney, they would not be in prison at all.

interested wrote:

Just trying to form an opinion here... why did Mike Mette refuse a jury trial? It seems to me that at least one in twelve jurors would have recognized that it was reasonable self-defense, or at least one in twelve would have said that the drunk had it coming to him. The odds would have been a lot better for him with a jury trial if he were to claim self-defense.

He knew how the Cook County District Court worked; for those in the system. He got SYSTEMIZED in Iowa.

christine, you obviously hate the police, go scratch you goof

JuGe wrote:

<quoted text>
DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MIKE STOLE THE CELL PHONE? THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT... what I gather it was someone else he was with. But you are assuming guilt without being proven.
Most of you who think Mike Mette "got what he deserves" do so because he is a cop, whether you admit it or not. I thinks Mike conviction and sentence are way too harsh. You all think he "beat" the guy... which the judge never stated... it would be interesting to see the court transcripts.
One last thing... Mike was a good cop, with a good record. I am sure if he did the slightest thing wrong we would have heard about!!

How can you say that Mette did not beat the guy? He hit him and the guy had to be hospitalized. Even Mette would say that he beat him. Hitting someone is called a beating using every definition for the term that I have ever heard.

Is there anything us citizens can do to help him? Perhaps if give his address so we can write him to show our support? They can't bury all of our letters.

I am always suspicious when I see lopsided language and name calling in the writing of the factual background used to support an argument for an opinion. Look at Kass' languge:

"One of them attacked Mette, repeatedly, pushing and screaming, as Mette tried to get to the safety of his brother's Iowa apartment. Mette avoided the drunk, once, then twice. The third time, when the drunk punched him in the chest, Mike punched back. Once."

Kass refers to Mette by his name. He refers to the victim as "the drunk". He ignores the fact that the title of "the drunk" could also refer to Mette, who had been drinking all day.

In this article, Kass describes the encounter in the following way: "Mette, a good cop with a good record, was in Dubuque in 2005 when he and his brother and friends ran into two angry drunks." This is the only context he gives for the encounter. With no other background, the reader is left to believe that Mette just happened to run into two angry drunks. He neglects to mention that they just ran into the "drunks" by going to a underage drinking party that the "drunks" were hosting at their home. There is no mention of the fact that Mette's group stole the phone of the "drunks". The reader would never know that the "drunk" was trying to get his stolen phone returned to him when the incident happened.

In this whole article, Kass forgets to mention that Mette repeatedly lied to the police about the events. The kicker is that Kass has the gall to comlain about how the Iowa papers exaggerate the case so it won't "smell so bad" ... as if Kass has been straightforward in telling his side of the events.

Mr. Kass gives a seriously slanted perspective of the facts in support of his arguments. He could have given a more honest version of the facts and still made the points he wanted to make. The worst part is that Kass could have made several legitimate arguments about whether the attack was done in self defense. He could have made a legitimate argument that the sentence was too harsh for the crime. These are legitimate subjects for debate and reasonable people might be able to see his point. He does a disservice to these arguments by giving such a selective and slanted version of the facts that a reasonable reader is immediately suspicious of everything Kass has to say. If you are going to make an honest argument (which he could have done), you should give a fair version of the facts. This is incredibly poor writing. A writer like Kass needs to have the readers think that he is being fair with the facts that support the opinions he espouses in his articles. If the readers have to question whether they are getting the whole story from a columnist, the effectiveness of the columnist is severely limited. In my mind, John Kass has lost the presumption of honesty and I will never trust what his articles say on their face. I will always have to question his writing and question his motives.

This is a huge disappointment. I liked Mike Royko and was hoping that his replacement would continue his tradition of honesty and dedication to the truth. Mike Royko might actually have supported Officer Mette, but he would not have misrepresented the facts to write an article in support of Mr. Mette. Royko would have said something like "yeah, it is true that Mette was drunk and having some fun. He was with some guys who did some dumb things like stealing a cell phone, BUT regardless of all this, it was self defense. Regardless of all this, the five-year sentence is way too long, etc." If you want readers to respect your arguments, respect the reader by giving them all of the facts and not just the ones that support your argument.