“A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions.” This description (answers.com) could not more perfectly describe the outcome of the 1st phase of a federal civil rights lawsuit, in which a Milwaukee Police Officer, Alfonzo Glover, was found to have used unreasonable force against Wilbert Prado, leading to his murder in March 2005. They can cite this case next to the definition of catch-22.
The jury found that Glover was acting out of responsibility as an officer and awarded Prado’s daughters 1.85 million dollars, but also found that Glover was not acting as an employee of the city… o_O … Their decision temporarily removes the bill from city taxpayers, pending the results of the 2nd phase of the trial, in which the jury shall determine whether or not the police department is at fault for it’s ‘Always on duty’ policy. Under this policy, officers can be punished if they fail to intervene during the commission of a crime, even if they were not on duty at the time.
The murky facts of the case aren’t worth discussing here. Nevertheless, Glover committed suicide a little over a year after an inquest jury found that he was justified in killing Prado. Despite the nonbinding results of that jury, then, District Attorney E. McCann charged Glover with homicide and six counts of perjury.
The federal jury takes up the 2nd phase of the trial today. The attorney for the Prado family will likely introduce evidence that the police department’s policies are a perpetuation of systemic failures. Former police Chief Nannette Hegerty defended suggestions that she was too lenient on officers who were accused of misconduct, noting that she had fired about 60 officers during her four-year tenure as Chief.