The Boston Police Superior Officers Federation has just played the race card, but it has a losing hand.
The union’s president recently claimed that the federal indictment of Boston Police Department (BPD) Sgt. Harry A. Byrne Jr. on civil rights charges was motivated by the status of the alleged victim, Garett D. Trombly ’03, as a white, affluent Harvard student. We disagree. Byrne was indicted because he allegedly broke Trombly’s jaw while the Harvard junior was in police custody for public drinking and other minor charges, charges that were later dropped.
Byrne, an officer with four previous suspensions and a history of complaints against him—a dozen in the 1980s alone—is accused of injuring Trombly so badly that the student was unable to eat solid food for two months, as well as encouraging other officers to cover up the incident. An accusation of that nature more than justifies a federal indictment, regardless of the race of the victim.
The union’s argument that Trombly is getting special treatment due to his supposedly privileged socioeconomic status—claims about which have not been substantiated, but appear to have been simply assumed because of his attendance at Harvard—begs the question as to why federal prosecution of civil rights violations by police officers should constitute special treatment in the first place.
In fact, the more common process gives special treatment by assigning the case to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. That office has worked in conjunction with members of the BPD over the years; Byrne, for instance, has had the opportunity to develop personal relationships with assistant district attorneys for more than two decades. When similar cases involving multiple police officers arise, it makes sense to take the case out of the state justice system and into the federal courts.
The prosecution of this case on the federal level sends a strong message that the BPD, as Commissioner Paul Evans has stated, does not tolerate the type of behavior alleged in the indictment. This message should be accompanied by a strong commitment to take future civil rights cases involving police officers out of the District Attorney’s Office when appropriate and instead prosecute them in the federal system. This will ensure that all victims, regardless of their race or socioeconomic background, are given equal justice in the federal courts.
It was irresponsible of the police union to intervene in this manner and to comment on a case that is still pending. The union’s interest is in the swift dispensation of justice, not its obstruction. It is unfortunate that it took a federal case—and an injured student—to make that clear.
