Revis charges show injustice of system

What exactly happened on Feb. 12 when Darrelle Revis was involved in a fight with two men, Dallas Cousins, 22, and Zacheriah Jarvis, 21. I don’t know. And I really don’t care. That’s not the story. Revis is facing the possibility of up to 65 years in prison — even if he didn’t throw a single punch. That’s the story. That should have been the story even before a new TMZ video emerged suggesting that another person threw punches.

The story is not about Revis’ role that night. The story is about the astonishing abuse of power put on display by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police.

The story is their capacity to turn a physical altercation into combined charges that resemble a homicide.

The story is that this sort of manipulative malpractice by police sends thousands of (mostly black) people to prison who lack Revis’ fame and resources to fight back. That’s the story. How did Revis receive such a draconian sentence? According to Sports Illustrated’s legal analyst Michael McCann, under Pennsylvania law, here is how: l Up to 20 years: First degree aggravated assault on first person punched l Up to 20 years: Same for 2nd person punched l Up to 20 years: First degree felony robbery l Up to 5 years: Making “terroristic threats”

The possibility of 65 years in prison (though with no record he’s not likely to get anything close to that) is the real “terroristic threat.” But what if Revis never threw a punch? May not matter. The Pittsburgh Police also threw a “criminal conspiracy” charge at Revis.

Neither Cousins, Jarvis nor witness Nathan Watt could confirm if Revis threw any punches. If another person defending Revis threw the punches as the video suggests, Revis could still face the same criminal penalty as if he threw them himself, according to McCann.

Does facing up to 20 years for another man’s punches sound right to you? Me neither.

According to the cell video cited in the complaint, Revis was walking away from the group, Cousins followed him and then Revis stated “why are you following me?” several times. A conspiracy conviction would mean Revis and the associate “agreed and conspired” to assault Cousins and Jarvis.

Given that Revis was followed at first, does a conspiracy charge sound right to you?

In a statement released hours after the TMZ video surfaced, Revis’s attorneys Robert G. Del Greco Jr. and Mark Fiorilli made Revis’s position clear:

“Darrelle Revis absolutely, categorically and positively did not knock out anyone, did not conspire with anyone to commit an assault, did not say ‘shut up before I knock your ass out next,’ and surely did not ‘rob’ another of a cell phone. The voice and admissions made on the video are not that of Darrelle Revis. We have no doubt but that further investigation relative to the clothing and voice verification will corroborate the above assertions.”

Again, it may not matter one bit if it is proven Revis never threw a punch, if the Pittsburg police can prove the “criminal conspiracy’ charge.

Let’s put this charge in police perspective for a second:

In the spur of the moment, Revis has enough time to hatch up a conspiracy with another man, but the six Baltimore Police Officers who killed Freddie Gray in the back of a van were tried as separate individuals?

(In fact, one of the biggest problems in Gray’s case is the actual conspiracy of silence of Baltimore cops made it nearly impossible to prove which cop’s actions resulted in Freddie’s severed spine.) The conspiracy charge on Revis was just the worst of many.

Then there is the “robbery” charge.

According to the police report, as Revis walked away, Cousins began recording video on his cell phone, and Revis responded by snatching Cousins’ cell phone in an attempt to delete the video and eventually threw it into the street.

Even if true, does taking a cell phone and tossing it sound like a “robbery” to you? Does having such an act punishable up to 20 years sound right to you?

And then there is the “terroristic threat” charge.

While it is not the same as a “terrorist” threat, it is well-known in Pennsylvania as “a threat to harm another person with the goal of terrorizing that individual”

While the charges have not yet been explained by law enforcement, it is possible the “terroristic threat” is based on Watt’s claim that a clench-fisted Revis said, “I got more guys coming . . . . Do you want to be next?”

If so, that statement is punishable by up to five years. How about that? Does that sound right to you?

Many Pennsylvania lawyers also advocate changing the name of the “terroristic threat” charge. The label often discriminates against people of color in other states in a country where we refuse to label actual homegrown terrorism by whites. Now put it all together. Four felonies, conspiracy, robbery and a terroristic threat. And 65 possible years of prison time.

I’m not asking the legal analyst in you. I’m asking the human being in you.

Let’s be clear: Revis is the victim here. The final facts that emerge will only determine to what degree.

He is the victim of a ruthless Pittsburgh police force.

Just how many thousands of people are in jail because they couldn’t risk fighting in courts so they took a plea to avoid decades in prison?

These are the questions we need to be asking — not why Revis was awake past his normal bed time.

This Thursday, when Revis will have his first hearing, the “criminal conspiracy” and “terroristic threats” of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police is what ought to be on trial.