You might think there is no way to rationalize a cop beating (not to mention poking a thumb into the eyeball of) a handcuffed suspect in an interrogation room. On video.  But, as Tim Cushing explains, you would be wrong.

A video which apparently shows a detective beating an unarmed, restrained man becomes a horrific incident in which a detective bravely survives a potential beating at the hands of an unarmed, restrained man.

A juror from the trial said a defense expert’s frame-by-frame examination of the incident’s key moments put things in a different light and convinced jurors that Gomez reasonably believed he was in danger and used only the force necessary to establish control over Deron Love, a suspect in the death of his infant son.

“We were able to convince the last juror, reluctantly, that still frame by still frame Gomez’s last three closed fist windups became open palm motions to control Love’s arms, and his final leg strike misses the mark.”

Gardner said the expert’s explanation, while moving single frames from the video back and forth in a slide show, helped convince jurors that Love was resisting Gomez’s commands to sit down or relax his body, even if Love didn’t actively fight back.

It’s like magic.  You see what you see, until an “expert” explains that you don’t.  When it comes to conduct by police, the “expert” is invariably a cop or ex-cop who, with calm and fatherly tones, explains why jurors don’t understand or appreciate the difficulties and experiences of police work.  He’s there to do it for them, good guy that he is.  He’s there to help.

With the right jargon, for example, what most of us would consider a vicious punch becomes a distraction technique designed to momentarily stun a violent suspect so the officer can perform some police voodoo on him. Conduct that any reasonably rational person would view as criminal suddenly becomes benign and purposeful.  Or at the very least, understandable, because the job of cop is very hard. Split second decisions, you know.

This could explain why Seabrook, New Hampshire Police Officer Mark Richardson is fighting to put an expert on the stand in his case.

Richardson, 39, is accused of simple assault by an on-duty law enforcement officer for slamming the head of a drunken driving suspect, Michael Bergeron, into a concrete wall at the Seabrook police station on Nov. 11, 2009.

At first blush, it might not appear clear why an expert would be needed to explain to a jury why a cop shouldn’t slam the head of a drunk driving suspect into a concrete wall.  After all, jurors are sufficiently capable of grasping that someone is a suspect of a crime, that cops shouldn’t slam their heads into walls, and that concrete walls can do a lot of damage to a guy’s head.  What part requires expertise?

Judge N. William Delker quizzed lawyers on their legal arguments about Mark Richardson’s request to call on a Lowell, Mass., police officer to testify on his behalf.

State prosecutors are arguing that the expert would essentially usurp the jury’s role by weighing in on the case if he were allowed to testify for the defense.

“They don’t need expert testimony on the use of bare hands,” Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward said.

Not an unreasonable position, as most of us (not to be ableist) have hands, and know how to use them.  Yet, Richardson’s lawyer understands that a good expert is capable of magic.

Defense lawyer Peter Perroni argued at the hearing that the jury needed to hear the testimony of Officer Robert Dyer so they could make an informed decision about what is an acceptable reaction for a police officer.

Perroni suggested in his argument that a different standard of reasonable actions apply to police officers who are trained to use force when necessary. He said Dyer would tell jurors “not what a reasonable person would do, (but) what a reasonable officer might do in the same or similar circumstances.”

There’s the magic, as it’s not what a juror thinks is reasonable. Not even what a lawyer thinks is reasonable, or even a judge. No, it’s what a cop thinks is reasonable, and since the jurors aren’t cops, they need a cop to tell them.

On the one hand, Perroni has a point, as the law provides that Richardson be judged as a reasonable person in his position. And his position is that of a cop.  Sure, we all think we understand what a cop’s position is, because we adore cops on TV who show us how they protect us from terrorists and other bad dudes.

But then, Perroni argues that real-life law enforcement requires a greater understanding, a deeper appreciation, of what is reasonable to a real life cop. His client, Mark Richardson, for example.

But then, his expert will usurp the function of the jury since the point of introducing expert testimony as to real-life police work is to tell the jury that they aren’t qualified to judge whether the conduct was reasonable.  That’s why we have experts, to fill in the gaps of a jury’s knowledge and understanding because they lack the expertise needed to reach their verdict.

When it comes to deciding whether a cop slamming a guy’s head against a concrete wall is reasonable, because the slammer is a cop and the slammee is a perp, the introduction of an expert into the middle means that the expert’s opinion, rather than the jurors, will decide the ultimate fact.  If it’s reasonable, then the cop isn’t guilty.

And it’s a fair bet that Perroni isn’t asking to be permitted to use a police expert without a clue as to whether he’ll conclude his client’s conduct was reasonable.  And hence, not guilty. Just like magic.