NJ State PBA Prez Condemns Sitting Judge’s Remarks

Newark City Hall

New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association President Peter Andreyev today released a statement strongly condemning Superior Court Judge Michael L. Ravin’s remarks during the sentencing of former Newark police officer Jovanny Crespo. Crespo received consecutive prison sentences totaling 27 years for shooting two men during a January 2019 car chase in Newark’s Central Ward, an incident that left one suspect dead and the other wounded.

During the sentencing, Judge Ravin criticized what he described as a pervasive “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality within law enforcement.

“I believe there is a way for Judge Ravin to do his job without headline-grabbing statements that unfairly malign all law enforcement officers,” said President Andreyev.  “The recent intense public disparagement of law enforcement makes an already dangerous job that much more difficult, and comments like Judge Ravin’s when handing down a sentence only add to that difficulty.  Judges are meant to be respected by the public, and using their significant influence to paint every man and woman serving and protecting our streets and neighborhoods with the same brush is a tremendous abuse of that responsibility.”

Andreyev added, “The hypocrisy of Judge Ravin is also not lost on us when he is making broad general statements about the entirety of law enforcement while some of our brothers and sisters are actively protecting him daily in his courtroom.  It should go without saying that each individual should clearly be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and ascribing a mentality to all of the men and women who serve in law enforcement potentially raises questions about Judge Ravin’s impartiality. Frankly, I find what he said to be reckless, irresponsible, and completely unacceptable, and I can only hope that he will recognize the enormous weight his words carry for the public moving forward.”

(Visited 7,848 times, 6 visits today)

5 responses to “NJ State PBA Prez Condemns Sitting Judge’s Remarks”

  1. The judge should go out there and experience the real job cops do he’s a true politician not a judge same as NYC

  2. I commend the judges remarks. We’ve alllllllllll seen this same scenario ALL too much lately. LEOs need to stop being butt hurt over STUPID AND BAD decisions made by certain other members. LEOs have to FOLLOW the SAME LAWS as everyone else! Don’t like it? Ohh well! It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!!

  3. This judge has no consideration and his sole is the devil not only that he is totally another politician.
    I feel sorry for every officer that cannot protect the community because you still be punished this is why they quitting.

  4. Want judges to toe the line??? Let’s start with dismantling their IMMUNITY!!!! It’s time we take away judicial immunity from judges, and allow aggrieved litigants, whose due process rights have been violated by judges, to be able to sue judges. The appellate division was designed to correct judges’ errors, so litigants wouldn’t sue them. The appellate process has turned into an expensive, labyrinthine, waste of time. They only make decisions that they feel will benefit the bar association or the government. Rarely, do appellate division decisions go in favor of citizens.

    So, it’s time to eliminate the 500-year old doctrine of Judicial Immunity, which we got from the Old English Star-Chamber proceedings, where judges would take your property, your assets, your life, and sometimes your wife, if you were a political dissident against The Crown. NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL SHOULD HAVE ANY FORM OF IMMUNITY WHATSOEVER!!!! Only taxpaying residents should have immunity from the depradations of the legal INDUSTRY!!!!!

  5. The problem with the PBA’s criticism is that Judge Ravin did not say what they claim that he said.
    I was in the courtroom audience on Friday and heard exactly what he said.
    During the sentencing hearing, Judge Ravin first summarized the arguments of counsel and then made his findings.
    That summary included the prosecutor’s “shoot first, ask questions later” reference that draws the PBA’s ire. That reference by the prosecutor was relevant to his argument for general deterrence, an aggravating sentencing factor.
    When making his findings, Judge Ravin expressly declined to make any broad conclusions regarding the mentality of Officer Crespo’s colleagues. He limited those findings to Officer Crespo, emphasizing the jury’s verdict and his continued refusal to accept any responsibility for his role in the tragic events of January 28, 2019.
    Simply stated, the PBA’s criticism of Judge Ravin has no basis in fact. You don’t have to take my word for it. Please, go order a transcript.
    This comment is made in my capacity as a private citizen, rather than as a retired judge or as a representative of my former employer.
    Martin Cronin, J.S.C. (ret).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

News From Around the Web

The Political Landscape