In the last 72 hours or so, America has witnessed one scenario after another of police officers being attacked and brutalized, and county prosecutorsthen releasing their attackers back into their communities, as the result of “enlightened,” or “progressive” bail reform laws.
Laws catering to violent thugs, and not keeping us safe in any way.
There’s only one thing worse than those criminals being released after brutally attacking sworn police officers, and that's prosecutors targeting police officers for nothing more than political gain.
This is exactly what has appeared to have happened to Ben Darby, a former Huntsville, Alabama police officer.
In April of 2018, Officer Darby made a split-second decision, shooting and killing a suspect who posed a deadly threat to him, as well as two other police officers.
Ironically, Darby who was initially found to have acted in compliance with Alabama state law, state mandated police training, and his own department’s policies and procedures on the use of force, is sitting in an Alabama state prison serving a 25-year sentence for this shooting.
A deeper look into Darby’s actions and his criminal conviction that put him in prison, raises serious questions about the motives and intent of Madison County District Attorney Robert L. Broussard’s prosecution.
It also raises disturbing questions over what appears to have been a kangaroo court; a proceeding of legal calamity, one that was the farthest thing from fair, impartial, and objective justice.
To review, in April of 2018, Darby responded to a 911 call where the caller said he was about to "blow his brains out" and that "the front door was open."
Two other officers responded to that call as well — arriving just before Darby entered the home.
They found the caller/suspect pointing a gun to his own head.
When Darby entered the house, he found the other two officers attempting to speak to the suspect . . . both officers had no cover, their weapons were drawn and pointed at the ground, and were directly in the line of fire.
Darby immediately ordered the man to drop his weapon several times; instead of doing so, he made a furtive movement with his gun at which time, out of fear for his life, and that of the two officers who were clearly in harm’s way, Darby shot and killed the suspect.
Two weeks later, the Huntsville Police Department (HPD) in accordance with their department’s policies, convened an Incident Review Board Investigation.
This board was comprised of HPD personnel, the Madison County District Attorney's Office, non-police city employees, and a few others.
Each officer gave testimony as to what happened on April 3, 2018, and why they acted the way that they did.
Each board member was allowed to ask questions if they had any, but for all three officers, not one question was asked by the board.
At its conclusion, the board found that Officer Darby acted within the department’s policy and state law, and found his actions justified.
The board however, found that the two other officers did violate departmental policy, by placing all three officers in harm’s way by failing to recognize and be prepared for the deadly threat posed by the caller.
As a result, they were required to attend remedial training for their failed threat assessment.
So, you can only imagine the shock to Darby and members of his department, including his own chief, when four months later, District Attorney Broussard attempted to secretly pressure HPD Chief Mark McMurray to fire Darby.
When McMurray refused, Broussard who is up for re-election this November, sought murder charges and an indictment against Darby.
The same prosecutor mind you, who sat on the internal review board clearing Darby of any wrongdoing.
Based on witness accounts, Darby’s trial was overseen by Madison County Circuit Court Judge Donna S. Pate, who spent 29 years practicing in the areas of civil litigation and education law, before overseeing her first major criminal trial involving HPD Officer Ben Darby.
As a result, the trial was loaded with judicial and constitutional errors.
First, Judge Pate barred the general public from the courtroom, including Darby’s own wife, also a police officer.
They were forced to watch the trial from a secluded room where the judge controlled what they could and could not see; that was done by blacking-out their viewing monitors.
Judge Pate prevented the jury from hearing certain matters of law, as well as relevant testimony on tactical training laws and standards which, it can be argued, could have exonerated Darby.
As a result, Darby today sits in one of Alabama’s worst prisons, all for doing his job the way he was trained to do, by the State of Alabama and the FBI.
What’s even more frightening for every law enforcement officer in The Cotton State, is that the policies and laws by which Darby acted — actions that were found to be justified, are still in place and being taught in every police academy statewide.
This means in the eyes of District Attorney Broussard and other anti-police prosecutors like him, every officer has a bullseye on their back for doing exactly what they are being taught to do.
As long as officers like Darby can be targeted by corrupt, incompetent, or politically motivated prosecutors, and thugs are allowed to wreak havoc on our communities with impunity, no one is safe.
No one, not even the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect everyone, each and every day.
More information about Ben Darby may be found here.
Bernard B. Kerik was the 40th Police Commissioner of the New York City Police Department and is a New York Times bestselling author. Read Bernard Kerik's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.