|
Zeitgueist posted:Is there any way there can be consequences for the DA in this, or are we in another "it's not a murder when a cop" quote:Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, whose office brought charges against Servin, expressed disappointment in the judge’s decision. nope quote:Servin said he expects to resume working for the Chicago Police Department. ugh the whole situation was really hosed up, and it sucks that this is how it's going to end. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-detective-manslaughter-trial-0414-met-20150413-story.html quote:Key witness re-enacts shooting at off-duty cop's manslaughter trial
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 04:25 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:33 |
|
This is the end of it I'm sure. "It's not murder when the prosecutor doesn't want to do his job"
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 04:30 |
|
Stereotype posted:This is the end of it I'm sure. "It's not murder when the prosecutor doesn't want to do his job" Hope nobody does anything intentionally damaging to a cop causing death because they'll have to try that person for involuntary manslaughter.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 04:41 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:I believe this is correct. However, there's some legal gray areas and overlap regarding it. If a crime applies to multiple jurisdictions, it's possible for those jurisdictions to hold separate trials (the most common being federal vs. state courts). The US Supreme Court made a ruling after Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932): following acquittal, the government may bring a second prosecution on additional charges arising out of the same underlying events as the first prosecution so long as both the new crime charged and the prior crime each contain an element of proof that the other does not. Are you sure about this? The ruling wasn't that he was not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove any element that would be common to a murder charge, but because they failed the unique element that differentiates it from murder. It seems to me that should leave the possibility of a murder charge open. But I am not a lawyer, so I could just be totally wrong. And it would also require a DAs office that actually wanted to prosecute this case, while this office just demonstrated how badly they were willing to tank it to make this go away.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 05:00 |
|
pentyne posted:The judge stated that previous case law dictates that taking a gun, pointing it at someone and firing is not "reckless" but a deliberate act, meaning that he should've been charged as such. Since the DA didn't show "reckless" actions and those were the only charges the judge was forced to dismiss it. He was literally charged with something he could not have done according to the definition of the law and its hosed up but the judge only has so much power in this example. Your Chicago Tribune Article posted:Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged. quote:Servin told reporters he felt bad for Boyd's family, but that his family had also suffered since the March 2012 shooting.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 05:02 |
thefncrow posted:Are you sure about this? The ruling wasn't that he was not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove any element that would be common to a murder charge, but because they failed the unique element that differentiates it from murder. It seems to me that should leave the possibility of a murder charge open. This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there.
|
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 07:40 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there. The bolded bit is not true in this instance. In many jurisdictions, yes, involuntary manslaughter is basically just voluntary manslaughter minus an element (and similarly, voluntary manslaughter is murder minus an element). In this case, though, involuntary manslaughter involves a recklessness element that is not present in 1st/2nd degree murder. In an alternate universe where Servin was charged with both involuntary manslaughter and murder, the judge would have tossed the involuntary manslaughter charge and left the murder charge intact. That itself speaks to how the crimes vary, that invol manslaughter charges aren't wholly encapsulated by murder charges in this jurisdiction. Since the verdict came as a result of the element of involuntary manslaughter that is not present in a murder charge, that seems to me (in my total lack of actual legal education) that it should perhaps leave the door open for a murder charge not being covered off by double jeopardy. EDIT: In short, my read is that either the judge is right that the recklessness element of involuntary manslaughter means the prosecution failed to present a valid case, which demonstrates the different unique elements between it and murder and should leave open the door for a murder charge, or the judge is wrong about the recklessness element, which would mean that the charges should be reinstated when his ruling is overturned on appeal. Sadly, either of those scenarios would need a DAs office that was actually willing to pursue the matter, and I doubt that's the case here. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Apr 21, 2015 |
# ? Apr 21, 2015 11:27 |
|
For those who don't seem to understand what reckless means: Reckless is be definition action that can lead to an unintentional bad result. You can intentionally be reckless, but you cannot intend the result of the reckless behaviour. Recklessness itself requires as part of its definition a lack of intent to do some thing, but a callousness or lack of awareness to the possibility of said thing happening. Reckless driving itself can be intentional, but the thing that makes it reckless is the chance of accidentally killing or injuring someone or causing damage. That part can't be intentional. If it is intentional, you are no longer being reckless, you are being malicious. If you intentionally hit someone with your car, you would not be engaged in reckless driving... unless there were other pedestrians you could have accidentally hit in the process. If one of them died, you could make a case that recklessness lead to their death, but not for the person you intentionally hit with your vehicle.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 13:31 |
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you intentionally hit someone with your car, you would not be engaged in reckless driving... unless there were other pedestrians you could have accidentally hit in the process. If one of them died, you could make a case that recklessness lead to their death, but not for the person you intentionally hit with your vehicle. probably not in Illinois: firing into a crowd to intentionally hit someone isn't reckless w/r/t the other people
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 13:35 |
|
Wait, I'm confused and may have missed something. I thought he killed the person he was intending too? I will have to reread.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 14:36 |
|
GlyphGryph posted:Wait, I'm confused and may have missed something. I thought he killed the person he was intending too? Some people were in an alley, he thought one of them pulled a gun on him, shot, killed someone else.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 14:43 |
We really need to figure out how to deal with prosecutors that work with people in order to let them get away with murder. It seems like a huge failing of the justice system that it keeps happening and everyone involved is like "yeah that's hosed up but what can you do?" like the system is some kind of natural law that is totally immutable. Even more infuriating is when we all have to pretend that the prosecutors in question were doing their jobs honestly since to infer otherwise would tarnish the name of the Justice System and we can't have that.
|
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:03 |
|
Out of curiosity, how many prosecutors do you know?
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:07 |
ActusRhesus posted:Out of curiosity, how many prosecutors do you know? Several although not closely. I'm not sure how that's really relevant.
|
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:08 |
|
Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:11 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant. What, do we need to have beers with them? The outcome of their biases is evident.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:17 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant. So what's your take on the situation? Incompetence rather than corruption?
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:19 |
|
I mean, of my casual reading of subjects, we had that thing in Ferguson and now this in a relatively small window of time. And it's unethical prosecutors assisting fellow officers that is the focus. And what does first hand experience entail? Should he be going to court everyday to watch prosecutions or is he supposed to wait for Uncle Terry to mention over Thanksgiving dinner how he sand bagged a case because how dare Officer Lemmy have to face any criticism. Edit: more accurately would be if I don'tsand bag the police will gone crappy testimony in future cases Lucca Blight fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 21, 2015 |
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:23 |
|
SedanChair posted:What, do we need to have beers with them? The outcome of their biases is evident. Coming from you that's pretty funny. DARPA posted:So what's your take on the situation? Incompetence rather than corruption? Need to read more of the details and see the transcripts of this case before weighing in. But as a general rule more people are dumb than evil.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:24 |
ActusRhesus posted:Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant. How on earth are you getting that I think all or even most prosecutors are performing unethical actions because I believe the system doesn't have a way to properly deal with the ones that very publicly are scrubbing cases for certain people? The fact that this occurs at all without any real (at least public) attempts to rectify it is really bad and doesn't need to reach epidemic proportions before we decide it's worth tackling.
|
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:24 |
|
I know nothing about law. Can you sue a lawyer for malpractice sort of like a doctor? If you can prove that incompetence cost you the case?
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:27 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Coming from you that's pretty funny. My biases don't put anyone in prison.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:28 |
|
SedanChair posted:My biases don't put anyone in prison. It's okay, neither did this prosecutor's.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:37 |
|
TURN IT OFF! posted:I know nothing about law. Can you sue a lawyer for malpractice sort of like a doctor? If you can prove that incompetence cost you the case? If I was the family of the lady that died, I'd definitely be going after a civil case against both the officer and the DA at this point.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:39 |
Good ol' Bobby "Bought a Badge" Bates is pleading not guilty to 2nd-degree manslaughter. Does the falsified training, etc. come into play here?
|
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:41 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well, you're assuming that a major failing in the system is an epidemic of unethical prosecutors conspiring to help people escape justice. I think whether or not you have any first hand experience with this allegedly unethical class of persons is at least somewhat relevant. Hahah. This is the first time in a while I've seen someone argue that something can't be a problem unless you have anecdotes. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Some people were in an alley, he thought one of them pulled a gun on him, shot, killed someone else. But, yeah, legally I guess once you get into murder territory it looks like it becomes "Well, you intended to kill someone, killing the wrong person isn't reckless it's just a misdirected murder". There's obviously a line - blowing up a bomb in a building to blow up the building would probably still count as murder if anyone was inside too, not just recklessness leading to death. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Apr 21, 2015 |
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:46 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:probably not in Illinois: firing into a crowd to intentionally hit someone isn't reckless w/r/t the other people Not in any state. If you have the intent, if you kill the wrong person, it is murder.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 15:52 |
|
It sure is unfortunate that otherwise competent prosecutors tend to lose IQ points whenever law enforcement personnel are under suspicion. What are the odds, right?
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:09 |
|
Anora posted:If I was the family of the lady that died, I'd definitely be going after a civil case against both the officer and the DA at this point. Yeah hopefully they have enough for a wrongful death lawsuit.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:12 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there. That article actually makes a strong case that they could recharge him, you're reading the reasoning completely wrong. The judge's ruling already established that recklessness was an element of the crime distinct from murder. If this wasn't the case he wouldn't have ruled that they proved all the elements of murder but not manslaughter. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 21, 2015 |
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:17 |
|
nm posted:Not in any state. If you have the intent, if you kill the wrong person, it is murder. It can still be reckless wrt the people you didn't kill.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:20 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:It can still be reckless wrt the people you didn't kill. I mean it can, but if you have the intent to shoot dude A and miss and shoot dude B, you ain't getting a manslaughter charge alone if he dies.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:24 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:It can still be reckless wrt the people you didn't kill. Apparently not unless I'm misunderstanding the ruling.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:29 |
|
The judge goes over the elements of murder in the opinion, intent clearly follows the bullet.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:31 |
|
mastershakeman posted:Apparently not unless I'm misunderstanding the ruling. I was speaking generally, not specific to the facts of this case. Defendant sprays bullets at store, trying to kill person A, misses. Hits person B and shot in a way that showed a complete disregard for persons C D and E's safety. One count attempted murder, one count murder, three counts reckless endangerment.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:36 |
|
At least here anyway. We just limit you can't have multiple mental states for same act on same victim.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:37 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:I was speaking generally, not specific to the facts of this case. If person A is shooting at you and you fire wildly at separate area where B, C, D and E are that A isn't shooting from does self defense cover that?
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:42 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:If person A is shooting at you and you fire wildly at separate area where B, C, D and E are that A isn't shooting from does self defense cover that? Depends.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:47 |
|
I learned from the Michael Brown thread that prosecutors never protect cops by setting up cases to take a dive, so whatever happened in this situation must be perfect justice.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:48 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:33 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Depends. Lawyers
|
# ? Apr 21, 2015 16:53 |