|
Jarmak posted:I agree, but I don't think not taking the most prudent course of action deserves a murder charge, it deserves a civil judgement against the department.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:This sounds like how a civilian shooter claiming self-defense would be treated, your statement about the same laws applying checks out I know you keep making these comments like they're some sort of gotcha, but all you're highlighting is that you don't understand the law whatsoever. The answer to all of them is yes, this is the same law. Just to avoid a future "gotcha" I will say some states may have different laws on the books regarding lethal force use by peace officers, but I haven't been applying any of those in my arguments and I'm not aware currently of what states those might be or what those differences are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Have to disagree. Look at officers view of the Slager case. Most now state they will exercise caution because they don't want to end up in jail with a murder charge hanging over his head. If every dick head knows that the system will treat them like any other Joe then they won't be so careless and gently caress up like Mr cryswhiletraining'mytrainersthinkimafuckup'oppsishotakid did. Slager murdered that guy, thats why the murder charge is appropriate in that case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I know you keep making these comments like they're some sort of gotcha, but all you're highlighting is that you don't understand the law whatsoever. The answer to all of them is yes, this is the same law. So they're following the "same law" in the same way that gay people had the same ability as straights to marry someone of the opposite gender?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:So they're following the "same law" in the same way that gay people had the same ability as straights to marry someone of the opposite gender? You're losing me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:So they're following the "same law" in the same way that gay people had the same ability as straights to marry someone of the opposite gender? Yeah man, my neighbor keeps going in and out of his house at will but every time I try to do that they arrest me for breaking and entering, why the gently caress does he get a special set of laws?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah man, my neighbor keeps going in and out of his house at will but every time I try to do that they arrest me for breaking and entering, why the gently caress does he get a special set of laws? No, if I enter my neighbor's house and he enters mine without permission, we'd reasonably both be subject to the same laws and have the same process to find satisfaction. You're trying to claim the cops are held to the same laws as civilians while you argue they have special privileges that make them immune. That's logically inconsistent. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:No, if I enter my neighbor's house and he enters mine without permission, we'd reasonably both be subject to the same laws and have the same process to find satisfaction. You are aware of the difference between common law and statutory law, right
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:You are aware of the difference between common law and statutory law, right Yes, and?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Slager murdered that guy, thats why the murder charge is appropriate in that case. Slager obviously had more time to make decisions leading to the fatal shooting, but it's not obvious to me that Rice's shooter didn't even qualify for 2nd- or 3rd-degree murder. There was intent to kill and a person wound up dead. It really seems like the kind of thing that ought to go to court, even if the officer is found not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Slager obviously had more time to make decisions leading to the fatal shooting, but it's not obvious to me that Rice's shooter didn't even qualify for 2nd- or 3rd-degree murder. There was intent to kill and a person wound up dead. It really seems like the kind of thing that ought to go to court, even if the officer is found not guilty. Well Slager calmly unloaded into a guy who was running away and was obviously no threat, that's not really the same circumstance at all. As I said before I think there's a reasonable argument to be made for voluntary manslaughter as an imperfect self-defense (as in the fear of harm was not reasonable), but I think its a bit of a stretch and unlucky to result in a conviction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Well Slager calmly unloaded into a guy who was running away and was obviously no threat, that's not really the same circumstance at all. As I said before I think there's a reasonable argument to be made for voluntary manslaughter as an imperfect self-defense (as in the fear of harm was not reasonable), but I think its a bit of a stretch and unlucky to result in a conviction. Just glancing over Loehmann's history shows a tracked trend of instability so seeing cops and others circling the bandwagon over this waste of flesh is darkly amusing. If he gets back on the force what officer would want him as their back up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
tezcat posted:If he gets back on the force what officer would want him as their back up? Any of the white ones I would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Any of the white ones I would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Well Slager also was busted for lying about the encounter. Of course everyone glances over Loehmann lying about his encounter as well. Rice did not "reach" for weapon nor did Loehmann give 3 warnings to the kid. Or that having a gun in your hands should not be a death sentence since Ohio is an open carry state. Loehmann should also be busted for lying but it doesn't really go to whether he deserves a murder charge, its not clear that Rice actually reaches for the toy gun but you can definitely see him reach for his waste and his shirt pop up in the video. My personal theory is that he was probably trying to lift his shirt to show the cops the toy gun so he didn't get shot , but that motion is close enough that Loehmann can easily claim that he was reaching for the gun and combined with his obvious panic on video its going to be really hard to sell to a jury that he didn't at least reasonably believe that what Rice was doing, at least in part because I believe its actually the truth (that he believed it). Part of the reason I think going after the department is more appropriate is because this idiot was so obviously unstable that I place more blame on the department for putting him out on the street then I do for him being a panicky idiot. If you want to talk about criminally negligent homicide, from a moral standpoint because I'm 99% sure there's no statute which would support it, the person who signed off on this guy getting a badge after he demonstrated he couldn't handle the stress of a qualification range without crying in the corner is the one who deserves it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Being white doesn't matter if your partner has "dangerous lack of composure during live range training" and an "inability to manage personal stress" and your boss writes "I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies". Yea, but how many of his fellows are totally on board and in that same mindset too? You see people of dubious quality and personality hanging out together all the time, both occupationally and socially in general. I wouldn't doubt there isn't at least a few guys who think he's an alright kind of guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Being white doesn't matter if your partner has "dangerous lack of composure during live range training" and an "inability to manage personal stress" and your boss writes "I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies". Those could apply to any cop. I mean come on, the DA is going to bat for him and it's not as if he killed anyone important like a cop or anything. Just lol if you think he'll have any trouble at all finding a willing partner or department to take him on. I bet most of his colleagues are secretly jealous they aren't the ones living the dream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Yea, but how many of his fellows are totally on board and in that same mindset too? The reports don't indicate the sort of dubiously aggressive kind of instability that the bad kind of cops would admire, he was curled up in the corner crying during a qualification range because he couldn't handle the stress. The type of macho man hyper aggressive types you're talking about don't flock to that sort of person, they torture and ostracize that sort of person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Loehmann should also be busted for lying but it doesn't really go to whether he deserves a murder charge, its not clear that Rice actually reaches for the toy gun but you can definitely see him reach for his waste and his shirt pop up in the video. My personal theory is that he was probably trying to lift his shirt to show the cops the toy gun so he didn't get shot , but that motion is close enough that Loehmann can easily claim that he was reaching for the gun and combined with his obvious panic on video its going to be really hard to sell to a jury that he didn't at least reasonably believe that what Rice was doing, at least in part because I believe its actually the truth (that he believed it). I agree with your second paragraph pretty much in its entirety, but I don't think he had a reasonable belief. I have little doubt that he believed he was in danger; I'm arguing against reasonableness. It goes back to what people were saying earlier, that officers in the US have a great deal of leeway to manufacture situations where they could believe there is a threat. And, frankly, that Loehmann falsified his report after the fact would suggest he didn't think other people would find his claims reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I agree with your second paragraph pretty much in its entirety, but I don't think he had a reasonable belief. I have little doubt that he believed he was in danger; I'm arguing against reasonableness. It goes back to what people were saying earlier, that officers in the US have a great deal of leeway to manufacture situations where they could believe there is a threat. And, frankly, that Loehmann falsified his report after the fact would suggest he didn't think other people would find his claims reasonable. And this is the exact definition of the voluntary manslaughter due to imperfect self-defense jarmak was arguing about Imperfect self-defense manslaughter requires essentially the same elements as murder (intent+death) but also has almost all the elements of self-defense (fear of death/GBI, belief that force was needed to stop the harm, and belief the force used was reasonable), however, the beliefs/fears were not reasonable. It is also a pretty serious offense that generally carries up to decades in prison. It is the same charge you get for heat of passion manslaughter (aka you murder the dude who is banging your wife mid-bang)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
nm posted:And this is the exact definition of the voluntary manslaughter due to imperfect self-defense jarmak was arguing about However, if you were negligent about creating the situation in the first place (and it's hard to argue that's not the case with the Tamir Rice shooting), that can be upgraded to murder. That said, Jarmak has repeatedly said that this cop shouldn't be criminally punished at all for shooting this unarmed kid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
nm posted:And this is the exact definition of the voluntary manslaughter due to imperfect self-defense jarmak was arguing about Imperfect self defense isn't recognized in every state afaik
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
nm posted:And this is the exact definition of the voluntary manslaughter due to imperfect self-defense jarmak was arguing about Thanks for the clarification. It is nice to have people who know law to provide some grounding -- this thread (among others, I'm sure) tends toward hysteria at times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Thanks for the clarification. It is nice to have people who know law to provide some grounding -- this thread (among others, I'm sure) tends toward hysteria at times. It's pretty hysterical that a 12-year old with a toy gun was murdered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Gotta love the masturbatory law chat. I think it is pretty clear from context and a knowledge of frequent human to human communication that some people think Rice should not have been killed and that the cop responsible should go to trial and face prison time. That's it. It is that simple. All this gotcha bullshit about incorrect use of legal terms and charges is a nice way to dodge having to discuss the fact that a cop killed a 12 year old for little reason and might face no real consequences as a result of simply having a badge. Who cares that someone in this thread doesn't know the difference between murder and manslaughter, no one here is in any position for any of that to matter. When someone says Rice was murdered it is pretty easy to parse that they just want the guy to face prison time. Spending pages arguing about their understanding of trial law and procedure is pretty precious, but also kind of transparent. Do you think Rice deserved to be killed, Yes or No? Do you think his killer should be forced to go to trial for his death? Should he face prison time? Super simple stuff. Plenty of room to discuss why you feel the way you do without waiting to pounce on someone's lack of specific legal knowledge. Just discuss how you feel about the damned incident.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Yes, lets have two people argue about something they agree on for pages because they are using different terms because it is rude for the law talking guy to explain that they agree. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I personally find legalchat fairly interesting when it doesn't get too snippy. It's also rather pertinent to the topics of "this is nominally why he will/may get off" and "if he does/doesn't, should an adjustment perhaps be made to the law? If so, what adjustment?" For example, an imperfect self-defense manslaughter charge as discussed above strikes me as exactly what should be utilized in this case, and if it doesn't apply in the state the officer is being charged in, that's a bit bad (the recommendation of negligent homicide charges notwithstanding). If it does apply but the prosecutor doesn't, that's really bad. And both of those are just as worthy of discussion as your three propositions, although the second one is a hypothetical at this juncture. Turns out we live in a society that likes to think it operates under the rule of law, and therefore discussion of that law in both its theoretical and practical capacities is perfectly reasonable. Tldr: masturbatory law chat is sometimes worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Quick googling seems to indicate imperfect self defense is not a thing in Ohio
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, lets have two people argue about something they agree on for pages because they are using different terms because it is rude for the law talking guy to explain that they agree. Got it. I think there is room for debate there too unfortunately. Even in an ideal world it seems like Jarmak thinks Loehmann didn't do something he should potentially face prison time for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, lets have two people argue about something they agree on for pages because they are using different terms because it is rude for the law talking guy to explain that they agree. Got it. My post wasn't directed at you at all. There's nothing wrong with explaining to people that they actually agree with each other, I am specifically talking about the dumb slap fights that keep happening over legal terms and procedures, especially when they happen in response to someone expressing a strong opinion that stands opposed to a cop's actions in a given incident. If someone is explaining why they think the cop killing that child was wrong and that they think he should go to prison, it is pretty lame to keep seeing the same legal arguments pop up as the sole counter argument. "But what he did wasn't TECHNICALLY *crime x* and the charges shouldn't blah blah blah blah." Which then leads to the magical, "if you think the laws are broken, how would you specifically change them", knowing full well not a single person in this thread is equipped to answer that question in any meaningful way, which leads to more gotcha posts and smug dismissals. GreyjoyBastard posted:I personally find legalchat fairly interesting when it doesn't get too snippy. The problem is that it constantly gets snippy because it seems one side of the argument constantly brings up legal semantics chat to argue against the idea that perhaps the system did something bad or that the cops did something wrong. People shouldn't have to present a court case that passes legal muster in this thread to express and discuss the idea that Tamir Rice getting shot to death over a toy was wrong and that the person or persons responsible should face criminal charges, in an ideal world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:People shouldn't have to present a court case that passes legal muster in this thread to express and discuss the idea that Tamir Rice getting shot to death over a toy was wrong and that the person or persons responsible should face criminal charges, in Fixed that for you. The best part is that it's not even a matter of "ideal world". This is a problem that's uniquely American.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:My post wasn't directed at you at all. There's nothing wrong with explaining to people that they actually agree with each other, I am specifically talking about the dumb slap fights that keep happening over legal terms and procedures, especially when they happen in response to someone expressing a strong opinion that stands opposed to a cop's actions in a given incident. If someone is explaining why they think the cop killing that child was wrong and that they think he should go to prison, it is pretty lame to keep seeing the same legal arguments pop up as the sole counter argument. "But what he did wasn't TECHNICALLY *crime x* and the charges shouldn't blah blah blah blah." Which then leads to the magical, "if you think the laws are broken, how would you specifically change them", knowing full well not a single person in this thread is equipped to answer that question in any meaningful way, which leads to more gotcha posts and smug dismissals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you not understand why saying that someone should go to jail for their actions, but feeling that it is unfair for people to ask you exactly what law was broken, or how the law should be changed to criminalize the accused's actions, it a little contrary to the idea that we live in a society of laws? Not really, because the point of representative democracy is that you vote for people who acknowledge how you feel about issues and then get the necessary experts to actually make the laws, so not everyone has to be a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I personally find legalchat fairly interesting when it doesn't get too snippy. Jarmak posted:Quick googling seems to indicate imperfect self defense is not a thing in Ohio Keep in mind that imperfect self-defense manslaughter is technically, like regular self-defense, a defense to charges of murder - if it doesn't exist in Ohio, it provides no refuge from the murder statute for the cop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
"I want laws that assuage my feelings and pander to my biases, I don't really care about the details" isn't exactly a healthy attitude for a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Not really, because the point of representative democracy is that you vote for people who acknowledge how you feel about issues and then get the necessary experts to actually make the laws, so not everyone has to be a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"I want laws that assuage my feelings and pander to my biases, I don't really care about the details" isn't exactly a healthy attitude for a democracy. No it isn't. But neither is going "welp didn't break the law exactly!" and then shrugging and plugging your ears to the sounds of the people who aren't white and middle class. Perhaps we could discuss these ideas in this thread without the inevitable "well what he did was legal, so really all you can do is collect money that doesn't come out of the actual offenders pocket."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you not understand why saying that someone should go to jail for their actions, but feeling that it is unfair for people to ask you exactly what law was broken, or how the law should be changed to criminalize the accused's actions, it a little contrary to the idea that we live in a society of laws? I feel that a cop killing someone for having a toy gun within seconds of hastily approaching them in a state where it is legal to have real guns should be something that results in criminal charges where a judge and jury can then make a legal decision after hearing both sides of the case. I don't think cops should get a pass when taking the life of unarmed people just because their job is dangerous. I think taking a life should be a cop's last resort and I think they should be held criminally accountable if it can be shown that they did not exercise other options. I think falsifying a report should bring jail time, serious time if it involves a death or severe injury (if it can be proven, of course.) As I have no interest in being a lawyer or a judge, or even a legislator currently, I find it pretty irrelevant to be asked about specific legal terms and procedures. I am not terribly interested in what laws are currently on the books or not. There are people who are paid a lot of money via taxes that I pay whose job it is to handle that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:No it isn't. But neither is going "welp didn't break the law exactly!" and then shrugging and plugging your ears to the sounds of the people who aren't white and middle class. ToastyPotato posted:As I have no interest in being a lawyer or a judge, or even a legislator currently, I find it pretty irrelevant to be asked about specific legal terms and procedures. I am not terribly interested in what laws are currently on the books or not. There are people who are paid a lot of money via taxes that I pay whose job it is to handle that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
If you want to pretend that you're posting in good faith, it is best not to ignore the part of a question where they get into the details, then try to mock them for not wanting to be a lawyer. Seriously, if you want to pretend you're not just a troll, why don't you answer the substantive part: ToastyPotato posted:I feel that a cop killing someone for having a toy gun within seconds of hastily approaching them in a state where it is legal to have real guns should be something that results in criminal charges where a judge and jury can then make a legal decision after hearing both sides of the case. I don't think cops should get a pass when taking the life of unarmed people just because their job is dangerous. I think taking a life should be a cop's last resort and I think they should be held criminally accountable if it can be shown that they did not exercise other options. I think falsifying a report should bring jail time, serious time if it involves a death or severe injury (if it can be proven, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:06
|
|
