|
Pretty much. People like to victim blame by saying the person that got shot should have done [not what they did] but literally any action taken can be construed as "resisting." There's no government standard for what you should do when you are arrested that 100% won't cause Officer Twitchyfingers to open fire and then have you declared a deadly threat for raising your hands too fast or too slow.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Ragdolling is often treated as passively resisting an arrest and is also a crime soooo. Although if he had it would and should have been 100% legal because you can't make that illegal without falling victim to an irresistible compulsion to make all self-defense illegal. Unless you can give me a bright line with the precise weight and body fat percentage that makes someone a legal threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Although if he had it would and should have been 100% legal because you can't make that illegal without falling victim to an irresistible compulsion to make all self-defense illegal. So it's like double jeopardy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unless you can give me a bright line with the precise weight and body fat percentage that makes someone a legal threat. The answer to this is yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
God-loving-drat!quote:A police officer in Texas who was being criminally prosecuted for shooting dead an unarmed black man has persuaded a judge to throw out the charge against him by arguing that he enjoyed immunity under the US constitution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Honest mistake you see. He was just going to apply 'distraction' pistol whips to the person during the arrest, but alas, the spirit of the federal constitution possessed the hand gun, pre-empting any state action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
The law works as intended apparently. He did nothing wrong according to a judge. Who are we to judge? If there were something wrong with the system certainly someone smarter than us would have fixed it by now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The law works as intended apparently. He did nothing wrong according to a judge. Who are we to judge? If there were something wrong with the system certainly someone smarter than us would have fixed it by now. Judge Yeakel's opinion posted:A federal officer is not required to show that his actions were in fact necessary or in retrospect justifiable. He only must show that he reasonably thought his actions to be necessary and justifiable. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:I feel its worse. I dont think his judge ruled on whether he did anything wrong, but whether, as a member of an FBI task force acting within his duties, he even could be tried in a state court for his death. I added the important word above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I added the important word above. Pffft. When someone gives zero fucks about taking their own murder charges federal, there ain't no trial coming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
jfood posted:Pffft. When someone gives zero fucks about taking their own murder charges federal, there ain't no trial coming. Even if you're worried about federal charges, if you have a chance to knock out state charges, you do it. (That said I doubt this guy gets federal charges brought: QI is a bitch to get around.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I added the important word above. I don't at all think he will be charged federally, but Im curious about how difficult to bring federal prosecutions for murder or manslaughter charges are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
More info was released from the incident where the mentally unwell dude got "shot in the face" earlier. A .38 revolver has been recovered with 4 empty shells in the chambers and two live. Cause of death was a single shot from under the chin. The medical examiner agrees it was suicide, and a witness has come forward who saw the dude running with the gun. I'd normally be the first to jump on the "lying cops" bandwagon, they've proven themselves totally unworthy of any kind of trust as a group. But in this case it's starting to look like they were mostly telling the truth. If that's so it's just a lovely situation all around. Even if the cops had shot him it would be justified IMO. An active shooter is a clear and present danger and to me is the gold standard of justified use of lethal force. It sucks that our system is set up in such a way that cops getting called is the first official intervention with someone who was unwell, but someone's gotta take responsibility for ensuring bullets aren't flying around and possibly killing uninvolved people nearby. They pretty much had a duty to confront him. Morally I mean. I don't care about stupid court cases that end with findings that cops aren't statutorily bound to protect the public. Sucks that they had to confront the dude and it ended with him offing himself, but it also is a good example of how the police issue is systematic. All the police training in the world wouldn't have made that guy not start shooting, but the system failed him, his family, and the public at large by ensuring that armed officers confronting him during some sort of breakdown was the first and last intervention. He should have been offered help before it came to something like this. Instead, "gently caress poors and especially black poors, let them rot until they go so nuts they almost have to be violently confronted". That isn't on just the officers' heads. They have a job to do, and I for one won't blame them when it's shown they did what they had to do to protect the peace, as long as their actions conform to the spirit of the law. It's on all of us collectively as a society that we've decided to let mental healthcare languish so badly, and to hang the poor and minorities out to dry more generally. It's also an unfortunately good lesson about how you shouldn't let your biases and preconceptions make up your mind for you in lieu of evidence. Regardless of how generally justified those biases and preconceptions might be. Yeah. Cops love shooting black people, lie all the time, and plant weapons to justify the use of deadly force ex post facto. That doesn't mean any individual cop is guilty until proven innocent, however. That kind of thinking leads to violent radicalization on both sides. And I have to admit, that's exactly what I was doing before reports of physical evidence and the medical examiner's report were released. My bad. Nathilus fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:Thanks! I mis-read his second quoted line. Would you know off the top of your head any technical or procedural limitations which would block federal-law charges in similar cases such as his? Nothing off the top of my head though I don't do criminal work (I do, however, know a lot about state vs federal courts from the civil side.) Usually hard to bring a straight federal murder charge - barring certain circumstances they'd need to bring charges for civil rights violation or similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I added the important word above. The opinion linked above suggests that he's immune from prosecution by federal courts, too: quote:Upon establishing a Supremacy Clause immunity defense, it is not left to a federal or state jury to acquit the defendant of state-law criminal charges, nor to a federal or state judge to direct a verdict in the defendant's favor; the federal or state court instead lacks any jurisdiction over the defendant. What am I missing here? Edit: derp. Went and bolded what I think is the operative phrase. Tell me if I'm wrong. Grundulum fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:The opinion linked above suggests that he's immune from prosecution by federal courts, too: "State law criminal charges." The opinion is saying that he's immune to prosecution under state law for his actions as an agent of the federal government. Federal charges are still a potentially viable route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
As much as it sucks I...kind of have to agree with federal supremacy. I mean, hopefully this guy will get federal charges of course, but oh my god could you imagine what the South would immediately start to do if they could charge federal officials with whatever state crimes they wanted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
state crimes such as manslaughter, the inhumanity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and...not trust that Alabama wouldn't immediately trump up charges against any federal official coming in and enforcing civil rights laws ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
FatalEncounters has passed 9,000 total documented people killed by LEOs in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm going to go ahead and...not trust that Alabama wouldn't immediately trump up charges against any federal official coming in and enforcing civil rights laws ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I believe there were some crazies in the South drafting legislation to criminalize enforcing Obamacare. I don't know that anyone passed them since it's obviously illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I believe there were some crazies in the South drafting legislation to criminalize enforcing Obamacare. I don't know that anyone passed them since it's obviously illegal. It's illegal for the same reason the judge dismissed this indictment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Ragdolling is often treated as passively resisting an arrest and is also a crime soooo. CNN cop defending the classroom cop: quote:If an officer decides to make an arrest, Houck said, he or she “can use whatever force is necessary.” If you lack the ESP to know exactly what two cops screaming contradicting orders are (Not the classroom case before one of you loving pedantic assholes jumps in) your hosed if you guess wrong or don't instantly do what you hopefully guess the cops want. Note he can use whatever force is "necessary" to arrest you without any qualifier as to the severity of what you're being arrested for. A (teen?) not getting out her chair can be thrown around the room as if she was a violent robber because what we have to keep in mind is you do what the cops say, period. Don't you dare ask questions like "What am I being arrested for". Toasticle fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Isn't he flat out wrong, too? I thought use of force was supposed to be proportionate to the force of resistance. Or is that something that only applies to "civilians"? Obviously pounding on someone or slamming them up against a surface or piledrivering them when they are passive is morally wrong and should be illegal for everyone. Period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Eh not fair I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm going to go ahead and...not trust that Alabama wouldn't immediately trump up charges against any federal official coming in and enforcing civil rights laws ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ When was the last time the benevolent federal government came to "the south" and enforced civil rights laws? When was the last time the federal government enforced civil rights laws at all? Particularly vs the largest violators of cilvi rights in the nation, the police.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:When was the last time the benevolent federal government came to "the south" and enforced civil rights laws? When was the last time the federal government enforced civil rights laws at all? Particularly vs the largest violators of cilvi rights in the nation, the police. 2012? When was the Danger bridge trial again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Danger Bridge was a civil rights issue? Seems like strictly negligence to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:As much as it sucks I...kind of have to agree with federal supremacy. I mean, hopefully this guy will get federal charges of course, but oh my god could you imagine what the South would immediately start to do if they could charge federal officials with whatever state crimes they wanted? I would if he wasn't an austin loving police officer who was sort of working on a bank robbery with the fbi but wasn't at the time of the shooting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Isn't he flat out wrong, too? I thought use of force was supposed to be proportionate to the force of resistance. Or is that something that only applies to "civilians"? Ostensibly police are supposed to strictly follow rules of force to only be slightly more forceful than the person they're trying to subdue. In practice, police regularly get away with injuring people with rough treatment for non-violent resistance or resistance that's very easy to overcome, such as bodyslamming a drunk guy who limply shoved an officer and breaking his ribs or tasing someone for walking away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Ostensibly police are supposed to strictly follow rules of force to only be slightly more forceful than the person they're trying to subdue. In practice, police regularly get away with injuring people with rough treatment for non-violent resistance or resistance that's very easy to overcome, such as bodyslamming a drunk guy who limply shoved an officer and breaking his ribs or tasing someone for walking away. Seems like an easy fix if the training and regs are already morally correct. We just need to enforce them. And, uh... Enforce the enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:2012? Danziger, and 2007 - 2011. Then the convictions all got thrown out on grounds that one of the prosecutors posted about the case in the comments section of a nola.com article. Last I heard DOJ was making some noncommittal noises about maybe re-trying the case at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
nm posted:I would if he wasn't an austin loving police officer who was sort of working on a bank robbery with the fbi but wasn't at the time of the shooting. Seriously. Just because you once worked with an fbi task force shouldn't qualify you for federal immunity for all future incidents. It's so broad that basically this guy could do anything he wanted and he would be immune from state prosecution. And of course for the federal government to get involved it would have to be some pretty wanton abuse. This same logic could have been used to get Darren Wilson off, or that the next time the NYPD kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Ostensibly police are supposed to strictly follow rules of force to only be slightly more forceful than the person they're trying to subdue. In practice, police regularly get away with injuring people with rough treatment for non-violent resistance or resistance that's very easy to overcome, such as bodyslamming a drunk guy who limply shoved an officer and breaking his ribs or tasing someone for walking away. I've always been told you are legally allowed to ask why you are being detained and if the answer is not "You are under arrest for X" or a flimsy excuse like being a suspect because you are Of course this usually means making up some bullshit after the fact charge or the "resisting arrest" which I don't even understand how its legal when it turns out to be the only charge. How can you resist being arrested when you weren't being charged with anything to begin with.  Edit: I guess when they arrive at say a domestic dispute they can separate everyone including cuffing the abuser until poo poo gets sorted out so "Until a potentially violent situation is under control" is a valid excuse. "Didn't get out of your classroom chair when I said to", No. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Seriously. Just because you once worked with an fbi task force shouldn't qualify you for federal immunity for all future incidents. It's so broad that basically this guy could do anything he wanted and he would be immune from state prosecution. And of course for the federal government to get involved it would have to be some pretty wanton abuse. That wasn't the ruling. As usual, you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
nm posted:I would if he wasn't an austin loving police officer who was sort of working on a bank robbery with the fbi but wasn't at the time of the shooting. It's not quite that clear cut - he was full time designated to the FBI and was at the bank that had been robbed when the victim came to the door and gave a false name to the bank employees, at which point he chased the guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I've always been told you are legally allowed to ask why you are being detained and if the answer is not "You are under arrest for X" or a flimsy excuse like being a suspect because you are Specifically, there are three different legal levels of being stopped by a police officer: 1. Stopped 2. Detained 3. Arrested A police officer can attempt to stop you any time they want, but they're very limited in what they can do without further suspicion of wrongdoing. If an officer stops you and they don't suspect you of having committed a crime, they have no legal right to keep you and you can freely walk away. This is where you get the classic "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?" demands from people who film their confrontations. This is actually a good thing to ask if you aren't sure what's going on, because it can keep you from accidentally letting yourself talk too much about whatever they're being suspicious about and give them reason to detain or arrest you. Considering how easy it is for unassuming behavior to get you arrested and potentially brutalized by American cops, walking away if they confirm that you're not detained is probably a pretty good idea. An officer can detain you if you're suspected of committing a crime. The officer ostensibly needs "reasonable suspicion" that you've committed a crime, but it's up to the officer to decide how suspicious they are and good luck convincing a court otherwise except in the most egregious cases of police misconduct. If you're detained, you can't leave but you're also not under arrest. Your belongings are still safe without a warrant or permission from you to search them. However, if the officer suspects you of being armed, they can perform an outer clothing pat-down and any contraband they just happen to come across during that is admissible evidence. An arrest requires either a warrant or probable cause that the person committed a crime, not just suspicion. If they hear an alarm from a house and see you running down the street away from it, that would easily be probable cause. Seeing you trying to hide a bag of white powder? That works. Again, in practice there's going to be way more leeway in just what police and courts consider "probable cause" that don't necessarily seem reasonable to most people. If you're under arrest, your belongings are forfeit and anything on your person or in your immediate surroundings (including your car if you were pulled over) can be searched and confiscated. In some cases, they even have the right to search your cell phone. An arrest also doesn't need to involve handcuffs and booking. Let's say undercover cops at the airport think your behavior is unusual or find that the name on your ticket doesn't match your driver's license. They think you may be a drug smuggler or terrorist, and decide to pull you into an interrogation room so they can search your luggage. Dragging you out of a public setting for interrogation and search is legally an arrest even if you're just willingly walking with them and not handcuffed, and if they didn't have sufficient probable cause that you committed a crime (just looking nervous under police questioning doesn't count) they're hosed in court even if they find something. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Danger Bridge was a civil rights issue? Seems like strictly negligence to me.  It was Danziger bridge (thanks autocorrect). Note to self: The police rolled up in a U Haul, and shot 6 unarmed civilians with shotguns and rifles, killing 2. This is apparently a textbook case of negligence and not a civil rights issue even if the police were convicted of depriving the victims' civil rights under the color of law. I'm honestly speechless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:
http://www.usroads.com/journals/rilj/9706/ri970603.htm Words are important. And when you say the wrong words, different meanings are conveyed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because historically, it has been used mostly to let white people off for killing black people. As I pointed out it was also used to nullify prohibition era cases and to nullify charges against people helping escaped slaves. That it's been used for bad things and good things is no different than any other step in the legal system. DAs not prosecuting cops, cops not bringing charges up against fellow wife beating cops or DAs acting in a grand jury as usually a cops defense attorney is just as repugnant but it's still allowed unquestioned and doesn't seem to be listed under 'things undermining democracy'. As I said before a DA can decide all on his own whether to even charge someone and it has obviously been abused. Grand juries can, without seeing the entire or possibly even any facts around the case can choose to not indict. Grand juries are doing almost the same thing but with even less information than a courtroom jury. I'm drat sure grand juries didn't indict white people for killng black people so functionally what's the difference? Discendo Vox posted:The jury system is not "set up to allow them to do that". It's the whole reason the fact/law distinction, jnov, and other ways of overturning this sort of momentary mob "justice" exist. Again, these were discussed in my previous post on the subject. Partially my fault, I'm still recovering from a concussion so this has kind of veered off my original question of 'can they' into 'should they'. So my original question was whether it's a thing. Whether you or other attorneys like or don't like it is a separate discussion but nobody anywhere has pointed to anything that says a jury MUST only follow the law. Everything I've read and been told is that jury deliberations are secret for a reason, no juror has to justify or even explain their decision nor can they be punished for not 'following the law'. They get to decide, full stop. The only exceptions seem to be judges can reverse a guilty verdict but not the other way around. This is where I'm coming from when I say it seems like it's set up to allow for this. There is no law ive been shown that requires juries to do anything. The judge can instruct them that they must follow the law but they are under no legal requirement to do so. So when I say it seems like a feature not a glitch that's wher Im coming from. It's allowed by the system and any effort to change that I would think most would agree would be far worse. Telling a jury they have to reach a certain verdict would, to me, be far more subversive to the system. I'll concede it may be a unintended side effect of the jury system. A flawed summary of a trial would be the prosecution gives the jury the law, the facts as to why they believe this person broke that law and should be punished and the defense tries to show either mitigating circumstances makes it not apply or argue why the facts do not support the charge. The jury is the final say as to whether they think the facts are true and whether they point to the defendant breaking the law he/she is being charged under. Yes, they can abuse this. They also can as I pointed out use it to undermine things that should not be illegal as they are attempting to legislate morality (prohibition) or slave era laws. So to keep it simple: whether you agree or disagree with it, am I wrong in saying it is something they can do legally?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:58
|
|