|
Toasticle posted:Forgetting for the moment the mental pretzel of logic that justifies even drawing on someone who wrecked his car after running a red light because "he might flee" how in the gently caress is hoping nobody will notice he shot him in the neck not? Telling the EMTs and the hospital "Oh yeah btw he also has a bullet in his neck" is the kind of information that is kind of loving important for the people trying to save him. Police have no legal duty to help anyone or take any action that might protect human life.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:“This shooting is not justified, but also not criminal." You'd be wrong, accidental shootings are not a criminal offense
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Police have no legal duty to help anyone or take any action that might protect human life. Assuming this isn't sarcasm, are you seriously saying not telling the medics he loving shot the guy is in any way comparable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Assuming this isn't sarcasm, are you seriously saying not telling the medics he loving shot the guy is in any way comparable? It's not sarcasm. It's truth. It's hosed up, but welcome to police in America. He's not defending the officer, but pointing out that the officer has no legal duty to render aid. This leads to some debates in this thread and its predecessor about the topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You'd be wrong, accidental shootings are not a criminal offense Accidental shootings absolutely can fall under criminal negligence statutes. You are correct in that it is not always criminal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:It's not sarcasm. It's truth. It's hosed up, but welcome to police in America. He's not defending the officer, but pointing out that the officer has no legal duty to render aid. This leads to some debates in this thread and its predecessor about the topic. I didn't say anything about him not rendering aid, he willfully withheld extremely important medical information from medical personnel so he wouldn't get in trouble. That has nothing to do with not being required to take action, it's risking someone's life by lying by omission. And there's no way he 'forgot' since he suddenly remembered he shot the guy in the neck once his supervisor started talking about investigating why he had a bullet In his neck by going back the bar. Suddenly "Oh yeah, that was me. Sorry"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You'd be wrong, accidental shootings are not a criminal offense If I pulled a gun on a drunk guy who just rolled his car and fingerfucked the trigger so I accidentally shot him in the neck, did I do something illegal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If I pulled a gun on a drunk guy who just rolled his car and fingerfucked the trigger so I accidentally shot him in the neck, did I do something illegal? Sadly it depends on the state. In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there: quote:William DeHayes told police that his .22 caliber handgun went off after he spun it around his finger. The bullet struck Katherine Hoover in the head, killing her. Her unborn son died soon after. I think this says more about our insane gun laws than anything. If I was being doing donuts with my car and killed someone the law would be different. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Accidental shootings absolutely can fall under criminal negligence statutes. You are correct in that it is not always criminal. It depends on the state but not typically, searching through news articles I can only find 3 instances in the last year and one of those was a plea deal. That's in a country with over 500 accidental firearm deaths a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sadly it depends on the state. In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there: In some ways I am torn on this issue. It is a hard line to walk, as you don't want to universally criminalize accidents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:In some ways I am torn on this issue. It is a hard line to walk, as you don't want to universally criminalize accidents. quote:A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:Trabisnikof's characterization of what that article says is pretty wrong. Really? What part of this: Trabisnikof posted:In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there: Is not backed up by this: quote:"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime. This is such a case." Which is from a story about where a guy was spinning his gun on his finger, killed someone and the DA believed no crime had occurred because it wasn't culpable negligence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Also note the tradition of the dash cam video magically loosing sound at the time of shooting, the cop using the flashlight to look for his shell casings rather than render aid after seeing that yes, he did indeed shoot the person, but still isn't the threshold of criminal as defined by the DA:quote:A persona acts with criminal negligence when: 1) He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and 2) A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would actin the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard of human life or indifference tot he consequence of that act." And any proof of criminal negligence is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts here do not rise to that proof. To my eyes the video does not look at all as if it was accidental and the officer did shoot twice, but you can't confirm that because the sound was cut off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really? What part of this: Trabisnikof posted:Sadly it depends on the state. In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:Bolding added: Oh you you're just fishmechin' got it. Because accidentally shooting someone isn't a crime unless you reach the relevant standard of negligence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Oh you you're just fishmechin' got it. Because accidentally shooting someone isn't a crime unless you reach the relevant standard of negligence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:Saying that "Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there" isn't a crime because it is only sometimes criminal is no different from saying "Even deliberately killing someone isn't a crime there" because it is only sometimes criminal. You are bad at words. Are you seriously starting a derail over his grammar?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you seriously starting a derail over his grammar?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:If people are going to disagree with me that their characterization of an article is bad, but the reason they disagree with me is that they wrote something objectively stupid and expected me to real time transform their objectively stupid sentence into something that made actual sense, I would rather have the derail than objectively stupid characterizations of articles. You really seem to have problems understanding the difference between an affirmative defense and an act that isn't criminalized. For example the statement: "Speech isn't criminalized in the US", do you think it is valid or invalid? Some speech can in fact get me convicted, but generally speech cannot. The example from the article was a man who was spinning his gun around his finger when he shot someone, the DA said "An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally" so yeah, I still think saying that "in Florida accidentally [shooting] someone isn't a crime" is a valid statement, since it is on face true and backed up by evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
How is that not negligent homicide? He was literally behaving recklessly with a loving weapon
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Maybe I just hate cops but there would to me seem to be a ever so slight difference between twirling a gun on your finger and it firing and drawing, aiming, shooting then suddenly forgetting that you shot a guy in the neck. Do you think the outcome of gun twirler would have been different had he drawn, aimed and shot the guy then claimed it was an accident?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Maybe I just hate cops but there would to me seem to be a ever so slight difference between twirling a gun on your finger and it firing and drawing, aiming, shooting then suddenly forgetting that you shot a guy in the neck. Personally I feel that cops own an even greater responsibility, and would be comfortable holding them to higher burden when it comes to negligence, including criminal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:How is that not negligent homicide? He was literally behaving recklessly with a loving weapon He can still get taken for everything in a civil suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Maybe I just hate cops but there would to me seem to be a ever so slight difference between twirling a gun on your finger and it firing and drawing, aiming, shooting then suddenly forgetting that you shot a guy in the neck. There's a massive difference, twirling a loaded firearm on your finger by the trigger-well is is astoundingly dangerous, and aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a massive difference, twirling a loaded firearm on your finger by the trigger-well is is astoundingly dangerous, and aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I seem to recall that IDF soldiers get charged with "misuse of a firearm" under these types of circumstances, at least if there's sufficient outcry by rights groups about someone "accidentally" getting killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really seem to have problems understanding the difference between an affirmative defense and an act that isn't criminalized. quote:For example the statement: "Speech isn't criminalized in the US", do you think it is valid or invalid? Some speech can in fact get me convicted, but generally speech cannot. Trabisnikof posted:Sadly it depends on the state. In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Personally I feel that cops own an even greater responsibility, and would be comfortable holding them to higher burden when it comes to negligence, including criminal. I think the last thread buried that idea under a mountain of "Why do you want to take away cops rights" But yeah, giving someone a weapon and the authority to use it to kill should carry a much greater responsibility for what you do with that gun. I'm sure someone will pull up a somewhat relevant example but I agree if you are issued a weapon "oops it just went off  " should not be a defense unless the weapon is examined an is shown to have a mechanical flaw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a massive difference, twirling a loaded firearm on your finger by the trigger-well is is astoundingly dangerous, and aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice. So I'm just going to point out two problems with this view: 1. Perhaps officers shouldn't be starting an encounter with their lethal weapon of last resort 2. The instruction I've always heard drilled into heads about guns was the only time you point a firearm at something or someone is when you intend to shoot it. In my eyes that's a lot more preventable than an accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd guess that, since he didn't intend to pull the trigger, he lacked mens rea? IANAL. But it's like the same thing with drunk driving, no one intends to hurt anyone when they do it, but they can and it does happen This is just really another example of Florida being a lovely state isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a massive difference, twirling a loaded firearm on your finger by the trigger-well is is astoundingly dangerous, and aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice. Drawing on a guy who just flipped his car and opened the door is standard practice? Because "he thought he was going to flee"? I've never flipped a car but I feel safe in saying the odds of that person fleeing much less just being able to stand up are pretty low. KomradeX posted:This is just really another example of Florida being a lovely state isn't it? Having lived in Miami, Orlando and places in between, you have no idea how hosed up this state is. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He can still get taken for everything in a civil suit. Why wouldn't this fall under qualified immunity? The shooter was clearly acting in an official role at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why wouldn't this fall under qualified immunity? The shooter was clearly acting in an official role at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:So I'm just going to point out two problems with this view: That's valid criticism, but you can't charge an individual with a criminal negligence for following what is a standard practice. Trabisnikof posted:Why wouldn't this fall under qualified immunity? The shooter was clearly acting in an official role at the time. I'm pretty sure it would
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Talkin' about the guy spinning a gun on his finger cowboy style. That makes way more sense. I seem to be lacking in brain today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm pretty sure it would The previous QI discussion was a mess so sorry if this was covered, but doesn't the shot person have to be a danger to the cop or others? And is shooting someone fleeing from an accident after running a red really a valid reason to use lethal force? Not to flippant but if he did run, so what? Yeah the passenger died but it's entirely believable that a drunk who just flipped his car didn't know she was dead, and if so are a DUI, running a red light and fleeing an accident scene crimes where shooting him for running is justifiable use of deadly force?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:The previous QI discussion was a mess so sorry if this was covered, but doesn't the shot person have to be a danger to the cop or others? And is shooting someone fleeing from an accident after running a red really a valid reason to use lethal force? Yeah if he had intentionally shot him that would be the case, but the action we're talking about here is pulling his firearm. So to pierce QI you'd have show not only that the act of pulling his weapon violated the guy's rights, but that no reasonable officer could have thought it was legal for him to do so, an argument that would be defeated with 30 second and access to youtube.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
So exactly what is the justification for a negligent discharge like that not being criminal? It's not exactly "My gun just went off while cleaning it!" He willingly drew and aimed his gun at someone, and he pulled the trigger by accident and shot him in the neck. The only reason a man died that night is because he knowingly engaged in actions that put someone's life at risk. I'm not saying the guy needs a first degree murder charge and 10 years in jail. I just can't imagine how this kind of action doesn't even apply for manslaughter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah if he had intentionally shot him that would be the case, but the action we're talking about here is pulling his firearm. So to pierce QI you'd have show not only that the act of pulling his weapon violated the guy's rights, but that no reasonable officer could have thought it was legal for him to do so, an argument that would be defeated with 30 second and access to youtube. To be honest, "Other cops do it all the time" should not be a valid defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
I really don't like how QI means there seems to be no real mechanism to get cops to stop being stupid with their guns. It even seems to encourage it. If you look too competent with your hasty shootings, there goes your best defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
