|
Caros posted:The context is that the officer was jacked on adrenaline and engaged in a nearly 90 mph vehicle pursuit. People say dumb poo poo when their blood is flowing. I've heard security guards say things like that almost word for word who haven't shot someone to death afterwards, and the fact that he exited the vehicle and kept his weapon bolstered doesn't suggest that he left the vehicle with the intent to kill. Cool, in those cases they didn't murder a dude. Saying "I'M GONNA KILL THIS GUY" and then actually killing him are way different from saying something and then doing nothing. Fun test: please outline a scenario where a cop shoots someone and you don't defend the cops. Also the punishment for getting pulled over/having drugs on you/whatever should not be extra-judicial murder what the gently caress is wrong with people
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Caros posted:The context is that the officer was jacked on adrenaline and engaged in a nearly 90 mph vehicle pursuit. People say dumb poo poo when their blood is flowing. I've heard security guards say things like that almost word for word who haven't shot someone to death afterwards, and the fact that he exited the vehicle and kept his weapon bolstered doesn't suggest that he left the vehicle with the intent to kill. source your quotes, or alternately, take your place against the wall when the revolution comes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
*radio crackles* So me and Daniel were about to go across the bridge, and his ubercharge was at like 99% and right before I got sniped it went off. I was like- goona kill this motherfucker, don't you know it! *radio crackles* Suspect may be armed. *radio crackles*
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Moatman posted:HE USED A loving AK This word doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What the hell is your problem? Cops who kill people and the assholes who defend them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:The context is that the officer was jacked on adrenaline and engaged in a nearly 90 mph vehicle pursuit. People say dumb poo poo when their blood is flowing. I've heard security guards say things like that almost word for word who haven't shot someone to death afterwards, and the fact that he exited the vehicle and kept his weapon bolstered doesn't suggest that he left the vehicle with the intent to kill. Why would this defense not also apply to a cop killer who legally owns and open carries a gun? In a confrontation with police, they may also be jacked up on adrenaline and have legitimate concern for their life, yet I think they would face repercussions for their action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
DR's reading of the case is probably not far off, sadly. I don't think he's defending the decision either, just outlining how this ruling was justified. Related: going straight for murder charges doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere because there seem to be an abundance of citizens and judges who find it reeeeal hard to get over the necessary burden of a murder case. In the end, if we have a short-term goal (under GOP rule) of keeping homicidal psychopathic nationalists out of the force while providing a credible deterrence to brutality, is there another charge we can hypothetically throw at murderous cops that is both easier to convict and guarantees someone will never serve with law enforcement again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Why would this defense not also apply to a cop killer who legally owns and open carries a gun? In a confrontation with police, they may also be jacked up on adrenaline and have legitimate concern for their life, yet I think they would face repercussions for their action. If I was ever on a jury and this scenario happened I would argue with a straight face we shouldn't convict because the defendant may have feared for their life because it's well-known that cops are the single most dangerous and violent groups in america Potato Salad posted:DR's reading of the case is probably not far off, sadly. I don't think he's defending the decision either, just outlining how this ruling was justified. simple change would be to change the burden of proof for crimes committed by state enforcement agents with the logic being that they should know what is and is not appropriate more so than the average citizen. other than that you might need to write specific "cop murder" statues for this to stop happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Caros, now, can eat poo poo and die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
axeil posted:Cool, in those cases they didn't murder a dude. Saying "I'M GONNA KILL THIS GUY" and then actually killing him are way different from saying something and then doing nothing. caros is not defending the cops, he is arguing the decision isn't clearly insane from a procedural standpoint given what the prosecution presented quote:The judge seems to have chalked up the former to an excited utterance (80 mph car case and all) rather than a statement of intent. The latter wasn't proven to his satisfaction. reasonable doubt is, in fact, a motherfucker which is why my immediate takeaway from this specific mess is "the prosecution dropped the ball on involuntary manslaughter, if not on the whole drat case" and "narrow-focus problem: how do we handle the possibility of cop-planted guns? proposition: body cams and ???"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Why would this defense not also apply to a cop killer who legally owns and open carries a gun? In a confrontation with police, they may also be jacked up on adrenaline and have legitimate concern for their life, yet I think they would face repercussions for their action. Cops are insane creatures who can't be expected to have any responsibility for their own actions much like horses with flies they can spook and kill themselves and people around them simply by spotting a minority obviously it would be unreasonable to expect such beings to be held to the standards of reasoning humans
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Speaking of extra-judicial police killings, what ever happened to the case of Jordan Edwards? Black teenager in Texas who was killed while driving away from an officer that lied on the report initially claiming that the car was driving toward him. After being found caught in a lie the department fired him for 'violating policy'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:caros is not defending the cops, he is arguing the decision isn't clearly insane from a procedural standpoint given what the prosecution presented So strange how the prosecution always seems to drop the ball when the cops murder someone. Yep. So weird. Welp, must not be anything to it, just a crazy coincidence!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:DR's reading of the case is probably not far off, sadly. I don't think he's defending the decision either, just outlining how this ruling was justified. Involuntary manslaughter for "recklessness / lethally excessive force in cops is very bad, and much easier to show" is a good start, and is conveniently a lesser included charge in most (all?) state murder statutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
axeil posted:Cool, in those cases they didn't murder a dude. Saying "I'M GONNA KILL THIS GUY" and then actually killing him are way different from saying something and then doing nothing. Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Freddy Gray (not shot but you get the idea). News flash dipshit, just because I think, in this particular instance, that the judge handling this case is legally correct that the prosecution did not prove the burden of their case, and that the judge is correct in pointing out that the context of an adrenaline filled utterance is important, doesnt mean that it believe cops are loving infallible. They fail all the time. The only reason I'm doing devils advocate here at all is that it is worth remembering that not all of these cases are created equal. The judge in this case is correct that the state did not actually prove the weapon was planted (despite everyone treating it as unassailable fact). If that is the case, then the physical evidence actually suggests that the man he shot might have been reaching for a gun, which, unlike every instance of 'cop shoots unarmed man' in the last half decade, would actually make this self-defense. You literally have posters in this thread calling for the murder of a judge because he ruled, correctly, that the prosecution hadn't done its job proving first degree murder over self defense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Was it unhelpful or are you just being defensive? So like, did they choose today on purpose to be white supremacist shits or something? Because September 15th is some pretty bad loving timing to accidentally tell black people that their lives don't matter in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think you probably meant something like "mortified" I did mean to use "mollify" I just had an extremely incorrect idea of what it meant. axeil posted:If I was ever on a jury and this scenario happened I would argue with a straight face we shouldn't convict because the defendant may have feared for their life because it's well-known that cops are the single most dangerous and violent groups in america Part of the problem is that people like you and I would never be on a jury for a case like this unless we lied during jury selection which could cause a mistrial if found out (and I think jury selection might be under oath too? not sure)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:So strange how the prosecution always seems to drop the ball when the cops murder someone. Yes, it's bad that they are at best deferential to police officers. What should be done about that? My answer to my own question boils down to somewhere between "hell if I know" and "make it harder for even the laziest, most credulous prosecutor to bollocks up the case by way of bodycams and suchlike". It still won't stop actual blatant nefariosity, but "the officers had bodycams and the prosecution didn't say anything about it" would be exceedingly obvious misconduct in eg this case. axeil posted:The problem is so bad I think good people should be willing to risk it and try and actually get on the jury for these cases because otherwise more and more of these murderers will be prowling around acting as a menace to our communities. This is good. If this had been a jury trial and I'd been on the panel, this would 100% have been an involuntary manslaughter or hung jury at absolute minimum even with the idiot, lazy, and/or evil prosecutor. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Moatman posted:I did mean to use "mollify" I just had an extremely incorrect idea of what it meant. The problem is so bad I think good people should be willing to risk it and try and actually get on the jury for these cases because otherwise more and more of these murderers will be prowling around acting as a menace to our communities. Or the cops could just fix their own problem but  at the idea of cops policing themselvesGreyjoyBastard posted:Yes, it's bad that they are at best deferential to police officers. What should be done about that? Yeah. I think the other solution is mandatory body cameras that you can't turn off and if they ever mysteriously "malfunction" you're instantly fired. That, plus making the bar absurdly low to clear for conviction might fix things
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
The 'feared for my life' standard needs to be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Cops are insane creatures who can't be expected to have any responsibility for their own actions Cops in LA literally sprayed a car with bullets because it was some minorities driving, and their suspect was somewhere in the LA area driving a vaguely similar vehicle(different make model and color).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Cops in LA literally sprayed a car with bullets because it was some minorities driving, and their suspect was somewhere in the LA area driving a vaguely similar vehicle(different make model and color). RIP Chris Dorner
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Javes posted:The 'feared for my life' standard needs to be addressed. The biggest problem with that (IANAL) is that I believe it's whether a reasonable person would fear for their life in that scenario. Unfortunately reasonable people don't tend to become cops so it's pretty hard to analyze
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Javes posted:The 'feared for my life' standard needs to be addressed. Yes for some reason it seems to get a lot of racists off 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
My idea for curbing police brutality is to recognize that arguing for increased punishments, however great it feels, won't work and creates even more conflict. I'd love to see cops required to bring an accompanying, non police, party with them on the majority of their stops. Ideally it'd be social workers or mental health professionals who, barring a situation that's wildly out of hand, would always take the first crack at resolving the situation peacefully. This additional department would have an entirely different command structure and thus would not report to police, and would consistently rotate which officers they worked with to limit undue fraternization. Mainly it'd serve two purposes: 1. We would stop using a hammer for every problem. 2. A relatively impartial witness always on the scene. You could pitch it as a way to keep cops from having to deal with poo poo that's not really their specialty, virtually every crime that doesn't involve a weapon, and create better paying jobs for social workers and the like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
From the decision: "Finally, the court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly." Translation: Hey the the guy was actually unarmed, but It's fine to presuppose that he wasn't
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Cop Reddit is the worst Reddit. Underlined what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
There really needs to be investigations coming from outside of the department. I'm so loving tired of "we investigated internally, and we found no wrongdoing by the cop."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:From the decision: Yeah, I really don't like that line. It's even quite unnecessary in establishing reasonable doubt in this case, so it's not just bad, it's gratuitous. edit: that said it would make me much, much angrier if that element were the deciding factor in swinging towards reasonable doubt
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Why would this defense not also apply to a cop killer who legally owns and open carries a gun? In a confrontation with police, they may also be jacked up on adrenaline and have legitimate concern for their life, yet I think they would face repercussions for their action. It would, actually, it would just be less likely to work, which in my opinion is less an indictment of police than it is an indictment of how we treat other suspected criminals. Part of the reason the judge doesn't follow from one to the other in this case is the fact that the officer left his vehicle without his weapon drawn. If he had intent to kill, as the utterance suggested (ignoring how loving dumb he'd have to be to say that on camera if he actually premeditated murdering the man when they caught him) then surely he'd exit the vehicle weapon in hand. He'd even be justified in doing so considering previous shots fired and the high speed chase. I'm not saying the officer is innocent, I'm saying the prosecution didn't prove it. Which is important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Yeah, I really don't like that line. It's even quite unnecessary in establishing reasonable doubt in this case. I really do like the line because it establishes exactly what was going on and why you're being a giant pile of intentionally dense poo poo defending the ruling. A lot harder to pretend that a judge couldn't possibly have just made up whatever rationale worked to come to the conclusion he wanted from the start without giving a gently caress about the evidence when he says in plain english that he didn't give a gently caress about the evidence. It's impressive that you're doing it anyway, actually
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:There really needs to be investigations coming from outside of the department. I'm so loving tired of "we investigated internally, and we found no wrongdoing by the cop." The fact that all cop/LEO media has internal affairs guys as bad guys is such BS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:
What.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:He'd even be justified in doing so considering previous shots fired and the high speed chase. If shots had actually been fired, why wouldn't he be exiting the car with a gun drawn? I mean, he was in such fear for his life. But sure, not drawing after literally saying he was going to kill the guy is the problematic part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:From the decision: Ok yeah not reading anything else from the opinion, that's a racist as hell judge Literally "based on no actual evidence, gonna assume it was reasonable to assume a black kid was armed" He even says "urban" right out The judiciary is in no way ready to even comprehend how racist many judges are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:From the decision: This isn't accurate. At no point in his ruling does the judge buy into the argument that the gun was planted. His point here is both: 1. It would be reasonable self defense for an officer whose car was ramped and had just finished a high speed pursuit to fear that the suspect was armed, based on the fact that drug dealers do tend to carry weapons. 2. The fact that a weapon was found with the suspect is consistent with his criminal behaviour, which makes it less likely it was planted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Well, our St. Louis office has been evacuated for the day. Is there a thread following the minute-to-minute of what's going on down there, or is it just general protesting+riots?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:
 As an aside I'm not sure the prosecution did much in the way of inquiry into the officer's history, either. The dinky little paragraph on it smells an awful lot like the defense trying to make him more sympathetic (to the judge  ) and officer history is, you know, relevant to recklessness. poo poo, we know for a fact he was injured in a bombing in Iraq, PTSD related inquiries would be the sort of thing that might be handy in a recklessness argument, you know?Now I'm that much more irritated with the prosecution. If my dumb not-a-lawyer rear end can see this stuff there's no excuse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If shots had actually been fired, why wouldn't he be exiting the car with a gun drawn? It is for the prosecution trying to convict for pre-meditated murder. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Well, our St. Louis office has been evacuated for the day. Is there a thread following the minute-to-minute of what's going on down there, or is it just general protesting+riots? https://www.facebook.com/KMOVStLouis/videos/10159359106715603/
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
