F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

[jhmd2000]

There is clearly also space between "That is a tragedy" and "You have to go to jail."

No doubt. A civil settlement (which happened this week, IIRC), yes. A criminal conviction, no. It's possible that that might the correct result intellectually. The emotions in a case like this clearly overwhelm some.

 

[WakeBDer]

No doubt. A civil settlement (which happened this week, IIRC), yes. A criminal conviction, no. It's possible that that might the correct result intellectually. The emotions in a case like this clearly overwhelm some.

Sure. I just wanted to make sure you had a sense of the feeling right. I think most reasonable folks were beyond "I'm not happy."

 

[DeacMan]

DeacMan, stop trying to distract us from the current conversation. Read IAT's link and contribute.

Yes, sir, Mr. Ph.

Outside of random obvious statements about your political world view, so far the big contribution you've made to the discussion has been to angrily proclaim that you want a new system of justice. You, as usual, have offered no specifics. I guess that ain't your type of thing. But it presumably would mean that criminal defendants are not presumed innocent until proven guilty (or at the very least would render defenses to crimes that have existed in some form or fashion since well before the birth of our nation moot). Give some thought to how that might impact defendants beyond a police officer charged with a homicide.

 

[PhDeac]

DeacMan, I asked you a few days ago to give me the current legal standard and I'd revise it to express my view. Did you do that? I'm not a lawyer, so I have no experience drafting legal standards.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i often wonder how much of a role nullification plays in these cases

Jury nullification is a finding by a trial jury in contradiction to the jury's belief about the facts of the case. This may happen in both civil and criminal trials. In a civil trial, a jury nullifies by finding a defendant not liable, even though members of the jury may believe the defendant is liable. In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, but they do not believe he/she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).


here's a group that actively advocates for jurors to act according to their desires:

Fully Informed Juror's Association

 

[MysteryMen]

This happened this morning to a friend of mine at F3 in Durham. At least it started a good conversation among some white folks. I would be nice if we all listened to Black voices and not dismiss them because it doesn't line up with our experience:

This happened just this morning: I work out at 5:30a at a bootcamp workout, followed by group prayer. This morning was my turn to lead the workout (I was the only Black man today, everyone else was White). I go to our normal location to set up at 5a, dressed in workout gear, holding orange soccer cones and sheets of paper with workouts printed on them. As I set up the workouts on each corner of the block, a squad car pulls up. I give a friendly wave and continue setting up (even demonstrating the exercise to ensure I have the right set up). The squad car follows me from the first, all the way to the THIRD corner, then lights on. I immediately drop the work out sheets and cones and put hands up. I say, "Good morning officer. I'm unarmed, I'm just setting up a work out." He asks (hand on firearm) if I have ID. I respond "No sir, I'm in workout gear, my ID is in the car." Just then, one of our workout buddies arrives (who himself is White and a Police officer), greets him, (OFFICER TAKES HAND OFF WEAPON WHEN HE ARRIVES) introduces himself (Sgt X from Y precinct) and says "I know him, he's a friend of mine, we work out together," then explains the group. All the while, I still have my hands in the air. The officer gets back in the car, no apology, no explanation, no acknowledgement, and pulls off. My friend apologizes profusely for him and tells me that has never happened in nearly four years of the group workout. We talk about it, the inequities, the effect that this type of interaction has on the Black community, all of us nearly in tears.

Stop focusing on race. The real problem is police officers harassing citizens

 

[MysteryMen]

DeacMan, stop trying to distract us from the current conversation. Read IAT's link and contribute.

I'm still waiting for him to correct his patronizing (and erroneous) post from a few days ago about the legal standard for self-defense. Wait your turn.

 

[avalon]

Police found no alcohol or drugs at party where cop shot Jordan Edwards

The murder case has yet to go to a Dallas County grand jury. Oliver has since been indicted on two aggravated assault charges in an apparent road rage confrontation two weeks before the shooting. In that case, a woman said Oliver pulled out his gun after she rear-ended him in a traffic accident while he was off duty.

OK, someone must have known this guy was a problem.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Doesnt matter. He could be a serial killer, as long as he says in court that he feared for his life, he will get off. Cops can kill or maim whomever they like as long as they claim to be scared.

 

[PhDeac]

We live in a society in which the one on the left is considered a hero and the one of the right is considered a suspect.

 

[DeacMan]

DeacMan, I asked you a few days ago to give me the current legal standard and I'd revise it to express my view. Did you do that? I'm not a lawyer, so I have no experience drafting legal standards.

I've given you the current standard, almost certainly more than once, on this thread.

In general the standard for voluntary manslaughter self-defense is that you act reasonably and justifiably to prevent someone from causing you serious injury or death. In many states that standard of defense is expanded specifically for law officers so that it covers not only situations where you may face such injury or death but also third parties (i.e. you arrive at the scene and a man is firing a gun at another man who is unarmed - in that circumstance the cop can fire at the assailant). In fact, the law goes even further in granting officers defenses (e.g. preventing someone likely to commit a felony involving potential death or great bodily harm to others from escaping). But that wouldn't be relevant to this particular case. The actual words of the defense standard might vary a bit from state to state but that is the general standard for self defense. IIRC, in Minnesota the words speak to "apparent death" or "great bodily injury or harm" - something along those lines. That would make the defense even slightly more accessible than it might be in other states.

Further, remember, the prosecution has to show the standards of manslaughter were met beyond a reasonable doubt. So while the defense has to show some evidence the defense might apply it isn't the defense's responsibility to "prove' the defense. Rather the prosecution has to show the charge of manslaughter should stick beyond a reasonable doubt (and, among other things, that essentially means showing the defense should not apply once asserted).

Finally, keep in mind that if you alter standards either to prosecute or defend you are going to create a host of unintended consequences.

Again, I'd focus my time not on trying to gain legal victories after the fact but rather on how to prevent more of these instances from happening in the first place.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

DeacMan, are you of the mind that legal decisions do not create a deterrent?

 

[Shooshmoo]

 

[MHBDemon]

Militarizing the minds of police officers:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/militarizing-the-minds-of-police-officers

 

[ImTheCaptain]

friend of mine is a photog for a local paper, snapped some shots from a situation where a domestic dispute escalated into the guy barricading himself in his house.

This is normal:

 

[PhDeac]

I just see a car with a floating gun on top of it and a fuzzy man in the back.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

kinda looks like plama in the back

 

[avalon]

Militarizing the minds of police officers:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/militarizing-the-minds-of-police-officers

While progressives emphasize police training to de-escalate conflict, Grossman’s seminar pushes officers to become more comfortable with the use of deadly force. As Grossman informs one group of attendees, “only a killer can hunt a killer.” Killing is a central theme of Grossman’s seminars but is only a fractional portion of law enforcement’s responsibilities. The vast majority of police in this country never use deadly force in the course of their careers.

Jeronimo Yanez, the police officer who fatally shot Philando Castile, in Minnesota, last year, belongs not only to the small percentage of officers who have killed civilians but also to the much larger group of officers who have attended Grossman’s seminars. He reacted quickly, interpreted an otherwise calm moment as the paramount danger, and fired seven times into a vehicle with a four-year-old girl in the back seat. A jury determined that Yanez had not committed any crime, but, at the very least, no reasonable person would understand his handling of the situation as good policing.

...

 

[WFFaithful]

Yippie ki yay

 

[MysteryMen]

I've given you the current standard, almost certainly more than once, on this thread.

In general the standard for voluntary manslaughter self-defense is that you act reasonably and justifiably to prevent someone from causing you serious injury or death. In many states that standard of defense is expanded specifically for law officers so that it covers not only situations where you may face such injury or death but also third parties (i.e. you arrive at the scene and a man is firing a gun at another man who is unarmed - in that circumstance the cop can fire at the assailant). In fact, the law goes even further in granting officers defenses (e.g. preventing someone likely to commit a felony involving potential death or great bodily harm to others from escaping). But that wouldn't be relevant to this particular case. The actual words of the defense standard might vary a bit from state to state but that is the general standard for self defense. IIRC, in Minnesota the words speak to "apparent death" or "great bodily injury or harm" - something along those lines. That would make the defense even slightly more accessible than it might be in other states.

Further, remember, the prosecution has to show the standards of manslaughter were met beyond a reasonable doubt. So while the defense has to show some evidence the defense might apply it isn't the defense's responsibility to "prove' the defense. Rather the prosecution has to show the charge of manslaughter should stick beyond a reasonable doubt (and, among other things, that essentially means showing the defense should not apply once asserted).

Finally, keep in mind that if you alter standards either to prosecute or defend you are going to create a host of unintended consequences.

Again, I'd focus my time not on trying to gain legal victories after the fact but rather on how to prevent more of these instances from happening in the first place.

Yeah, this isn't right either. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and the defendant definitely has the burden of proof.

Maybe time to retire the armchair legal analysis.