(04-07-2015 09:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Rev. Al must be en route.

Oh joy!

Not until the acquittal and subsequent race riots. .ie Rodney King.

(04-07-2015 09:17 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Cue the right wing media to dig up dirt on the victim. I bet he was a thug with traffic tickets.

If they find anything, it actually happened ... unlike Harry Reid's lie, the "hands up, don't shoot" lie, etc.

(04-07-2015 08:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:45 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Reaching for the officer's "tazer" is sufficient for him to say he feared for his life.

A police officer can shoot a person who is running from them if they think doing so is to protect others or even society at-large. It is a rather low bar. A man who just scuffled with an officer over a weapon will generally qualify.

My money is on no conviction for this, and rightfully so. That is, based purely on this video. He did not commit murder.

The dropping of something is immaterial at this point. It doesn't mean anything.

Would the validity of the officer's opinion come into question at all at a trial or would the jury receive instruction that reaching for a taser is sufficient to warrant the policeman's actions? As a layman (which a jury would also be), the cop's actions do not look at all justified to me, but you're the expert and you're telling me it is. Even if that is the case, if acquitted I could understand some serious displeasure around the country based off of that video.

As an additional point it seems that the officer picks the taser up again, it doesn't look to me that he was trying to plant evidence.

The jury will consider the officer's version and weigh that against whatever evidence is presented. Their goal is to decide questions of fact, wether X or Y actually happened.

I honestly can't fully answer your question though because it will ultimately come down to how the instructions are written. The prosecution and defense will fight over that and the outcome in a case like this could very well hinge on that portion of the whole thing.

You can word the jury instructions in a lot of different ways and how each issue of fact correlates with each element of the offense is really all about how the instructions are written when you have something so fine-lined like this.

Both of your posts are spot on. Also, an initial view of the video looks pretty bad, but there are other bits of evidence that will also come into play. These things need to play out in the Court system.

(04-07-2015 08:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The suspect was unarmed, facing away, and 25 feet from the officer when he fired his weapon. It scares me that you think this is acceptable or falls under the statutes which regulate deadly force.

Do you think the officer would be within his rights to detain the suspect despite no longer being an immediate threat?

While you can take the emotion out of the presentation of the evidence, jury instructions, legal interpretations, etc. etc., when the jurors go into the room that image is going to be hard to overcome.

Post: #36RE: Another police shooting. White on black. Not good.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not arguing from a place of emotion. But your statement that none of what I stated matters as a matter of fact is false. It might not have a great overall effect on the outcome of the trial, but those are facts and they do matter.


Can you try to stay in your lane UCF. You're all over this thread. Like usual. Who even knows what your argument is now? Can barely keep up with your ramblings.

(04-07-2015 09:49 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  While you can take the emotion out of the presentation of the evidence, jury instructions, legal interpretations, etc. etc., when the jurors go into the room that image is going to be hard to overcome.

We don't criminally convict people on based on videos and images alone. That is no different than Mike Brown roughing up the store clerk. If he were prosecuted on that charge, the DA would need the clerk to corroborate what happened in the video. He would need to explain that dude didn't pay and when asked, Brown then pushed him up against the rack of merchandise. It would be inadequate to prosecute just based on the video without all of the details. Here, the same must occur. The image is easy to overcome if the prosecutor doesn't remove all doubt about what happened.

(04-07-2015 09:17 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Cue the right wing media to dig up dirt on the victim. I bet he was a thug with traffic tickets.

One does not need to dig up dirt for something that is public record.

So you lefty loonies need to do some legwork. Before you say what a gentle giant this guy was, or post pictures of him when he was 10 years old and 70 pounds, go dig into the public records to make sure he didnt perform a strong armed robbery a few minutes before this.

(04-07-2015 10:00 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:49 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  While you can take the emotion out of the presentation of the evidence, jury instructions, legal interpretations, etc. etc., when the jurors go into the room that image is going to be hard to overcome.

We don't criminally convict people on based on videos and images alone. That is no different than Mike Brown roughing up the store clerk. If he were prosecuted on that charge, the DA would need the clerk to corroborate what happened in the video. He would need to explain that dude didn't pay and when asked, Brown then pushed him up against the rack of merchandise. It would be inadequate to prosecute just based on the video without all of the details. Here, the same must occur. The image is easy to overcome if the prosecutor doesn't remove all doubt about what happened.

You are assuming that jurors always base their decisions on the legal facts. We all know that they don't always do that. If I am the defendant and I'm facing life or 20 or 30 years in prison, I'm thinking the best plea deal my attorney can work out. That or Costa Rica.

Do we know what the officer knew about the car he stopped or the victim? And do we know if the officer was actively looking for another violent offender that might have matched the victim's description?

It looks pretty damning. However, the circumstances of the stop may have influenced the officer's decisions. Do we know anything about that at all?

(04-07-2015 11:07 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:00 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:49 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  While you can take the emotion out of the presentation of the evidence, jury instructions, legal interpretations, etc. etc., when the jurors go into the room that image is going to be hard to overcome.

We don't criminally convict people on based on videos and images alone. That is no different than Mike Brown roughing up the store clerk. If he were prosecuted on that charge, the DA would need the clerk to corroborate what happened in the video. He would need to explain that dude didn't pay and when asked, Brown then pushed him up against the rack of merchandise. It would be inadequate to prosecute just based on the video without all of the details. Here, the same must occur. The image is easy to overcome if the prosecutor doesn't remove all doubt about what happened.

You are assuming that jurors always base their decisions on the legal facts. We all know that they don't always do that. If I am the defendant and I'm facing life or 20 or 30 years in prison, I'm thinking the best plea deal my attorney can work out. That or Costa Rica.

Jurors have been known to go rouge, but, a video is not a smoking gun. First, it has to be made admissible. And second, there will be many clarification as to what is happening in the video. Then, the jury (if it isn't a bench trial) will have to figure out what they believe happened.

I think the immediate rush to judgment based on a video presented as a news piece is vastly different than what any potential jury will face in court.

Kind of sad that he didn't try to help his fellow officer render aid to the victim. He just stood there with his hands on his hips. What a pos.

(04-08-2015 12:23 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Kind of sad that he didn't try to help his fellow officer render aid to the victim. He just stood there with his hands on his hips. What a pos.

Yeah, and while I know it won't be a factor in the murder charge, the way he yelled at him to 'PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK' after he just emptied a clip into him is viscerally disturbing. I hate to judge someone on a single snapshot, but regardless of the outcome of the trial, I don't think he's cut out to wear a uniform.

(04-07-2015 07:32 PM)Niner National Wrote:  People in Ferguson weren't rioting just because a cop shot someone and killed him. They were rioting because they thought they cop was getting away with murder without even having to go to trial for it.

Wrong... wrong, wrong.

In fact, they've typically dropped the "cop" part of their claim lately and in recent weeks were saying the riots were because the "municipal courts unfairly treated blacks"

In otherwords, they just change their reason every damn day so they could riot about whatever the hell they want here.

(04-08-2015 12:45 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:32 PM)Niner National Wrote:  People in Ferguson weren't rioting just because a cop shot someone and killed him. They were rioting because they thought they cop was getting away with murder without even having to go to trial for it.

Wrong... wrong, wrong.

In fact, they've typically dropped the "cop" part of their claim lately and in recent weeks were saying the riots were because the "municipal courts unfairly treated blacks"

In otherwords, they just change their reason every damn day so they could riot about whatever the hell they want here.

Well, that doesn't seem at all like a grossly biased oversimplification of the feelings of tens of thousands of protesters.

(04-07-2015 11:42 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 11:07 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:00 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:49 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  While you can take the emotion out of the presentation of the evidence, jury instructions, legal interpretations, etc. etc., when the jurors go into the room that image is going to be hard to overcome.

We don't criminally convict people on based on videos and images alone. That is no different than Mike Brown roughing up the store clerk. If he were prosecuted on that charge, the DA would need the clerk to corroborate what happened in the video. He would need to explain that dude didn't pay and when asked, Brown then pushed him up against the rack of merchandise. It would be inadequate to prosecute just based on the video without all of the details. Here, the same must occur. The image is easy to overcome if the prosecutor doesn't remove all doubt about what happened.

You are assuming that jurors always base their decisions on the legal facts. We all know that they don't always do that. If I am the defendant and I'm facing life or 20 or 30 years in prison, I'm thinking the best plea deal my attorney can work out. That or Costa Rica.

Jurors have been known to go rouge, but, a video is not a smoking gun. First, it has to be made admissible. And second, there will be many clarification as to what is happening in the video. Then, the jury (if it isn't a bench trial) will have to figure out what they believe happened.

I think the immediate rush to judgment based on a video presented as a news piece is vastly different than what any potential jury will face in court.

I'm not rushing to judgment, just pointing out that if the jurors see that video it will have a significant affect on their decision. You can explain, tell them to disregard, question but there is that video of the guy running away and getting shot. That is a powerful image. If I were the defense attorney I would certainly try everything I could to get the video declared inadmissible. I'd also be trying to work out a deal with the DA.

(04-07-2015 07:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Well Brainiac you started that thread on 3-12. I was on a 30 day ban until 4-6. I think even you might be able to figure this one out. You thread jacking mfer.

Pretty sure "Brainiac" and "mfer" is name calling and might could be against AUP.

Maybe our resident MIMO (Mod in mind Only) RWT can sort this out for us?!? Thx.

Yea, so I was kinda goofing around with this one. Good discussion otherwise, please you guys in the know, keep informing. This seems a tough one, from both ends.

(04-08-2015 12:48 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 12:45 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:32 PM)Niner National Wrote:  People in Ferguson weren't rioting just because a cop shot someone and killed him. They were rioting because they thought they cop was getting away with murder without even having to go to trial for it.

Wrong... wrong, wrong.

In fact, they've typically dropped the "cop" part of their claim lately and in recent weeks were saying the riots were because the "municipal courts unfairly treated blacks"

In otherwords, they just change their reason every damn day so they could riot about whatever the hell they want here.

Well, that doesn't seem at all like a grossly biased oversimplification of the feelings of tens of thousands of protesters.

As said before, UCF, I live no more than 5 minutes away from all of this in Ferguson. so I have to hear the protestors on the local radio, local tv and read their comments in the local paper. I have to listen to the "protest leaders" and "spokesman" over and over who keep changing their story about why they're protesting.

Hell, at one point they used the fact that they were getting "traffic tickets" as a reason the riots happened here. Not whether or not they were doing anything illegal to get the tickets or if they were getting them unfairly, just that they were "getting ticketed".

You may think it's an oversimplification, but having seen this first hand, along with many of my neighbors who are predominantly black (including many who moved to other parts of the county to get away from this), I stand by that above statement.

From that video I can see nothing that would lead me to believe the officer had a reason to use deadly force. I hope he suffers the fullest extent of the law.

Jesus... that is awful.

I'm sorry, but a suspect running away after getting tasered should not be automatically subject to getting shot. There was no threat to the officer or anyone else.

Good to see the officer is being charged with murder.