(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

Criminal liability is predicated on actions --- not on failures to act. That doesnt seem to be a factor in the analysis you put forward.

The issues of the 'failure to act' have more of a home in tort law.

Criminal liability is based on the punishment of actions. The entire requirement of a bad act coupled with a requisite state of mind is the cornerstone of criminal punishment in the West.