(04-07-2015 07:20 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

Machiavelli dateline I'm on ='1428452145' Wrote:  No buddy. You're reading me wrong then. These are travesties. It's so freaking bad. What makes a cop shoot an unarmed man in the back? It defies logic.

Well, apparently he wasn't entirely unarmed. Supposedly a struggle with the cop after a traffic stop for a tail light and he got the cops stun gun/tazer.

Does that justify this? I wouldn't think so, but I'm no cop nor lawyer, thankfully.

There was a struggle with the tazer, that is what you can see being thrown to the ground next to the police officer in the beginning of the video. However, that struggle is over well before the police officer shoots him in the back while fleeing. There is no ambiguity in this series of events either, the suspect was running away, back turned, and posed no risk to the officer.

Did anyone else watch the video to entirety? Because it shows the police officer who shot this person picking up the taser, and dropping it near the body of the now handcuffed, and dying, suspect. No one should be defending this police officers actions as understandable, he's being charged with murder because of this video. Murder charges for police almost never happen, and rightly so.

Here is the video itself, not graphic but not easy to watch either -





You can see him appearing to pick up the Tazer from the initial struggle and plant it near the handcuffed suspect at ~1:20 in.

The Racebaiters are going to use this as an excuse to renew the Nationwide Protests and Riots?

Give me a break. If Legit, this video gets an indictment.

You have a Police Officer on a Murder Charge. Now stand back, shut up, cease the Riots and let the Judicial System work. Torching the QT or the 7/11 in the meantime won't expedite anything.

Who is rioting right now?

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.

(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. That won't be the case here as the cop has been charged with murder. He will face a jury and will very likely be found guilty based on that video.

The officer said the guy reached for his taser and it does appear at the beginning of the video like they were fighting over something (possibly the taser), but he was ultimately fleeing with nothing in his hands. I can't imagine the cop gets away with no sentence at all.

Never underestimate those who are irrational or those who just need the pretext to act as a menace to society for personal gain.

(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.

(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.

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.

(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.

He wasn't reaching for a taser when he was shot, he was a 50 year old, unarmed man slowly running away from an officer when he was shot.

In response to the bolded portion, why else would he pick up the taser and drop it next to the suspect? If it's listed in the police report as the location it was found as opposed to near the initial altercation, I don't see how you can argue otherwise, if you're being reasonable that is.

(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.

(04-07-2015 08:48 PM)UCF08 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.

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.

That's all irrelevant to the issue of wether or not he was legally justified in shooting him.

This is a legal argument not an emotional one.

Wether or not he 'planted' a tazer or picked it up etc is irrelevant to wether or not he committed murder.

Murder is a series of elements and the accused's overall moral worth isn't one of them or a consideration.

(04-07-2015 08:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:48 PM)UCF08 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.

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.

That's all irrelevant to the issue of wether or not he was legally justified in shooting him.

This is a legal argument not an emotional one.

The facts of the shooting are absolutely relevant to the defense of his justification for deadly force, I'm not sure exactly how you're so confused as to argue otherwise.

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Wether or not he 'planted' a tazer or picked it up etc is irrelevant to wether or not he committed murder.

Murder is a series of elements and the accused's overall moral worth isn't one of them or a consideration.

That's if the only discussion here is his murder charge, who is limiting it to that alone?

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:48 PM)UCF08 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.

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.

That's all irrelevant to the issue of wether or not he was legally justified in shooting him.

This is a legal argument not an emotional one.

The facts of the shooting are absolutely relevant to the defense of his justification for deadly force, I'm not sure exactly how you're so confused as to argue otherwise.

The only facts that are relevant are those that speak directly to the elements of the crime and the defense asserted.

Generally speaking, murder is the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. The fact that a person is unarmed isn't relevant under these facts.

My money is the defense asserts an affirmative defense that he was justified. That argument will settle around the fact that the man went for the officer's tazer and the officer reasonably believed that individual posed a threat to others and thus he was justified in using deadly force to protect others, or society at large.

What you are so obsessed with doesn't mean a lot in that context.

I'm not putting you down for thinking it is important, that's where the emotion in all of this is. But, the law isn't always about where the emotion is.

(04-07-2015 09:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Wether or not he 'planted' a tazer or picked it up etc is irrelevant to wether or not he committed murder.

Murder is a series of elements and the accused's overall moral worth isn't one of them or a consideration.

That's if the only discussion here is his murder charge, who is limiting it to that alone?

Has he been indicted for anything else?

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.

(04-07-2015 08:51 PM)UCF08 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.

He wasn't reaching for a taser when he was shot, he was a 50 year old, unarmed man slowly running away from an officer when he was shot.

In response to the bolded portion, why else would he pick up the taser and drop it next to the suspect? If it's listed in the police report as the location it was found as opposed to near the initial altercation, I don't see how you can argue otherwise, if you're being reasonable that is.

I was asking the lawyer for the legal opinion on what happened, my own personal opinion is very close to yours, I don't like it one bit, I think shooting someone like that is disgusting, but what I don't like doesn't matter. Also I wasn't there for the whole event, so my opinion really doesn't matter.

As for the taser, he picks it up again. Did he drop it to make it look like the guy stole it and he was justified, then the other cop (who is seen talking to him) tells him that he saw him move it and he wouldn't let that go? Or was he just making sure that he didn't leave a police issued taser on the ground somewhere? I don't know, this is all speculation and it's irrelevant unless you're trying to characterize the cop. He shot an unarmed, old man in the back, I don't think you need to try and make him look worse.

(04-07-2015 09:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  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.

In a social/political sense perhaps but not in a legal one.

I'll just remind you that when somebody is on trial we are only interested in the legal arguments, not the social/political ones.

I should also point out, that an affirmative defense is a "yes but" argument. It somewhat flips the argument.

If I were to assert an affirmative defense to something like this the prosecution will undoubtedly win the idea of wether or not a murder was committed. My argument is to prove that while yes it was a murder, it was a justified one and thus not a crime.

Cue the right wing media to dig up dirt on the victim. I bet he was a thug with traffic tickets.

Rev. Al must be en route.

Oh joy!