OMG. What a travesty. What a cowardly act. What a craven excuse for thinking he was in danger (child exposed to smoke). I'm appalled.
MN cops kill man trying to get his ID out
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
OMG. What a travesty. What a cowardly act. What a craven excuse for thinking he was in danger (child exposed to smoke). I'm appalled.
Clearly his partner didn't feel like he was in danger. This guy should be locked up for murder. Our justice system will continue to remain broken so long as cops and prosecutors are immune from suffering any consequences within it.
I was actually on a jury where the defendant was NYPD cop. The cop was off duty, acting in his own private self-interest, caused all kinds of highway mayhem, and essentially robbed a man for $300+ at gunpoint. When we went to deliberation I felt certain we'd reach a felony conviction. We had very similar instructions regarding "what a reasonable person" would think, expect, do. I felt the cop was totally unreasonable. Days of deliberating served as a disturbing lesson in how many people struggle with identifying what is relevant, and with the essential distinction between reasonable and unreasonable. It was also eye-opening as to what experience and cultural differences do to one's account of reasonable.
I don't know about murder, manslaughter sure but I'd stop short at murder. If nothing else he needs to be banned from police work as he clearly does not possess the disposition to carry a weapon
I'd be inclined to 2nd degree murder because the cop (according to his own testimony) was reasoning about his decision to shoot. He says he reasoned that this man's character was vicious because he exposed the child to smoke, etc. To me that shows he was acting from choice and not passion. That said, I could see voluntary manslaughter on the grounds that he panicked. But a cop is not supposed to panic over this; it's his dang job.
This is only from Wikipedia, but it suffices:
This is only from Wikipedia, but it suffices:
Last edited:
Going beyond the legal ruling - which I find unfortunate but not surprising - I have to ask the question:
Why do cops want to allow and keep officers like this on the force?
And before unions are brought up - they are cop unions, meaning cops are fighting to keep these people on the force if the union is "to blame". So this is just the opposite of what a professional group should do.
And I just have to think that the vast majority of the public believes that this will not happen to them (because they are law abiding) so they don't care. They believe they won't make mistakes and that the person killed did. Maybe. But no one is immune from a split second decision costing their life for the smallest misstep.
Even if the guy walks he should never work middle school concert security, much less wear the badge.
Why do cops want to allow and keep officers like this on the force?
And before unions are brought up - they are cop unions, meaning cops are fighting to keep these people on the force if the union is "to blame". So this is just the opposite of what a professional group should do.
And I just have to think that the vast majority of the public believes that this will not happen to them (because they are law abiding) so they don't care. They believe they won't make mistakes and that the person killed did. Maybe. But no one is immune from a split second decision costing their life for the smallest misstep.
Even if the guy walks he should never work middle school concert security, much less wear the badge.
Last edited:
What does the 4th amendment have to do with this situation? Reasonable search and seizure is not the same as reasonable grounds for killing someone.
The 4th amendment has more to it than searches and seizures, It also establishes the standard of objective reasonableness. Every cop knows this standard, and is taught where it exists in the US constitution. Graham v Conner is one of the biggest cases surrounding the issue.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/490/386.html
Most are, some aren't. The point is with this standard the stance "I was in fear of my life" wins in court more times than not.
Its difficult to predict in advance how any person will react in a situation like this and he has been fired.
"Officers like this" being the key phrase. I realize more firings have occurred in the last 2 years than probably the previous 20 but too often these guys have stayed put or just moved over to another department somewhere. And all the while they have been protected and defended by their peers. I get why many give the benefit of a doubt. I do. But at some point it becomes ridiculous.
Exactly. Because of the nature of their job, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. But the other side of that coin is that when they do cross the line, they have to be held accountable--otherwise they're above they laws that they are defending.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I didn't realize the 4th Amendment was used this way and I'm glad you pointed it out. My thought here though is that there is something perverse about interpreting the amendment this way. The Bill of Rights is supposed to limit government's power, right? It's supposed to take the arbitrariness of power and put limits around it precisely because people are so often arbitrary, not objective. This interpretation reverses that -- it makes the officer's subjective opinion into the standard itself, and thereby grants the ultimate governmental power (the jurisdiction to kill) to individuals based on their impression. This is essentially removing all boundaries short of his being demonstrably vicious or insane. I doubt that's what the founders intended.
That didn't take long: Philando Castile's family reaches $3 million settlement with city of St. Anthony
Yeah. And at the same time, good on the family for taking the settlement and trying to move on--if that had gone to trial, they likely would have gotten a LOT more.
The family of Michael Brown, of Ferguson Missouri fame, settled out of court for 1.5 million.
http://www.gopusa.com/1-5m-to-michael-browns-family-is-only-one-of-several/
http://www.gopusa.com/1-5m-to-michael-browns-family-is-only-one-of-several/
I'm not sure how the 4th amendment enters into such cases, but I am certain the Founders did not intended for the 4th amendment to be used to let a trigger-happy cop get off with shooting a citizen during the execution of his police duties, especially since the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the powers of the Federal. If they wanted to limit their state governments, they would have put something in their state constitutions.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: CFP unveils 'meaningful enhancements' to logo- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Ex-Michigan coach Moore avoids jail in sentencing
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Fickell says departure of AD McIntosh 'not easy'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Ginn returns to Aviators sideline after DWI arrest
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NCAA vacates four Iowa wins in tampering case
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-