or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 398

post #5956 of 6081
It's worth noting (or maybe not, but then tough shit for you) that in situations in criminal cases that recur and can be generalized (somebody claims to have killed in fear for their life despite all sorts of indicia that there was no reasonable basis for that fear, person walks out of The Gap with three unpaid-for sweaters wadded up in the bottom of her backpack, person pulled over with a bunch of weapons and marked bills from a bank robbery in the trunk, etc.), there are usually a few common "defenses" (often based on some lame movie or tv show) that are basically a Hail Mary pass thrown in the hopes that it might resonate or sound plausible with at least one jury. Generally, the key characteristics are similar to what you see here -- not completely impossible to imagine in the abstract, no matter how implausible in the particular case at hand.
post #5957 of 6081
I'm a bit fuzzy on how this is supposed to be a "hail mary." It's not like her defense hinges on whether she knew the other cops had come up behind her or not.
post #5958 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm a bit fuzzy on how this is supposed to be a "hail mary." It's not like her defense hinges on whether she knew the other cops had come up behind her or not.

Wasn't really commenting on this case; and I was really just taking off from your exchange with veni. Also, "defense" may be too broad a term for what I was suggesting as a general matter.
What I meant is something more like this --
A defense lawyer with a shitty case is generally going to throw some seeds out and see if any of them take root. Sometimes it may be the central theme of the defense. Other times it can just be an attempt to undermine a key fact in the prosecution's case. Obviously, in a criminal case the defense doesn't have to persuade everyone it has the most compelling story. It just needs to undermine the the willingness of one or more juries to sign on to the prosecution's case.
If you throw out there something that could hypothetically be true, even if there's no real evidence for it, it might strike a chord with someone. Or, given the way reasonable doubt instructions are written and often (mis)understood, it may cause some jurors to get distracted and hopefully (from the defense perspective) conflating the plausibility of the theory generally with what the evidence at hand really shows. Any uncertainty or disagreement that sows among the jury could end up "feeling" like reasonable doubt to some jurors.
post #5959 of 6081
Well shit can be very sticky indeed
post #5960 of 6081
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/us/california-police-shooting-video/index.html

Police were told (in the original call) that the man was mentally ill, and unarmed.
post #5961 of 6081
They said that about the other guy. You remember, the guy who turned out to have a gun.
post #5962 of 6081
Not speaking to this particular case, but why is it hard to believe someone reporting some kind of sensory failure in a shooting? It is very common - my carry permit said something like 80% if people report some kind of sensory loss during a shooting. Even trained soldiers and special forces claim to experience it regularly.

Maybe no one is questioning that part though.
post #5963 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

They said that about the other guy. You remember, the guy who turned out to have a gun.

So police are just going to pretend everyone has a gun and shoot accordingly?

post #5964 of 6081
When they have a gun like object and they're pointing it at the cops in a shooting stance? Yeah, I guess so.
post #5965 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

When they have a gun like object and they're pointing it at the cops in a shooting stance? Yeah, I guess so.

 

s-l300.jpg???

post #5966 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

When they have a gun like object and they're pointing it at the cops in a shooting stance? Yeah, I guess so.

gun-like= anything handheld?

post #5967 of 6081
Sure fooled the cops and the 911 caller.

I guess if you've never seen a gun before you might be confused about how a small toy truck could be confused for one.
post #5968 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Sure fooled the cops and the 911 caller.

I guess if you've never seen a gun before you might be confused about how a small toy truck could be confused for one.

Ah, 911 callers. Zimmerman?
post #5969 of 6081
I had assumed the Tulsa DA had over-charged the cop that shot the duster there. But looking at the definition of 1st degree manslaughter it seems about right. Probably the only defense is to say it was reasonable to shoot given the behavior. I guess to me, "I thought he was reaching into his car and there might have been a gun in there," does not seem reasonable. All the stuff about being deaf seems irrelevant.

I guess if I were her, I would probably go for a jury trial. In Tulsa, you might have a decent chance of finding people who think that is reasonable.








http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69314
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 24 - Homicide
Manslaughter
Section 711 - First Degree Manslaughter
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:

1. When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.

2. When perpetrated without a design to effect death, and in a heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon; unless it is committed under such circumstances as constitute excusable or justifiable homicide.

3. When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed
post #5970 of 6081
You have to consider the reaching into car together with all the other circumstances.

Guy parks car in the middle of the road to block traffic, leaves it with the engine running.

Tells random people weird, threatening things.

Refuses police orders, plus tells her whatever he told her (or she says he told her) while they were alone.

Then he turns around, walks back over to the car, and reaches in, while she's pointing a gun at him and telling him to stop. From the viewpoint of a police officer, why is he reaching into his car while someone with a gun is telling him to stop?

The other cops who were there thought he looked dangerous, thought the use of a taser was warranted, etc.. But they weren't there as long as her and didn't talk to him.

And he turned out to be on PCP, so there's no reason to disbelieve anything she says he said or did.

Now consider all his actions in the light of the recent spate of unprovoked, targeted attacks on police officers. If it weren't for the current media/political climate she'd almost certainly never have been charged with any crime.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?