Not trying to start a cop bashing fest, but by definition, how is this not manslaughter? I honestly don’t understand how this is justified within the framework of law.
How is this not manslaughter?
- Thread starter jakelly
- Start date
Uhh, because the guy didn’t die?
You see....what happened was this:
And he didn't die...there is that.
I have been waiting a long time to use that clip.
The bigger question is "What in thee hell are they doing with a gun in the facility".
The real question is this:
Should there be charges for the people who award this guy 1.2 million in pain and suffering, when he dies of the overdose that will happen when he gets the cash and throws an epic heroin party?
Should there be charges for the people who award this guy 1.2 million in pain and suffering, when he dies of the overdose that will happen when he gets the cash and throws an epic heroin party?
I was thinking that was a big statement for AJ... Then saw the name. What happened to the acrobatic pooper?
But yeah, thought they checked the blasters at the door.
We're just having a little fun. But ya, carrying the zapper on same side as pistola is a big no no. Packing heat into the facility? HUGE issue. He may not be criminally charged, but his agency and the upcoming civil suit is not going to bode well for him.
Yeah, I actually walked into "Marbury vs. Madison" right as it heated up and I knew something was gonna come out of that. It is strange without him here.
I bet not just the guy but the whole jail will be on the hotseat for that. That's like a trifecta of a fuckup. Not as bad as that guy that took a pistol into the jail and blew his brains out on camera in a questioning room though.
Yeah, it ain't good business for no one. And ya, that dude goes into the interrogation room packing a 1911? Here's some water, I'll be right back. BOOM ! Bad Day all the way around on that one.
It is strange without the Human Camel Toe, ain't it.
If they woulda done away with Narcan and given the fine citizen all the Heroin he wanted this would have never happened . Problem solved .
Couple of things come to mind. First, the OP asked how this is not manslaughter. Besides the guy not dying, if he had died, and they found there was no intent, then it is not manslaughter. Maybe reckless homicide. As for being in a detention facility while armed, I think this is a case of shitty reporting. They use the word inmate, but then say the subject was in a holding cell and being asked to remove his street clothes. Could this have been a holding cell at the PD? If he was already an inmate, he wouldn't be in his own clothes. As for the taser violation.... I think tasers should go away, along with all the other "less than lethal" crap the police are carrying these days. And who the hell thought putting pistol grips on them was a good idea in the first place.
In cases like this the award mechanism should be the judge passing a hat to the jury and instructing them to put whatever they think he should get into it from their own pockets rather than mine.
That was the first thing that went threw my mind, some serious negligent protocol !
How is this not "criminal", because the prosecuting attorney SAID you cant charge criminal when there is no "intent", and in one of the news articles I saw on this, the PA went on some length about lack of intent AND based on the totality.
And it was noted, the deputy was immediately retired.....
And yes, this incident is insane stupid.
And no, I didnt save the link. Was trying to find weather radars while under tornado watch and some nasty weather, and the sat reception crashed.
And it was noted, the deputy was immediately retired.....
And yes, this incident is insane stupid.
And no, I didnt save the link. Was trying to find weather radars while under tornado watch and some nasty weather, and the sat reception crashed.
I may be mistaken, but I thought manslaughter was specifically for when you didn't mean to kill someone, but your stupid actions caused someone's death?
I was under the impression that homicide was a more serious charge for when like you actually killed someone, but not quite at the level of thinking it out, planning it out full on murder?
Perhaps award the guy 1.2 million street value in heroin (would cost the government may be $1000 at most), and give him a big place to throw a huge heroin party for all his friends where they can shoot up all they want and the police won't bother them (oh and neither will the medical services). Offer free uber rides for any of his buddies that want to get to the party?
Could clean up the city in one go I think.
This.
MOST, if not all of the problems we are facing in society, are self-correcting, with a bit of Law Abiding Citizen action thrown in here and there occasionally as accelerant to ensure a complete burn.
Our modern legislative and judicial systems prevent Darwin from doing his job. That is why the trash is now piled sky high.
Last edited:
This is almost as bad as Oscar Grant's murder.
Police officers should be held accountable for their fuckups, the same way the swamp rats in the DOJ should be held accountable for spying.
If anyone gets a pass, how can anyone have faith in the system?
PDs have to stop covering for bad officers.
Police officers should be held accountable for their fuckups, the same way the swamp rats in the DOJ should be held accountable for spying.
If anyone gets a pass, how can anyone have faith in the system?
PDs have to stop covering for bad officers.
I always love it when guys who've never worn a badge make proclamations about guys who stand between them and folks that would gladly steal, rape, and kill them. Yes it seems likely that there were policy violations (gun in booking area, Taser worn in wrong position); but certainly no "mens rea" (guilty mind=intent). It was an accident, a terrible accident yes not a criminal event AND yeah the officer FUCK'd UP; but again he was the guy wearing the badge, the guy who arrested the bad guy AND the guy who was there. Cut him a little slack.
The PD paid the guy to save the cost of a trial. Ive never liked that; but its cost effective and effectively means the government cant bully righteous civil claims against them because the government has unlimited costs to fight (which is a good thing).
The PD paid the guy to save the cost of a trial. Ive never liked that; but its cost effective and effectively means the government cant bully righteous civil claims against them because the government has unlimited costs to fight (which is a good thing).
If he had been drunk, mistakenly shot the guy and killed him then you would have manslaughter. There was no criminal intent. But, I would bet that this isn't the first fuck up for this officer.
Homicide is not charge, it is a manner of death. Murder, Manslaugher, reckless homicide and Assault are charges. To have murder, there (and I speak of Ky Law since this is where I policed) is intent. Manslaughter 1 is when you kill someone intending to do so, but without premeditation. Manslaughter II is usually what is known as a "heat of passion" type crime, ie, you come home and find you neighbor banging your wife and in a fit of rage you kill him by beating him, but not really meaning to. Or, you wantonly engaged in behavior that a reasonable person would assume could cause death of another. Reckless homicide is when you recklessly behave in behavior a reasonable person would assume could cause the death of another. So for murder or manslaughter, there has to be "mens rea" (guilty mind). Obviously, the prosecutor didn't believe this officer meant to do what he did. I think he could be charged with reckless homicide based on his decision to carry the taser the way he did, but you'd never get a manslaughter conviction......
Last edited:
This was my understanding as well. Also why I posted the OP. I’m honestly curious about the legal logic.
Different states, different laws.
In Ohio ‘intent’ is called ‘culpable mental state’.
Example:
I’m reroofing a house with a friend. I hit him in the head with a hammer and he dies.
Did I murder him?
-if he angered me and I struck him. Yes
-if we were goofing around and I accidentally struck him. Negligent manslaughter
-if my hammer slipped out of my sweaty hand mid swing. No charges. Just a tragic accident.
So the cop didn’t get criminally charged. Not because he is a cop. But because it was an accident.
In Ohio ‘intent’ is called ‘culpable mental state’.
Example:
I’m reroofing a house with a friend. I hit him in the head with a hammer and he dies.
Did I murder him?
-if he angered me and I struck him. Yes
-if we were goofing around and I accidentally struck him. Negligent manslaughter
-if my hammer slipped out of my sweaty hand mid swing. No charges. Just a tragic accident.
So the cop didn’t get criminally charged. Not because he is a cop. But because it was an accident.
Not only was it an accident; but it was an understandable accident. And again, an accident that anyones whos been a cop can picture. Its pretty F-ing simple, there was a struggle. The guy refused to comply and he fought with the officers, (which BTW was really stupid, as in WTF did he think would be the end result). Without watching the video you can see that the officer who was grappling with him was loosing. The "shooter" reached for his Taser but muscle memory had him grab for his firearm. He yelled "Taser" which is a warning for other officers that he was going to "fire" the Taser (loud noise), so they wouldn't fire their handguns BUT its an indication that the "thought" he had a Taser in his hand.
If theres any crime its that the shooter didn't kill him with a shot that close. Sorry someone should have taught him not to fight police in a police station. And again, Im betting you guys that think otherwise have NEVER been in his shoes. If you like Ill come to your job and tell you how you should have done better last week. Judas Priest, the PD reviewed it. The States Atty reviewed it and made a decision based on policy and THE LAW, now some of you whove never been in that kind of situation want to F somebody without a F-ing clue about the real world.
If theres any crime its that the shooter didn't kill him with a shot that close. Sorry someone should have taught him not to fight police in a police station. And again, Im betting you guys that think otherwise have NEVER been in his shoes. If you like Ill come to your job and tell you how you should have done better last week. Judas Priest, the PD reviewed it. The States Atty reviewed it and made a decision based on policy and THE LAW, now some of you whove never been in that kind of situation want to F somebody without a F-ing clue about the real world.
I’m not defending the guy. He was doing something dumb. Real dumb. But so was the cop, he disobeyed a policy, I’m assuming meant to stop this exact thing from happening, and shot someone unintentionally. I just asked how legally the logic tracked.
Yeah, that whole "elements for completion of the crime" thing is difficult for some to grasp.
Just for some clairity... Homicide is whenever someone is killed. Its a generic team for the death of a human being.
So, killing someone in self defense is homicide.... murdering someone is homicide... accidently running someone over with your car is probably homicide... etc.
Murder, manslaughter, self-defense, accidental death, are all forms of homicide. The important issue is that another person was involved.
Its just a question as to if it was justifiable homicide or not.
Are you SURE he was disobeying a policy> Do you have a source for that? I ask because MY department's policy is that the Taser is to be carried crossdraw. No doubt the intent is that the Taser is to be carried on the opposite side of the belt buckle but the policy doesn't say THAT. This guy apparently was wearing the Taser in front next to his belt buckle just on the same side (as in the width of his buckle). Again Im thinking these complaints are from people who NEVER wore a duty belt NEVER had to face getting shot NEVER got spit on NEVER had someone threaten to kill their wife and kids because YOU arrested them.
Maybe it was a policy violation MAYBE....if it was, again IF, where were his bosses saying DONT DO THAT. IF it was such an egregious violation why didn't his bosses intervene?
Maybe you guys who wanna stick your noses into the incident could video yourself at your job and let us comment on it. For F's sake let it go.
The article says he violated policy.
And btw, I don’t have to be black to have an opinion on reparations, I don’t have to be trans to have an opinion on pronouns, and I don’t have to be a cop to ask how this guy didn’t face any charges.
And btw, I don’t have to be black to have an opinion on reparations, I don’t have to be trans to have an opinion on pronouns, and I don’t have to be a cop to ask how this guy didn’t face any charges.
This is in jest, too good to pass up.... absolute no offense intended...
So, now, we have a closet white transsexual, identifying as black, wanting to get reparations to pay for the operation....
Just a joke bud, just a joke.
So, now, we have a closet white transsexual, identifying as black, wanting to get reparations to pay for the operation....
Just a joke bud, just a joke.
I go with your earlier point, no matter who or what we are, we can have and voice an opinion on anything, and those who dont like or respect our opinion, can ignore us, can interject their own, but at risk, of spirited discussions.
You’re welcome to you’re opinion. At least you understand that it’s like a child saying they don’t like carrots but never tasted carrots.
Similar threads
