Police Execution?

What about the Brazilian Police video?

No excuse for that.

However, playing Devils' advocate, what transpired before?

I know in Northern Ireland our boys took shit from the P-IRA all day and when we caught one of the ****ers we handled it 'pragmatically'.

Things have changed, for the better one would hope, but there is a lawlessness to Central and South America that I wouldn't be part of for anything.

Here is an update on this. Apparently he was out of state and turned himself in once his lawyer was notified.


Officer Arrested In Connection With BART Shooting - News Story - KTVU San Francisco (http://www.ktvu.com/news/18475843/detail.html)
He was booked into the Douglas County Sheriff's Office main jail in Minden on a fugitive warrant for homicide from Alameda County Superior Court, according to the sheriff's office.

Here is what stood out to me in this article.

Voluntary Manslaughter only up to 9 years in jail.
Involuntary Manslaughter he could only get probation.

If he is found guilty and gets just a few years in jail they better call out the national guard. I just don't understand how you can kill someone ending their life and if its not 1st degree murder its just a slap on the hand.

the laws are tricky things. a friend of mine got into an accident( while intoxicated), killing another man. he did only 6 years. how is that fair?

Very true...but I just don't understand the circumstances of those people being yanked off the train in the first place. Was it a random? Was it a hit? Were they causing trouble? Even if they were causing trouble I am sure it was nothing to get shot over, but my point is if you weren't causing trouble your ass wouldn't be sitting against a wall being detained by the police in the first place.

Considering how the Metro is here and taking into consideration it was new years day, I would think they were probably be loud and rowdy. Which if it disturbs other passengers enough, is enough to warrant the train being stopped and police escorting the rowdy people off.

As for the shooting, that cop needs to be brought up on some sort of homicide charges. I highly doubt that kid was a threat to anyone. Even if he had a gun on him, how is he going to point it and discharge it at someone while he's on his stomach? If he did have a gun, I'd rather go and break the kid's arm first before I shoot him. At least you know he can recover from that. Unless the cop truly felt his life, or the life of others around him were threatened, I wouldn't let him off the hook for this.

I don't know if cops have to take an IQ test before getting a badge but they should really start enforcing that, because I swear, some cops should never even be able to handle a gun. Because some cops like to use it as an equalizer (in circumstances that don't even warrant pulling a gun) instead of a last resort/protective measure.

Here is what stood out to me in this article.

Voluntary Manslaughter only up to 9 years in jail.
Involuntary Manslaughter he could only get probation.

If he is found guilty and gets just a few years in jail they better call out the national guard. I just don't understand how you can kill someone ending their life and if its not 1st degree murder its just a slap on the hand.

Because laws and sentencing guidelines aren't made to fit specific situations. They are made to fit general situations. In many cases voluntary manslaughter is reasonably punished by 9 years in prison.

I think the bigger debate is whether it is manslaughter or murder. I think it is probably a tough sell legally as murder since it'd be very hard to prove he drew, pointed and fired with the intent to kill, completely unprovoked. The situation as murky as the details are is still clearly one of chaos and one can reason that the officer was responding(rationally or not it doesn't matter) to the dangers presented him. That's manslaughter pretty much. If he drew thinking it was his taser and fired then it is involuntary manslaughter. It all comes down to his state of mind which is going to be hard to prove. If they go for murder they have to prove he meant to kill the victim and had no loss of reasonable state of mind(ie, crime of passion or a provoked crime). Otherwise he gets off scott free. A jury can't consider a murder charge and decide it was manslaughter. A laywer could explain this much better.

The guy is being charged with murder (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gO4s1dgxjYfHi3mbqoobWZZomz3gD95N4G280).

Speaking of sentencing guidelines, there's a district attorney in New York that want to change the laws on the book nation wide so that drunk drivers that kill someone get charged with murder (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694666.shtml?source=mostpop_story). What I really don't get is why we don't currently do that?

Because murder by definition means you have intend to kill the person with malice. Driving drunk while insanely negligent doesn't seem like you are intending to kill someone. It's manslaughter. I'm only talking legal definitions here. In the cop case I am surprised...charging him with murder, if they actually go to court with it, is a roll of the dice in a case like this.

Because murder by definition means you have intend to kill the person with malice. Driving drunk while insanely negligent doesn't seem like you are intending to kill someone. It's manslaughter. I'm only talking legal definitions here. In the cop case I am surprised...charging him with murder, if they actually go to court with it, is a roll of the dice in a case like this.


What I mean is why is it not murder if you get piss drunk, get in the car and kill someone but if you get piss drunk and shoot your wife in the head it is? Why is being drunk a valid excuse when we all know drinking and driving can result in a fatality?

The guy is being charged with murder (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gO4s1dgxjYfHi3mbqoobWZZomz3gD95N4G280).

Speaking of sentencing guidelines, there's a district attorney in New York that want to change the laws on the book nation wide so that drunk drivers that kill someone get charged with murder (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694666.shtml?source=mostpop_story). What I really don't get is why we don't currently do that?

Dude why don't we do what most 1st world nations do and simply confiscate the car (for good) and revoke the person's license for a minimum 10 years when someone is caught drunk driving? If we had a zero tolerance policy the fatalities would plummet.