Police Execution?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

[saden1]

The guy is being charged with murder.

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. What I really don't get is why we don't currently do that?

[FRPLG]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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 Goat]

Originally Posted by saden1

The guy is being charged with murder.

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. 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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

Because when you get in a car piss drunk and drive around you're being ridiculously dangerous but there is no reasonable shred of intent. When you shoot someone piss drunk it also isn't necessarily murder either (see Jayson Williams). If you intend to shoot someone and kill them it's murder and your being drunk is irrelevant. If you intend to drive a car at someone and kill them it is murder and being again would be irrelevant. But if you drive drunk or handle a gun drunk and you kill someone accidently or out of plain negligence then it is manslaughter. Fine line I guess but society has deemed the two acts differently.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

I don't think you're right about that. Most of my research does show differnces between common US sanctions for drunk driving and the rest of the world but I didn't find any that went any where near as far as you described and the differences were relatively small. In fact our laws tended to be right in line with the rest of the world.

But I agree we should have sanction stougher on the order of 5x what they are now. We should have a basic no tolerance policy.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

Under that scenario, should you be charged with murder if you fatally hit somebody in a crosswalk and have a blood alcohol level of .08? As I understand it, that is a common "drunk" level set by most states in regard to ability to drive. AND as I understand it, .08 to the average size male is about 1.5 drinks in the course of an hour > <. Did the 1.5 drinks you had cause you to hit the person in the intersection?
Murder?

BTW, I cannot imagine WHY three cops need to shoot ANYBODY to subdue them. three? Looks way bad for them. However, all details are not available yet, and they deserve their day in court

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't think you're right about that. Most of my research does show differnces between common US sanctions for drunk driving and the rest of the world but I didn't find any that went any where near as far as you described and the differences were relatively small. In fact our laws tended to be right in line with the rest of the world.

But I agree we should have sanction stougher on the order of 5x what they are now. We should have a basic no tolerance policy.

Not so sure about Canada but for instance my mother lived in Japan off and on for years and witnessed the zero tolerance policy there. Again, vehicle permanently confiscated and loss of driving privilege for years. When I lived in Europe (mostly Germany) in '98 I was pretty shocked at how serious the drunk driving laws were taken. I know I heard mention of permanently revoked license... never heard of such a thing in the US.

[Hog1]

It's not to hard to figure out the lack of zero tolerance. Lot's of green involved......$$$$$.
Good lobbyist's, and lots of cash crossing political hands

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Not so sure about Canada but for instance my mother lived in Japan off and on for years and witnessed the zero tolerance policy there. Again, vehicle permanently confiscated and loss of driving privilege for years. When I lived in Europe (mostly Germany) in '98 I was pretty shocked at how serious the drunk driving laws were taken. I know I heard mention of permanently revoked license... never heard of such a thing in the US.

Japan and Germany are two drastically different cultures and lands then ours. Both places have much smaller land masses, and mass transit is readily available and useful.

one other thing, it is interesting that in this thread started basically to highlight abuse of police authority, we are now discussing whether they should have the power of license revocation. Remember police have HUGE discretion on who they pull over and for what they use as a reason. A short story: when I was an MP in Germany riding with a senior partner one friday night, the partner would sit at a particular corner and wait for people to forget a turn signal or some other minor indiscretion so he could pull them over. He just wanted to find anyone he could to hassle, and if they were over the limit great. He was one of the guys who turned me away from cops or staying as a policeman in the civilian sector. Did he ever really set someone up, or falsify a report, I don't think so, but if he knew he could keep someone off the road that he didn't like, I think he wouldn't hesitate. I know that's not every officer, but in my experience it was enough of them.

[FRPLG]

Japan has the toughest from what I can find. Everywhere else has about the same as us. Tighter in some ways and looser in others.

[CRedskinsRule]

Well, according to the Jury it(the BART train shooting) was Involuntary Manslaughter. 2-4 year prison sentence with a possibility of up to 10 years added for use of a firearm in commission of the offense.

Ex-officer convicted in Calif. train killing - Yahoo! News

It was the least finding of guilt the jury could have found him guilty of, and there was either 0 or 1 black member of the jury. Not really sure how to think on this one.

[firstdown]

I bet the judge stacks the other ten years on top. I did not sit through the trial so I really cannot comment. The thing that gets me is blacks kill blacks all day long all year long and there is little to no outrage from the community (just look at the Michael Vick birthday shooting as an example) but this happens ever so many years and there is outrage and riots. Maybe if they showed the same outrage at all the killings day in and day out it might save more young black children from dying. They also go to the effort to not help police when a black kill a black and I just wonder when will the outrage over this ever come.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Not so sure about Canada but for instance my mother lived in Japan off and on for years and witnessed the zero tolerance policy there. Again, vehicle permanently confiscated and loss of driving privilege for years. When I lived in Europe (mostly Germany) in '98 I was pretty shocked at how serious the drunk driving laws were taken. I know I heard mention of permanently revoked license... never heard of such a thing in the US.

Move to Virginia.