The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Officers of the law/Accountabilty aka Shooting @ bachelors.
zeeny
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Taken directly from our friends Esssss Eeeee plus plus.
Short description: Under cover police officers shoot 3 guys after a bachelor party. Guys are unarmed. About 50 bullets fired. One dies, two injured. Verdict: Not guilty(one on manslaughter.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26BELL.html?ei=5087&em=&en=7216625a64113a81&ex=1209268800&pagewanted=all
Some parts of the text, I'm sorry for not posting the whole of it but it's two pages long. All is on the link
and the jewel:
I'm unsure what exactly does US law say in regard to shooting other people, so I'd first like to ask the following hypothetical question, if the defendants are not officers of the law will it still be necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they should *not* fire their guns?(I realize it's a stupid question with probably an obvious answer, but still, have to be taken care of. )
If the answer is no, how do people feel about a situation where police officer has the right to use lethal force and then the burden to prove it was not needed falls on the victims(as far as I'm concerned, they are victims)?
I hold a firm believe that policeman should be held to a higher level of accountability than civilians, especially when they are interacting from a position of power.
Thread may swing two ways, we discuss the case in hand, I realize we can not know the full testimony and it's possible that the press paint a sensational picture on purpose, but what the hell, let us speculate, or we talk about how after drak police officers are the scariest thing walking the streets.
Discuss & flame.
edit: Fixed link to have both pages at the same time.
Short description: Under cover police officers shoot 3 guys after a bachelor party. Guys are unarmed. About 50 bullets fired. One dies, two injured. Verdict: Not guilty(one on manslaughter.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26BELL.html?ei=5087&em=&en=7216625a64113a81&ex=1209268800&pagewanted=all
Some parts of the text, I'm sorry for not posting the whole of it but it's two pages long. All is on the link
....Detective Michael Oliver, who fired 31 bullets the night of the shooting and faced manslaughter charges, said Justice Arthur J. Cooperman had made a “fair and just decision.”.....
...
Describing the evidence, he(that's the judge) said it was reasonable for the detectives to fear that someone in the crowd that night carried a gun.
...
“At times, the testimony of those witnesses just didn’t make sense,” the judge said.
...
The seven-week trial, which ended on April 14, was heard by Justice Cooperman after the defendants waived their right to a jury, a strategy some lawyers called risky at the time.
...
etc. there are MANY of them, I recommend reading the whole article.
and the jewel:
“The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt” that each defendant was not justified in shooting, the judge said,
I'm unsure what exactly does US law say in regard to shooting other people, so I'd first like to ask the following hypothetical question, if the defendants are not officers of the law will it still be necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they should *not* fire their guns?(I realize it's a stupid question with probably an obvious answer, but still, have to be taken care of. )
If the answer is no, how do people feel about a situation where police officer has the right to use lethal force and then the burden to prove it was not needed falls on the victims(as far as I'm concerned, they are victims)?
I hold a firm believe that policeman should be held to a higher level of accountability than civilians, especially when they are interacting from a position of power.
Thread may swing two ways, we discuss the case in hand, I realize we can not know the full testimony and it's possible that the press paint a sensational picture on purpose, but what the hell, let us speculate, or we talk about how after drak police officers are the scariest thing walking the streets.
Discuss & flame.
edit: Fixed link to have both pages at the same time.
zeeny on
0
Posts
This graphic and description of events makes it seem like the NYPD was out looking for trouble and I guess they found it. I don't know about you, but I'd be scared if some dude walked up right in front of my car in the middle of the night. I might not hit him, but I'd sure as shit get the fuck out of there any way I could.
Of the three cops who were tried, one of them fired so many times that he had to reload his weapon twice.
Guess where the overlap between these two groups is.
At this point, I think they're actively trying to beat the record set in the Amadou Diallo killing.
Yep, it's always a race thing. Every time. Not just, you know, a panicked cop. Gotta be race.
Article doesn't say, but I'd venture no.
That makes it not matter. That's enough to go on in the situation.
So the car can be seen as a weapon.
The verdict seems right so far, there is nothing I find extraordinarily damaging that would show otherwise.
They'll probably get nailed in civil court. From a criminal standpoint, the judge made the right call.
I'm already sick of hearing the guy was about to get married, it's not like the cops would have gone "OH WELL IN THAT CASE CARRY ON" if they knew or something.
...says the suspects. The cops say they identified. He said, she said.
Correct?
but they're listening to every word I say
I don't think they knew the cops were coming.
Right. The presence of undercovers tells me that the place may only have been tangentially aware of incoming cops at some point in time, I doubt this group knew about it else they probably should have stayed the fuck away.
Anyone that carries a firearm or other lethal weapon (whether via a job requirement or concealed carry permit) should be held to a high standard of accountability when they choose to discharge it. Yes, police officers should have the means to protect themselves, but they better be damned sure the situation warrants protecting themselves in such a manner.
Are the officers criminally liable? Probably not.
Civilly? Definitely. The officers grossly mishandled the situation and should have to answer for it.
What should they do, wait until they see the gun being fired at them? It was reasonable that one of these guys had a gun, especially after (the police said) they identified themselves. Then the suspects ram them with their car.
What the hell?
They were being rammed by the suspects car, which had already hit the officer on foot. How would you have handled it oh master tactician?
I really hope so.
I'm cynical enough to expect this to end with a long-term paid suspension, though.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Picture this: You're driving around in a pretty ghetto area, suddenly encounter several cars stalking you with a guy suddenly banging on your car door and yelling.
Do you :
a) Open your car door and get out of the car?
b) Get the fuck out of there?
The undercover cops also never really made it clear that they were cops from the beginning. Basically, the cops let the situation escalate to the level it did.
I really doubt this was the issue of race or anything like that, however this is an issue of crooked law protecting stupid ass cops - that's why it's so reprehensible.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
Actually as it has been stated already the police identified themselves, and there's no evidence to disprove that either way.
Also you have no idea the tone, body language, or even if he 'banged' on anything.
So yeah, your scenario has no value in the actual situation we are talking about. Thanks though.
I'm going to say it again, as I have not seen it addressed so far.
Do you believe, that the people on whom lethal violence was used should be required to prove they didn't deserve it? Is it necessary for the police force to have the ability to shoot on judgement knowing that they will not be required to defend their actions in a way even remotely close to what is required from a civilian?
Finally, does the above really come from a special status of the police force, or is it a direct result of "innocent until proven guilty"? Thanks guys.
In re: the victims of the violence:
The burden of proof can and does shift during a trial. The burden lies on the party making a claim (usually) to prove it. Thet can still bring civil suits. The Government on behalf of the victims have instigated the suit, thus they bear the burden of proving all the facts they allege. If they do prove them, then the cops had to refute or challenge the validity of the evidence, but they only have to drop the bar down from whatever standard the claimants (victims) are trying for. In a litigious society, the burden is usually on the bringer of the charge, and not the one accused.
(this is broad as hell, and could be incorrect when applied to specifics. Don't bite me on this, I'll pull out my hornbooks if I have to for back up)
You get the option when your ass is on the line to choose how it goes down. That choice can be fought, but usually that choice lies with the accused. (It should be that way)
Wait, are you suggesting that the events leading up to them trying to escape have "no value in the actual situation we are talking about?"
Kagera is saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the hypothetical scenario presented by Arde is an accurate reflection of what actually occurred.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Normally, I'd agree with you. But when you factor in issues of conflict of interest and the problems that the lack of a residency requirement causes, I think the case can be made that in this specific type of case that it should be tried before a jury.
I agree fully with what you're saying about the shift of burden of proof, but I still believe I'm failing at representing the point I was trying to make.
Here is an analogical situation with a civilian. Tell me if it's too far off.
--You have a permit to carry concealed.
--You get attacked by 3 drunk guys on your way home with your buddy. The guys may or may not have weapons. --They probably hit you hard in the body. Twice. You manage to shoot one of them and proceed emptying the clip, you're the only one that's shooting.(now, that would never happen of course, it just so happens that civilians are WAAAAY more responsible with legally owned weapons.). 1 dies, 2 are injured. Police comes, you're all in custody.
There is a trial. The circumstances are:
Neither of the 3 attackers has ever had trouble with the law.
No weapons are found on the crime scene or on any of the guys.
No injuries are present on you or your buddy.
You & your buddy claim that the guys attacked you, that you felt your life threatened and you had to shoot.
The two other guys, claim one of them tripped and fell on you, you panicked, pushed him and shot him. They are awful witnesses, unable to speak properly and sometimes even contradicting themselves.
Will that be enough for an acquittal on a manslaughter charge??(that's a genuine question)
In your hypothetical, he wanted to cause the harm.
However, civ shooter has a reason to shoot - self- defense.
If civ shooter proves he felt an imminent( ... blah blah words showing the factual reqs. for self defense)
Those that got shot would have to prove they were not attacking him.
There are several standards here established by caselaw and the MPC (penal code) that define what is or is not good enough for creating that situation that warrants self-defense.
Physical contact can be enough. No proof of that contact is fine as long as you have something to back it up.
My point being - this was a recent case in New Orleans after the hurricane -
Cops have that same standard. They are in a position of authority, and occaisonally are involved in situations where mobs or groups of people can flip out.
It's akin to self defense. The standards for a cop (i do not have in front of me, this is not meant to be cited in any way) are specific as well - can the guys that were shot prove they were not being threatening? YEs, but they only have to prove that AFTER the cops prove they were threatened and unsure of the outcome if they would have otherwise not discharged their weapons.
Further, you're asking not if all these things were proven to determine the guilt here
Youre asking if it was REASONABLE FOR A NORMAL PERSON IN THE SAME SITUATION to make the same determination based on the facts as presented at trial.
Thats what the jury has to answer.
Did they perform manslaughter? No doubt people were gibbed. But was the shooting reasonable?
fucka ll im gettting out my crim law shit.
I ahte you bastards
From the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances they believed them to be, was it reasonable?
Consider Sean Bells and compatriots are sitting inside the car with the engine on. Would they be able to hear someone outside talking? would the be able to see a badge? (the cars lights would only hit the waist of grown man if the distance is a couple of meters away).
But one thing that caught my eye in the CNN report was that 2 cops had been drinking as part of their cover. they claimed to have stayed under the 2 drink department limit, but where never tested.
By the way CNN also mentioned that several people complained that the regular DA was prosecuting the officers. There where claims that the DA flubed the case on purpose to preserve its bond with the NYPD(wich is vital for any DA succeses). What do you guys think of that?
NY DAs office is very self important. Theres a good conflict of interest claim there. Not sure what else, but AL Sharpton is on the case, they'll dig it up, with or without the ACLU~
If that's correct, obviously there was no cop privilege used as far as the law was applied to the case and that's pretty good.
I still have a very bitter feeling about the whole story and the way it was handled by the prosecution, but at the very least it doesn't seem to be a case of "special rules' being abused.