Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Police shoot unarmed person dead. Caught on body camera
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 132
Location: MA, USA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dupe.
_________________
"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16919

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
Swatter should be charged with Murder in the First Degree.
Or maybe first degree manswatter.
_________________
It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16919

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:42 am    Post subject: Re: LAPD: Los Angeles man arrested in connection to deadly ' Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
A death was bound to happen sooner or later due to this retarded prank
Merged thread.
_________________
It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2372

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
Swatter should be charged with Murder in the First Degree.
Absolutely. No matter if the officer's actions are excusable or reasonable. The swatter was responsible for him being there at all.

And the dude with the false address. Reckless endangerment at the very least.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2372

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, justice is on its way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgqtQWT072s
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 4703

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
Swatter should be charged with Murder in the First Degree.

Why? He informed 911 that a mentally unstable armed psychopath was holding a resident hostage and about to murder them, and that's precisely what happened. After the fact, but still.

Eye for an eye, send the murderer to the chair.
_________________
*.ebuild // /etc/service/*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
I agree the guy should face consequences, yet he never pulled a trigger. In the end, it was the cop that killed an innocent man.


Well, for the Wichita shooting, the video (and only evidence apparently available) is very unclear. I can't see what happened exactly. However, the house had NO GUNS. In both of the cases given in this thread, one problem was that police weren't able to discern some basic facts on the ground and went with the first piece of information available. Why? In both cases not only were both people not armed, but there wasn't a gun in a sight.

I agree. Swatter should be punished. Perhaps severely. But he didn't pull the trigger.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
Swatter should be charged with Murder in the First Degree.

What about the cop?

The cop should have his testicles violently plucked from his body by a large woman with resting bitch-face and abnormally strong forearms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2372

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
But he didn't pull the trigger.
Why should that matter? Guns are not the only type of weapon. In this case he used the police as his weapon.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
juniper wrote:
But he didn't pull the trigger.
Why should that matter? Guns are not the only type of weapon. In this case he used the police as his weapon.


Intent. Was it reckless or malicious?
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was reckless and done with a malicious intent.
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2372

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
juniper wrote:
But he didn't pull the trigger.
Why should that matter? Guns are not the only type of weapon. In this case he used the police as his weapon.


Intent. Was it reckless or malicious?
There is no such thing as recklessly calling in a fraudulent report. It is, by definition, a malicious act.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
juniper wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
juniper wrote:
But he didn't pull the trigger.
Why should that matter? Guns are not the only type of weapon. In this case he used the police as his weapon.


Intent. Was it reckless or malicious?
There is no such thing as recklessly calling in a fraudulent report. It is, by definition, a malicious act.
I think juniper is going for the Hillary Defense.
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He rarely makes sense. This is like claiming that tripping somebody onto the subway tracks isn't assault because it's not like you were drove the train over them, so obviously you had no intent.

How does somebody survive in the adult world with a brain that works like that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
He rarely makes sense. This is like claiming that tripping somebody onto the subway tracks isn't assault because it's not like you were drove the train over them, so obviously you had no intent.

I'm not a legal expert, but it sounds like a reasonable point to me. Murder requires intent, meaning intent to kill someone. Given the ubiquity of swatting, and the lack of deaths caused by it previously, it is pretty hard to be sure that he intended to kill someone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
He rarely makes sense. This is like claiming that tripping somebody onto the subway tracks isn't assault because it's not like you were drove the train over them, so obviously you had no intent.

I'm not a legal expert, but it sounds like a reasonable point to me. Murder requires intent, meaning intent to kill someone. Given the ubiquity of swatting, and the lack of deaths caused by it previously, it is pretty hard to be sure that he intended to kill someone.

I'm not a legal expert either, but I at least have a modicum of common sense and am a good enough citizen to have passing familiarity with the law. It all boils down to the "reasonable man" principle. Would a reasonable man expect this swatting to produce a significant risk of harm or death to the victim. If so, then there is intent. The degree to which that intent existed is a function of the degree of risk a reasonable man would expect.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

The amount of risk a reasonable man would expect in such a scenario, particularly where they have intentionally caused the police to believe that the suspect is (a) armed, (b) dangerous, (c) has probably just harmed or killed someone is HIGH. The victim probably isn't going to get hurt, but there is a substantial (say 5% to 10% chance) that they will, and if so, it is likely to be that they get shot, fatally.

An analogous scenario would be, say, an average person firing a bow and arrow at somebody 50 yards away, or dropping a big rock off a bridge at a passing car on the freeway. There's enough risk of death that it's murder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now that it is all clear none of us are legal experts, i'd be pretty surprised if the penalty is the same as pulling the trigger. And intent is really hard to establish. He clearly intended to cause mischief. It's not clear he intended to cause death like it would be if he had marched in and shot someone.

You all also seem to be confusing me with someone who wants this guy to get off lightly.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
Swatter should be charged with Murder in the First Degree.
Or maybe first degree manswatter.

I just noticed this post. That's hilarious. :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
He rarely makes sense. This is like claiming that tripping somebody onto the subway tracks isn't assault because it's not like you were drove the train over them, so obviously you had no intent.

I'm not a legal expert, but it sounds like a reasonable point to me. Murder requires intent, meaning intent to kill someone. Given the ubiquity of swatting, and the lack of deaths caused by it previously, it is pretty hard to be sure that he intended to kill someone.
That is like saying that a drunk driver that kills someone in a traffic accident never intended to kill anyone, so that murder would not apply. Maybe prosecute for failure to yield.
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Now that it is all clear none of us are legal experts, i'd be pretty surprised if the penalty is the same as pulling the trigger. And intent is really hard to establish. He clearly intended to cause mischief. It's not clear he intended to cause death like it would be if he had marched in and shot someone.

You apparently didn't even read my post, or didn't absorb it. I say again: the reasonable man standard is often used to establish intent. We can't read minds, so we use deductive logic.

If you expect an action to produce a particular outcome, and you take the action, then you are judged to have intended the outcome, to the degree it is expected and subject to mitigating and aggravating considerations. Now, stop and use your head and think about what that means until you get it.

Also, guilt and penalty are two completely, somewhat independent concepts. That's why there is a separate sentencing phase to a criminal proceeding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does today's reasonable man really still attribute consequences to actions? There can be no consequence beyond the actor's intent. Where have you been?

Likewise, there can be no bad outcome if the intentions were good.

Don't condemn the gang banger ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haters be hatin'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
I'm not a legal expert either, but I at least have a modicum of common sense and am a good enough citizen to have passing familiarity with the law. It all boils down to the "reasonable man" principle. Would a reasonable man expect this swatting to produce a significant risk of harm or death to the victim. If so, then there is intent. The degree to which that intent existed is a function of the degree of risk a reasonable man would expect.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

I'll be honest, I don't think the reasonable person standard has anything to do with the issue of intent in a murder case. If you read something like this,
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/05/what-is-intent-to-kill-how-do-you-prove-it.html
you won't find any reference to the reasonable person standard. From those types of analysis, it sounds like Depraved Heart Killing is the type of intent that would be applied in a swatting case. But that is just my naive take based on google searches. I wasn't even going to bother posting it, since anyone can do the same google searches and learn as much as I did, if they want. But you posted something that seems silly, so I have to at least put out there what I found.

Quote:
The victim probably isn't going to get hurt, but there is a substantial (say 5% to 10% chance) that they will, and if so, it is likely to be that they get shot, fatally.

Where do you get this number from? Another web search seems to imply that there are roughly 400 swattings a year, for at least the last couple of years, and only a few that have caused injuries, and only one that has caused death. So even being generous, you have at best a 1% chance of causing injury, and a much lower chance of causing death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
That is like saying that a drunk driver that kills someone in a traffic accident never intended to kill anyone, so that murder would not apply. Maybe prosecute for failure to yield.

Most fatal DUI's are not murder, they are manslaughter of some kind. It takes extenuating circumstances to make a murder case of out of DUI death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16919

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It will be interesting to see the charges brought against him. Reading various lay descriptions of manslaughter, it seems implied that a direct action took place. In the DUI example, driving the vehicle which led to the death. So a more direct comparison might be the bar tender who gave the DUI driver "too much."
_________________
It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum