Police man convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

A so-called sane and justice government executing looters is even more insane!

Given the right circumstances, a "shoot to kill" order for looters has been done. After the initial "We need food and water" looting in the wake of Katrina, Gov. Blanco issued just such an order.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1451906.htm

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Given the right circumstances, a "shoot to kill" order for looters has been done. After the initial "We need food and water" looting in the wake of Katrina, Gov. Blanco issued just such an order.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1451906.htm

can it be done with martial law as well?

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Given the right circumstances, a "shoot to kill" order for looters has been done. After the initial "We need food and water" looting in the wake of Katrina, Gov. Blanco issued just such an order.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1451906.htm

And I'd always be the voice of caution with unique situations like this. However, with this description I'm not sure what other choice there was:

Four days after the hurricane hit, New Orleans was still plagued by gun battles and rapes, with gangs of looters and carjackers roving the streets as bodies were left lying by the roadside.

Interestingly enough, I don't think we saw a New Orlean's massacre. The show of force was enough? Also, the current set-up for breaking up riots and unruly protests is the right direction.

But shooting people for breaking a window and stealing things is not what a decent society does. A decent society doesn't mirror the least noble of its society.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

And I'd always be the voice of caution with unique situations like this. However, with this description I'm not sure what other choice there was:

Four days after the hurricane hit, New Orleans was still plagued by gun battles and rapes, with gangs of looters and carjackers roving the streets as bodies were left lying by the roadside.

Interestingly enough, I don't think we saw a New Orlean's massacre. The show of force was enough? Also, the current set-up for breaking up riots and unruly protests is the right direction.

But shooting people for breaking a window and stealing things is not what a decent society does. A decent society doesn't mirror the least noble of its society.

I agree, to an extent.

While I would be COMPLETELY against martial law in the case of looting if only looting is happening, I would not be against individual store and home owners using force to defend their property.

I think there is a difference in that.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Your opinion is not justice. Justice is both side being able to present their case and then a decision that is consistent with the facts.

I haven't looked at what 2nd degree murder is in California, it is not the same everywhere.

You have declared it is unjust because you don't like the verdict. I didn't like the verdict in the OJ case, but that didn't make it unjust.

I presented it a post here on this thread, I think on page two.

I have declared it unjust-- more than because I didn't like it.

IMO, given the scenario that unfolded, a 2nd Degree Murder conviction would have been warranted.

Scotty commented saying that the Prosecution only went after what they "knew" would be a sure thing.

I had asked you for your opinion on this, given your profession.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I presented it a post here on this thread, I think on page two.

I have declared it unjust-- more than because I didn't like it.

IMO, given the scenario that unfolded, a 2nd Degree Murder conviction would have been warranted.

Scotty commented saying that the Prosecution only went after what they "knew" would be a sure thing.

I had asked you for your opinion on this, given your profession.

Originally Posted by jfrog

I don't think it was second degree murder. There was no malice aforethought.

There definataly was not express malice because the cop did not intend to kill.

There was not implied malice because:

1. The cop did not intentionally pull his gun.
2. The act (shooting a stun gun) is not dangerous to human life.
3. The cop knew that shooting a stun gun was not dangerous to human life.
4. By thinking he was firing a stun gun the cop did not act with conscious disregard for human life.

Of course all this hinges upon whether or not you buy the possibility that he could have mistook a real gun for a stun gun. If it wasn't reasonably possible for him to mistake a real gun for a stun gun then he most definetely should have been charged with murder.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

And I'd always be the voice of caution with unique situations like this. However, with this description I'm not sure what other choice there was:

Four days after the hurricane hit, New Orleans was still plagued by gun battles and rapes, with gangs of looters and carjackers roving the streets as bodies were left lying by the roadside.

Interestingly enough, I don't think we saw a New Orlean's massacre. The show of force was enough? Also, the current set-up for breaking up riots and unruly protests is the right direction.

But shooting people for breaking a window and stealing things is not what a decent society does. A decent society doesn't mirror the least noble of its society.