Posted on 12/06/2013 11:15:42 AM PST by Orangedog
I understand and that certainly can be offered as a defense at the trial. Dealing with the “charging” part, legally there is not much difference.
Or when to shoot. I doubt lethal force was necessary in this situation.
So somehow it’s his fault that the cops couldn’t hit what they were shooting at?
Doesn’t NYC issue tasers?????
“Not much different than charging the get away driver for the injury or deaths of others during a bank robbery.”
Except the unarmed man was the intended victim... So you try to murder me and I dodge the bullet and you kills someone else and I’m at fault for dodging?
I suppose not.
bump
No, the unarmed man was not the intended victim, he was the perpetrator of a crime. Did the police respond with excessive force, clearly yes, as they eventually subdued him with a taser which should have been before the use of lethal force.
This has to be the dumbest legal theory since the rational for Roe v. Wade.
Ping! ping ping ping ping...
“No, the unarmed man was not the intended victim, he was the perpetrator of a crime. Did the police respond with excessive force, clearly yes, as they eventually subdued him with a taser which should have been before the use of lethal force.”
Using excessive force is a crime, a felony. Being crazy and tying up traffic is not. At best it’s an infraction.
In most jurisdictions in the US, failure to obey the lawful orders of a police officer, threatening an officer, obstruction of justice, along with resisting arrest (which may or may not be applicable here) is at least a misdemeanor and in many cases a felony.
According to NY state law - S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree (class E felony) A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree or the crime of menacing a police officer or peace officer within the preceding ten years. If it is their first menacing conviction, it falls to a misdemeanor.
Now I don’t know the circumstances other than what has been reported here. Further, CHARGING someone is a whole lot different than prosecuting and then convicting. Just because an officer feels that a person should be charged, does not mean that the DA will agree with them. Further, if they do go to trial, convicting someone who appears to be mentally challenged is likely to be very difficult. That is the checks and balances built into the system.
The logic in this charging follows legal precedence where the originating parties are charged with all possible crimes resulting from their action. The DA then reviews the case and restricts those charges down to only the ones that the DA’s office feels that they can either get a plea deal or a conviction.
The most likely outcome is that this individual will be found mentally incompetent and be sent to some form of care and the charges will be dropped.
“In most jurisdictions in the US, failure to obey the lawful orders of a police officer, threatening an officer, obstruction of justice, along with resisting arrest (which may or may not be applicable here) is at least a misdemeanor and in many cases a felony.”
Horse pucky... The guy was obviously crazy and the jackboots obviously knew he was innocent by virtue of insanity, and he wouldn’t even be charged much less convicted.
You mentioned failure to obey a lawful order... Do you know how many people in this country are deaf? How many don’t understand English? Is it permissible to just shoot these people if they do not obey? And how about people with pacemakers that can be killed with a teaser?
What the he!! are tou thinking?
“Further, if they do go to trial, convicting someone who appears to be mentally challenged is likely to be very difficult. That is the checks and balances built into the system.”
I guess shooting him get’s around that problem, doesn’t it?
I will remind you that I have already stated that the officers used excessive force. The point of my post is to call out the fact that CHARGING someone is not the same as PROSECUTING and that is different from CONVICTING.
In the real world, officers charge a number of things that often get ignored, rejected and simply not followed up by the DA’s office.
“In the real world, officers charge a number of things that often get ignored, rejected and simply not followed up by the DA’s office.”
So you excuse them trying to shoot this guy obviously...
Once again you are intentionally failing to understand the point of my post. I will restate it one more time for your understanding.
1) The officers used excessive force. I stated that from the very beginning and continue to assert that position.
2) This man’s legal troubles are not as bad as most people assume. That is because most people do not understand that CHARGING someone is a function of the police. The police can charge for anything that is on the books. They can charge even if they do not have one shred of evidence to support that charge. Not a wise move, but it can be done. Often it is the policy of police departments to charge for everything that they can think of associated with a crime.
It is the DA’s office that decides what charges it will PROSECUTE. Very likely in this case, the DA will NOT PROSECUTE that charge and will likely seek a commitment order instead.
No where in that explanation is there any excuse of the police officers actions as you incorrectly asserted. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
“No where in that explanation is there any excuse of the police officers actions as you incorrectly asserted. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.”
Thanks for backing off your absurd position. I did some good today...
I have not changed my position in any way. What has changed is your perception of my position. Your perception was changed because you were provided a short education in the reality of the world and how the legal system works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.