As Charles commented 
in the other thread, the verdict in the Bell shooting case 
is in -- all NYPD detectives acquitted of all charges. I guess firing 50 shots at the unarmed occupants of a car, even stopping to reload, killing one and wounding the other two, doesn't rise to the level of manslaughter if you're a NYC cop and you claim one of the victims "made a sudden move."
Both before 
and during 
the trial the victims were attacked, as if their pasts were somehow relevant to whether the police used unnecessary force. Wait, according to the judge they were 
: Justice Arthur Cooperman said he found problems with the prosecution's case. He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. He also cited the demeanor of some witnesses on the stand.
Bloomberg's reaction:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued a statement saying, "An innocent man lost his life, a bride lost her groom, two daughters lost their father, and a mother and a father lost their son. No verdict could ever end the grief that those who knew and loved Sean Bell suffer." However, he said, the legal system must be respected. "America is a nation of laws, and though not everyone will agree with the verdicts and opinions issued by the courts, we accept their authority."
Open thread.
Comments :
hey Brendan
were you in the courtroom and heard all the evidence?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've read a fair amount about the case,
including descriptions of testimony.
But let's use a little common sense here. An unarmed guy is shot 50 times and nobody is guilty of anything?
We should have higher standards for our police force. The lack of consequences for these sorts of incidents puts everyone at risk in the future, as citizens distrust the police and police believe the legal guidelines for using deadly force are if (they claim) someone "made a sudden move."
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
sorry but absent the circumstances
Is meaningless to me and yes sure I can accept that no one is guilty of anything when an unarmed guy is shot 50 times depending on the circumstances. If lets say someone is attacking me, yet without a gun, I can see it justified.
Since I wasn't there I am not going to make a judgment call, but your statement is not convincing.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Why are you presenting irrelevant hypotheticals?
I agree with you that obviously the circumstances are relevant but they are explained in detail in the links I provide.
Even accepting the police version as 100% true the justification for opening fire is that Guzman "made a sudden move."
This is the same "defense" as in the Diallo case, where the guy reached for his wallet and undercover cops shot at him 41 times, hitting him 19.
Although the officers were also acquitted in that case, the city settled the lawsuit. I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen here.
It would be nice if the NYPD took more pro-active steps to prevent these unjustified shootings from happening.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
the only way to prevent
stuff like that is by impairing police ability to defend themselves. Sure, it might've been a mistake this time, but in another case it might be an armed criminal.
Settle the lawsuit if necessary. Keep the police viable.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Shoot first, ask questions later
That's a false dilemma. The police can be "viable" without having to resort to shooting unarmed people 50 times. IIRC, there were 3 officers who shot the man. I believe at least one of them would have had to reload to shoot someone 50 times, unless the NYPD is packing some oversized magazines.
Police officers like to complain that non-cops don't understand the stresses and strains of the job. They're absolutely right; I don't, and I don't think I'd want to do that job. That's why I didn't become an officer. These people weren't drafted into the NYPD. They made a career decision. As an aside, I find that most officers aren't in the force in order to make the world a better place. They join because they like the authority over other people.
In the end, this is about police officers wanting carte blanche to pull out their gun and start firing at the first sign of trouble. Their job is much easier if they don't have to think about the situation at hand and determine if such a show of force is warranted.
And this is by no means a personal attack, but I'm consistently bewildered by your defense of state power when you cite Ayn Rand as a hero and/or ideological anchor.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ender. Have you EVER heard of the NY PD shooting a white
guy 50 times?
Now, two of the five cops were black, so it isn't simply a race issue, and in fact, the fact that the guy was black isn't the big cause for concern here, just a curious point in a racially tinged case.
The fact that cops felt they had to pop a cap in an unarmed citizen 50 times is what pisses me off. UNARMED citizen. And they shoot him down on his wedding day.
I wouldn't have called it first degree murder. I wouldn't have called it second degree murder. I would have called it manslaughter though. They shot a man who paid taxes to pay their salaries. They shot on of their comapny owners and they walk because they are cops.
If any one of us did that, we'd be up in Attica right now.
I have relatives in Attica
My grandparents have lived in Attica
for years. In fact, both were born there!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Attica, an ok place to live
My mom went to old Attica High School. Attica later consolidated with Republic, Ohio to form Seneca East High School, but they made sure those hooligans from Bloomville had to go to Tiffin's public school.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Here's a longer version
at the Forvm
that includes this useful summary 
of the trial.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The stereotypes are
rampant on both sides.
I don't see 50 bullets as a well trained or professional response to a sudden movement.
(I don't think Ender was at the trail either.)
I'm only half stupid
In a country where suspects often have high-powered firearms...
...police are going to have hair-triggers. And they are going to make mistakes. The police erred in this Bell case it appears, but if I were a juror, I'd probably set a pretty high bar for convicting a police officer in a case like this, so I'm not sure I could convict just based on the evidence presented here in this thread. The 50 shots thing is not damning in itself to me, because if police believe they are threatened and there's a bunch of police around, when one shoots, they're all going to shoot, repeatedly.
There are policemen who would be dead if they hadn't shot when a suspect made a sudden move. I wasn't there on that day, and I wasn't on the jury hearing the testimony, so I'm not going to judge.
This is why when I'm stopped by the police, even when it's some unfair BS (like one time when they put in a new "no turn on red" sign on me overnight at the end of my street, and posted a cop at that corner in the morning), it's always "yes sir", "no sir", "here's my license sir", and other than that, I just sit there like a statue and follow every single order to the T.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
There was no jury
The defendants opted to let the judge decide the verdict.
Cops have a tough job. That doesn't mean they get automatic benefit of the doubt when they shoot someone who posed no threat.
Keep in mind that these were undercover officers, and it is debated whether they properly identified themselves.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
"posed no threat" is hindsight.
The fact that the suspect was unarmed is not enough in itself for me to say that the police should have been convicted. I'd have to believe that the police did not have any reason to feel threatened at the time, given what they saw and heard at the scene.
Just because the police shoot a suspect and the suspect turns out to have been unarmed does not mean that a crime has been committed IMO.
If the police did not properly identify themselves, then that would weigh in favor of convicting them, because then the suspect might have had reason to move defensively. But I wasn't in the court, and if there was doubt as to whether they identified themselves properly or not, I probably couln't hold that against them.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry, but that is a ludicrous standard
The undercover cops provoked the confrontation. Their mistake in judgment created a situation in which the victims were trying to escape. Their additional mistake in identifying a potential threat led to them shooting unarmed victims. Repeatedly. Reloading to continue shooting, in one case.
By the standard you suggest an undercover cop could confront some random person on the street, then when the guy tried to leave the cop could pull a gun, then if the person reacted in any way the cop could justifiably shoot him. Because the cop felt threatened... by the situation his repeated mistakes in judgment created.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Absolutely agreed.
The police cannot simply shoot any unarmed person that they choose, claim that they felt threatened, and therefore receive a complete pass ... just because they are police officers.
They are supposed to be held to a HIGHER standard of conduct in these respects, not a LOWER one. You can't claim that they are "highly trained professionals" and then let them off the hook on things like this, IMHO. If they are highly trained they should not be making this kind of mistake.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We agree!
Yippee!
I'm only half stupid
Better mark your calendar! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Friday Arpil 25th, 2,008
was a very special day. :)
I'm only half stupid
My lord!
That's by far the most reasonable thing you've ever said.
Is this GR's wife posting? :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
"recieve a complete pass" = strawman
would you say that:
1. Being fired
2. Losing pension and benefits
3. Being possibly liable for damages in civil courts
is the same thing as "receiving a complete pass?"
And again, the use of the word "mistake" to describle the officer's actions. Is a mistake a crime?
The officers' story is this, according to Wikipedia:
If you believe that story, does it not add up to a situation where the cops might have felt threatened if they saw "sudden movement" in the car? It's not like it would have been just a routine traffic stop situation, where someone might make a sudden movement simply to retrieve their registration from their glove box but there would be no reason to necessarily believe that the movement involved retrieving a dealy weapon... the officers had been told by another officer that there was possibly a gun in the car, the suspects had been in an altercation in the bar, and the suspects had threatened to retrieve the gun. The driver displayed reckless behavior in crashing the vehicle.
According to news reports, the judge found the police's story "credible". If you, as a hypolthetical juror in this case, found the police's story credible, would you be able to convict for any crime?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
If you are suggesting that the first two apply here,
please link and quote.
Wikipedia says they were placed on paid administrative leave, and I haven't seen any reference to them being fired or losing their pensions. All the press accounts I can remember refer to them as officers or detectives, present tense.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The list is of three items is not specific to this case
GoRight had a false dichotomy in his argument-- by "absolutely agreeing" with you, he indicates that a police officer should be held criminally liable in such cases as this, and then he implies to believe otherwise is to believe that officers should be given a "complete pass" in such cases, ignoring all other possible repercussions the officers could be presented with including my short list of three items, and also suspensions, demotions, on down to lesser remedies like written reprimands in their record.
A lot of times, I think that the unwashed mobs seek justice in the criminal courts for police incidents like this precisely because the police unions are too strong in defending officers from these kind of non-criminal remedies and there ends up being truly no consequence for making serious and perhaps repeated mistakes in the line of duty.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Gotcha
You could be right about the last bit.
My gut feeling is that there will be a settlement in the civil case here. I don't think there will be any further federal action taken.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
So your point is ...
that they end up receiving a complete pass. Seems like that is what I said.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well perhaps you should have specified...
...that by "complete pass", you meant "incomplete pass".
If you underpaid on your tax, but the when the IRS audits you, they just make you pay the back tax, interest, and penalties instead of prosecuting you for filing false returns, did they give you a "complete pass", just because there was no criminal charge? Of course not.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well perhaps YOU should have specified ...
... that by "no consequence", you actually meant "consequence".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not sure what you're getting at.
I meant exactly what I said there.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
In what way is ...
"having no consequence" different from "receiving a complete pass"?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't understand the connection
I know what problem I had with your statement "receiving a complete pass", and I know what I meant by "having no consequence", but I do not see the similarity that you do. Not being deliberately dense here-- I just don't know what connection you're making here. My best guess is that you are attempting to justify your "receive a complete pass" statement by pointing out that I admit that officers do get a free pass in practice oftentimes if there is no criminal remedy in a case like this, but I think my statement which you quoted already addresses that point, and suggests the remedy-- breaking down any structures or institutions which help keep incompetent or dirty cops on the job.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Stuff your strawman rhetoric.
My comment was regarding the criminal charges. They shot the guy down in cold blood and were acquitted of all criminal charges. That's a complete pass.
If they receive any kind of sanctions less severe than criminal prosecution in this case such sanction will be grossly unjust. By your standard here they could shoot anyone they want down in cold blood, claim they felt threatened, and receive a slap on the wrist.
Is shooting and killing an unarmed individual worth no more to you than having to make a career change? Dude you need to get your priorities in order.
Bottom line, anyone who empties two clips into a car when they could not possibly have even seen a weapon, much less a muzzle flash of having been fired upon, is guilty of manslaughter on that evidence alone, IMHO. There are no circumstances that can be used to justify such an action.
The dead guy's past history, what the undercover guy "thinks" he heard, the fact that the dead guy was legally drunk, the fact that the dead guy rammed a mini-van while trying to escape? None of these things justifies shooting the man down in cold blood.
If I shot someone for any of these reasons I would be in jail right now, as should these irresponsible louts.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Distortions of my arguments as usual
Not true. In my initial comment, I merely said that there had been nothing offered here so far which had convinced me that there had been a crime committed. If I had heard all the testimony and seen all the evidence in this case, perhaps I would have seen or heard something convincing in that regard.
Perhaps I wouldn't have found the story of the police to be credible-- just because they claim to feel threatened doesn't mean that I have to buy it, or conclude that it was reasonable to feel threatened. Perhaps I would have found some aspect of the police's actions so reckless as to deserve criminal punishment. Perhaps not. It is you who has chosen to judge here without reviewing all the facts, not me.
And, going one step further, you're taking this one instance, where I am simply reserving judgment, and distorting that into some kind of lifetime free pass for all police everywhere.
It's not always a crime for the police to shoot an unarmed individual IMO-- if they reasonably believed the suspect is a deadly threat to them. I don't think that the police should have to wait around to see muzzle flashes in every single instance.
So, if you can see the head of the suspect and believe that they are firing on your partner or at least have a weapon aimed at your partner, you can't shoot because you can't see the weapon? There was testimony that one of the other officers shouted "He has a gun!".
How about your priorities-- railroading a defendant when you can't possibly know all the relevant facts and testimony in the case! If you reload a weapon in a shootout, you're guilty, apparently, as are any of the other law enforcement officers who take shots during the incident!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You are way off base here skymutt
I doubt if you would be so caviler about this verdict if it was your unarmed brother who had been murdered with a spray of 50 bullets by police who were not in uniform.
I'm only half stupid
And if one of the police officers were your brother,
...you might not be so quick to judge. For one thing, there was more than one officer involved here. In my mind it's pretty cavalier to lump them all together, when each acted in different ways with a different view from their repsective vantage point. I see virtually no attempt from my opponents here to distinguish guilt and innocence in individual officers here-- when it seems to me that the the argument for argument for guilt made in this thread keeps centering on the officer who took 31 shots. So maybe you convict him and the others walk?
But the fact is, that we are not related to the victims or the police officers. We can discuss the issue without being so emotionally invested that we can't recognize the facts. That's not being cavalier-- it was not our turn to be personally touched by tragedy this time, and let's just be thankful for that. Let's not pretend that any of us have the moral high ground occupied to the exclusion of others, that some of us are feeling true empathy for the victim and some of us are not. To suggest otherwise is merely ad hominem attack, not real argument.
As to your use of the word "murdered": do you really believe that the man was murdered, or are you just using that as a synonym for "killed"?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The police officer is still alive
What else needs to be said.
An unarmed black man is dead because a hail of 50 bullets was aimed at him from three ununiformed officers.
It's ludicrous to pretend like there is no emotion involved here.
If there is a larger point, is it that the officers were untrained and afraid, and that there is a presumption of guilt in lower income black neighborhoods?
Why not spend more money on training for the police. Why put untrained, inexperienced officers on the beat? No one wants to pay taxes.
Why not spend more money on education for lower income neighborhoods. No one wants to pay taxes.
If there is a lesson here, I would say that there is class warfare in this country and both whites and blacks are the victims.
I'm only half stupid
More distortions/strawmen on your part ..
I agree with this point. Each individual is entitled to have their individual actions examined and judged independently. So if someone acted as I have stated elsewhere, perhaps firing a round or two and then halting because they did not see a weapon they certainly should have that fact considered in determining their indiviudal responsibility and/or sentencing.
You claim that I distort your positions, this is clearly a case of you distorting (fabricating?) a position that I never expressed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In fact, the officers who fired one and three rounds
were not charged, and the officer who fired four rounds was only charged with reckless endangerment. It was the officers who shot 11 times (the entire pistol clip) and 31 times (reloading) who faced manslaughter charges.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well then, I feel vindicated on the chargings anyway.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you weren't aware of the distinctions in the charges till now
...then I think it's fair to say that you were lumping the officers at the time you called them "these yahoos". So I stand by my charge of "lumping" on your part.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You can stand by your charge all you want ...
but that doesn't make you any more correct.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4When you characterized the officers as "these yahoos"
I took the liberty of interpreting that as lumping them all.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Anyone who fires two full clips ...
or even one full clip ... without having positively identified a threat with their own eyes is, in fact, a yahoo. It's a technical term! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And your distortions of my undistorted account in return ...
I respectfully disagree.
The crux of your argument throughout this entire thread has been that if the police feel threatened they are justified in using deadly force. I am not over stating your position here. So, by THAT logic all a police officer has to do to get a free pass [on criminal charges] for killing someone is to make a case that they felt threatened.
Further, by this example, you are also stating that the officer's burden of proof for being threatened is quite low. I heard someone say that they were going to get their gun. I heard one of the officers yell that he had a gun. Sorry, but those are not good enough to justify shooting someone down.
You actually HAVE to have SEEN the weapon AND you have to have reason to believe that they INTEND to fire it before you could shoot. Even if the guy had a gun, which in this case he clearly did NOT, unless he was actively aiming it at one of the officers they were not justified in shooting him. That's what the CCW classes teach permit holders. Apparantly the police training that these individuals received didn't cover this aspect of the use of deadly force or they wouldn't have acted as they did.
As I said in my original post above, I could give someone the benefit of the doubt on having fired a couple of rounds under these circumstances given the split second realities at play, but if you take the time to empty a full clip, reload, and then empty another clip you don't get to claim the split second decision defense any longer. After a couple of rounds, assuming that you were actually directing your fire at a specific target as you are supposed to be doing, you no longer have any excuse for not realizing that the target is unarmed and that you should halt firing.
Unless you can personally see the weapon, hear the shots there from, or see the muzzle flashes there from, you do NOT have an affirmative confirmation of a threat and therefore should not discharge your weapon. Why take this position? Because it prevents the killing of unarmed persons as happened in this circumstance.
I believe that the average CCW holder (a) would know the above constraints per their training, and (b) would adhere to it. The fact that these individuals did not adhere to these standards suggests either that their training was inferior OR that they were not competent to carry it out. Either way they should be help liable for their own actions just like anyone else.
How about your priorities-- railroading a defendant when you
can't possibly know all the relevant facts and testimony in the case!
If you reload a weapon in a shootout, you're guilty, apparently, as are
any of the other law enforcement officers who take shots during the
incident!
Again, you are mischaracterizing my stated position. They are not guilty because they reloaded. They are not even guilty in my mind after the first couple of rounds had been fired given the split second timing involved. They are guilty because they obviously acted recklessly if they emptied two clips without having observed their target sufficiently to discern that they were, in fact, unarmed.
They are not justified in spraying bullets haphazardly into a vehicle. They are expected to direct their fire at a specific target based on a specific and undeniable threat. The number of rounds fired in this case when the target was, in fact, unarmed clearly suggests that they were not acting in a manner consistent with the above expectations, so therefore they were being reckless and manslaughter is not an unreasonable determination.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Misstatement of the crux of my argument.
Not quite. My argument has been that if the police feel threatened and end up using deadly force on what turns out to be an unarmed suspect, the police aren't necessarily guilty of a crime on those facts alone. Even to this point, I have never said that every officer in this incident was justified in every shot they took. I've read the testimony of officer Carey which Brendan posted, and I found that testimony to be fairly convincing of justification of the three shots that Carey took at the passenger in the vehicle. By the time Carey took his shots, he had seen the vehicle accelerate into Detective Isnora, clipping him in the leg. Then he had seen the vehicle accelerate in reverse back into some kind of fence, and then accelerate forward into the van which Carey was in the passenger seat with the door ajar and his leg out, injuring Carey's leg. Carey had heard around this time Detective Isnora yell "He's got a gun!" as Isnora approached the passenger side of the vehicle with gun trained on the front passneger. Carey could observe the front passenger moving thru the windshield and knew that the driver had his hands occupied on the steering wheel and the shifter from the maneuvers of the car, so he believed that it was the passenger who had the gun, and he fired three shots at that passenger. So at this point all I can say is that I'm pretty convinced that at least some of the shots were justified, if the story of Detective Carey can be believed. But I will say this: once shots are fired in a situation where the police are around the suspct's vehicle at different angles, it becomes more believable to me that other officers might have felt that they were being fired on from within the vehicle, because of the crossfire coming thru the vehicle. Such a situation might be a case where I would conclude that the officers involved made errors in judgment that were not crimes. Being wrong about the source of weapons fire would be an error, but not a crime.
Do you know that the police recieve this exact same instruction? Remember also that the vehicle is allegedly being used as a weapon in this case, which might justify shooting the driver without seeing a weapon in some circumstances, might it not?
Read Officer Carey's testimony-- he specifically testifies that his target was the passenger only. He explained his thought process, which I summarized above. So, at least one of the shooters involved was not haphazardly spraying bullets into the vehicle if we believe his story. So perhaps you'd need to isolate each shooter and prove that one or more of them was indeed spraying bullets into the car. Nobody in this thread has done that so far. So if one of them was spraying bullets into the car, you're okay with it if they all go down for the crime, even if the others involved had justification for the shots they took? There was 50 shots fired by five officers; they shot 31, 11, 4, 3, and 1 times respecively. If I am convinced by what you say that the number of shots is evidence in itself of manslaughter, then could you understand my concern if all the officers were getting lumped with the one officer who took over 60% of the total shots? Because "they" didn't "empty two clips" into the suspects. Only one of them did.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I have already stipulated that ...
each individual officer is only responsible for his own individual actions. While I never stated this explicitly up front I find this determination to be rather obvious on its face. When is this NOT the case?
This is especially true for someone who advocates for individual responsibility, is it not?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've known red-bar types to have double standards
In this thread, you did eventually admit that each officer was responsible only for their own actions. But in my view that was only a bit of lip service on your part, as you have continued to fail to distinguish between the various officers in the incident. Now recently you've indicated that everyone who took 3 shots or more in this incident should go down for manslughter, yet you continue to seize on "reloading" and "emptying two clips", the actions of only one officer, and offer no real reason why the guy who took three shots at a specific target in defense of his fellow officer is also guilty of manslaughter.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
OK, let's use your account to walk through the specifics ...
OK, so you are the under cover officer. You hear the argument and the stated intent to retrieve a gun. You (presumably in this case) do not observe any of them with a gun throughout the argument.
1. At this point in time, you have reason to believe that these individuals are?
(a) Armed.
(b) Unarmed.
(c) Don't know.
I argue (b) but will accept (c) as reasonable. (a) is clearly unreasonable IMHO.
2. At this point in time, you have reason to believe that these indiviudals intend to retrieve a gun from?
(a) Their car.
(b) Their apartment.
(c) The dumpster out back.
(d) Any of the above.
(e) None of the above.
I would argue (d) to be on the safe side, but accept (e) as applicable since they may not really be intended to retieve anything and it was all just a bluff. The point is, you don't know anything with any certainty at this point ... or even any significant probability.
Based on your underlined part the officer in question obviously chose 2(a) but does he have an "objectively reasonable" basis for having made that selection? I argue not.
3. Having chosen option 2(a) above and thus indicating that you feared a gun was accessible from the car, does a reasonable officer on the scene:
(a) stop the suspects BEFORE they enter the vehicle?
(b) allow the suspects to enter the vehicle thus giving them access to the gun?
I argue (a) but this obviously raises the question of the grounds upon which you stop them. At this point they have not broken any laws, but if you truly fear 2(a) giving them access to the vehicle is folly.
OK, now as a reasonable officer on the scene we have some mental checks that we can perform on our selection of 2(a) above.
4. Under the assumption of 2(a) and consistent with your requirement that you suspect an imminent threat of the use of deadly force against the women in the club, who do you expect to enter the vehicle?
(a) The suspect who intends to retrieve his gun.
(b) The owner of the vehicle to retrieve the gun.
(c) All three suspects.
I could argue that (a) or (b) might be consistent with 2(a) above but (c) should give one some pause. Why? Because if they actually intended to simply retrieve a gun and return to cause trouble why would all three get into the vehicle?
5. Under the assumption of 2(a) and consistent with your requirement
that you suspect an imminent threat of the use of deadly force against
the women in the club, you might reasonably expect the suspects to:
(a) start the vehicle.
(b) not start the vehicle.
I would argue (b). Why start the vehicle if they intended to just turn around and go back into the club with a gun?
Given the account you provided it seems obvious that all three suspects were allowed to enter the vehicle and that the driver had started the car before being confronted by the undercover officer (since the statement merely asserts that Bell (immediately?) accelerated after being confronted). Now, it could be that Bell started the car then accelerated but this is not consistent with the account as provided. If they started the vehicle after being confronted then question 5 is irrelevant. Otherwise it is further evidence to give a reasonable officer on the scene pause with respect to their assumption of 2(a) above.
From your post elsewhere in this thread we have:
6. At this point in time, who do you have "objective reason" to believe is armed and posing an imminent threat to yourself or someone else?
(a) The driver.
(b) The passenger.
(c) The rear passenger.
(d) All of the above.
(e) None of the above.
(f) The individual being fired upon by the person who yelled "he's got a gun."
Since you cannot identify any suspect as having a weapon, and therefore cannot discern that any suspect is posing an imminent threat to anyone, I would argue (e). The statement you heard was in the singular so you only have reason to believe that there is one gun.
I would accept (f) as acceptable under the circumstances in deference to the allowance of the split second decision that had to be made, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. If you are unsure who yelled "he's got a gun", you shouldn't fire on anyone IMHO since you have a duty to not endanger the lives of the unarmed suspects.
You wanted some individual analysis, so here it is ...
Headley: Fired 1 shot.
I have no information on Headley who only fired one shot. Lacking
further evidence to analyze I will rely on the Grand Jury's decision to
not indict him and assume they had good reason.
Carey: Fired 3 shots.
Carey obviously chose option (f) above and in addition had reason to believe that Bell was otherwise occupied with the steering wheel and the shifter. I accept that he had reason to fire upon the passenger in spite of the fact that he did not observe a weapon himself. So in my assessment he gets a pass, especially with respect to Bell whom he did not fire upon. Apparantly the Grand Jury agreed.
As Brendan pointed out, he wasn't charged because his rounds didn't hit anyone. From the distance he had to be from Guzman, his intended target, this doesn't bode well for the marksmanship skills of the NYPD.
Cooper: Fired 4 shots.
From (K) we know that Copper fired 4 shots and didn't hit anyone, but one of his rounds ended up in the AirTrain building at the end of the street. This means he most likely completely missed the vehicle and sent a round down the street which might have hit anyone. Reckless endangerment sounds about right on this guy.
Isnora: Fired 11 shots.
Based on his testimony
, Isnora's actions went down pretty much exactly as I had expected. For anyone familiar with firearms this is a classic case of manslaughter.
The reality is that Isnora was scared. Real scared. Pissing himself scared. Now I feel sorry for him and everything. I don't think that he intended to kill anyone, but the reality is that he was reckless and ill prepared to be in the position in which he found himself.
Isnora states that he was 6 feet away from the car (plus or minus) and aiming exclusively at Guzman's center of mass. At six feet it is inconceivable to me that anyone with any real training can't hit a man's torso. That means that if he was firing in a controlled fashion that Guzman should have had 11 rounds in his center of mass from Isnora alone. You ain't walking aware from 11 rounds through or even near your center of mass.
So the reality is that as he was firing he most likely faded completely out (not fainted, but was unaware of his actions as his mind tried to deal with the situation) during which time he is firing rounds who knows where. I am not saying he was completely wild or anything, but he clearly wasn't directing his fire any more accurately than in the general direction of Guzman. Given this and the fact that he was shooting rapid fire it is quite likely that some of his rounds were stray and, given the direction of fire, went right in Bell's direction.
Bottom line, Isnora cannot account for what his target was doing while he was firing which means that he wasn't actually processing the details of what was happening. He was scared out of his wits, he didn't want or mean to shoot anyone, and given some of his testimony I figure that he actually blacked out his own memory of the event because he couldn't deal mentally with what he was doing (he stated that he never dreamed that in his whole career he would shoot someone ... paraphrased).
Involuntary manslaughter
is when you recklessly kill someone but you didn't mean to do it. Isnora was clearly reckless in both the number of rounds fired AND in his disregard of Bell's position while engaging Guzman.
Oliver: Fired 31 shots.
He was the driver of the minivan. He ended up on the sidewalk next to Isnora according to Isnora's testimony. Presumably he exited the minivan after the crash and crossed around in front of his vehicle, and engaged the Altima from Isnora's right side. From (H), (I), and (J) we find that Oliver was directing his fire at Guzman yet two of his rounds killed Bell. Oliver ended up a few feet to Isnora's right, so that would put him about 8 or 9 feet from Guzman with a clear view.
The fact that he claims to have directed his fire at Guzman, to not have even noticed Bell in the car, and yet two of his rounds ended up killing Bell says all we need to know about how carefully he was directing his fire. He simply ripped off 31 rounds, supposedly at a single individual, as fast as he could and we know that at least 2 of the rounds missed the mark by what, a foot and a half to two feet (the distance between the driver and passenger seats), when he was firing from maybe ten feet distant? And this from a supposedly trained police officer? He is either lying or was being totally reckless.
Either way, this too sounds like involuntary manslaughter to me as well.
So, let us recap a bit here.
Between Isnora and Oliver they fired 42 shots (11 + 31) which were all supposedly directed at Guzman from a distance of 6 to 10 feet. From (M) we know that Guzman was hit 19 times. So their hit ratio was less than 50%. These are the trained police officers you trust so much in public?
You complained about my characterization of them having, effectively, sprayed the vehicle with bullets indiscriminantly? Intentional or not, that is exactly what they did. Their act was reckless on its face, again as I said originally, and as such a conviction for manslaughter is justified IMHO.
There's your analysis of the facts. Happy now?
------------------------------------------------------
Some facts from the news and testimony.
(A) As far as I can tell from the reports Bell was driving, Guzman was the passenger, and Benefield was the rear passenger.
(B) Isnora is the one that yelled "he's got a gun." which occured AFTER the crash with the minivan.
(C) Isnora was on the passenger side of the Altima and fired at Guzman in the passenger seat at a minimum, possibly others.
(C) Cary was in the minivan and fired at Guzman based on Isnora firing at him after yelling "he's got a gun" and assessing that Bell was not a threat.
(D) The officers fired 50 rounds
: Headley fired one, Carey three, Cooper
four, Isnora 11, and Oliver 31, which means he stopped to reload before
continuing to fire.
(E) But attorney Steven Worth said Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora and Marc
Cooper were indicted by the grand jury. Worth represents Michael Carey,
who he said was not indicted. Paul Headley is the fifth officer.
(F) Oliver was driving the minivan
.
(G) Testified she last saw
Mr. Bell turn on his headlights on Liverpool
Street and pull away from the curb. “As he came out, a minivan came
from behind me and they crashed,” she said. “The driver of the minivan
got out of the car. He got out and he started shooting.” She crouched
in someone's shrubs.
(H) The undercover detective [Oliver] who fired 31 of the 50 shots at Sean Bell said
he was "totally devastated" when he learned two of his bullets had
killed the Queens groom on his wedding day.
(I) Culleton said Oliver told him "he hadn't even seen Sean Bell in the
car" and was focused on Bell's friend Joseph Guzman, who was sitting in
the front passenger seat. Guzman was shot and survived
(J) "I see [Guzman] lifting his arms
," Oliver told a grand jury last year.
"I didn't want to die. I reloaded the gun, and I continued to fire, and
the shots still are going on around me."
(K) None of Detective Cooper's shots hit anyone, although one bullet sailed
.
away from the crime scene, striking the AirTrain station nearby
(L) "Please don't shoot me. I don't have nothing to do with nothing,"
.
Benefield said he shrieked as he lay wounded on the sidewalk after he
was struck by three police bullets
(M) Another friend, Joseph Guzman - who was shot 19 times
and survived - was in the front passenger seat.
(N) Bell was pronounced dead Saturday at Jamaica Hospital in Queens. An
in the neck and torso.
autopsy showed he was struck four times
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well done
I'll just repeat that it is contested whether Guzman actually said "Yo, go get my gun" and that Carey was inconsistent as to whether Isnora said
"He's got a gun!" before or after shooting.
Edit: also, there are various accounts for how many times Guzman was shot -- 13, 16, or 19. I'm inclined to accept the NYT description of the medical testimony, which would make it 13.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Which, of course, just makes them look all that more reckless...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just because you're not paranoid...
Spot on.
Question "2"
Alerting the backup that the "suspect" was going to the car to get a the gun was the fatal misstatement..
Isnora got it in his head that the "suspect" had a gun and panicked, when the "suspect" complied with police orders to raise his hands.
Oliver is an awful shot and events in this case make me think he became an officer just to have authority over people. 31 shots from 3 yards away and constantly "missing" the "intended" target.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Now we're getting somewhere
Positively jubilant, I am :-)
I can't possibly take on this whole lenghty post at once, at least right now. Work was kicking my butt yesterday and I've been up all night. Let me hone in on just one part of this. Regarding Isnora, you say:
I do think that recklessness should be the standard in cases like this, but I think it's important that we pin down what "reckless" means in the legal sense before we can say that Isnora was "clearly reckless":
According to here
, reckless legally means:
So, it looks like recklessness equals negligence plus indifference to consequences. The same source says that "a person has acted negligently if she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances," but that in emergencies, "the law recognizes that even a reasonable person can make errors in judgment in emergency situations. Therefore, a person's conduct in an
emergency is evaluated in light of whether it was a reasonable response under the circumstances, even though, in hindsight, another course of
action might have avoided the injury."
I think that your characerization of Isnora's actions, which I find reasonable, constitutes negligence, even in an emergency situation. He gave conflicting directions to the suspect. He failed to fire his weapon in a controlled fashion. He did not consider that the driver was in his line of fire due to tunnel vision. A reasonable person with Isnora's training ought to have done all those things
But did Isnora take his shots with indifference to the consequences, or was it simply that he was unaware of the consequences, given his state of mind? My opinion is that he was simply unaware of the consequences of his shots. I think he was extremely scared and panicked, and in that in that state of mind, consequences simply did not occur to him at that moment in time. Lack of awareness of consequences due to a scared or panicked state of mind is not the same as lack of awareness due to an indifference to consequenses that causes consequences to fade from awareness.
So I would probably not vote to convict Isnora of manslaugter on that basis.
Of course there is still another basis on which Isnora could be convicted-- namely, that his prior actions, such as not identifying himself as an officer, were reckless and ended up resulting in a death.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
For the information of anyone interested,
here is the full list
of charges. We've focused on the manslaughter charges but Oliver and Isnora were also acquitted of assault and reckless endangerment.
Here are the NY definitions
of all these charges. 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree, 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree, 120.10 Assault in the first degree, 120.20 Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
Here is a recent case of someone charged with manslaughter
that may give a sense of what sort of conduct it covers:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, based on the NY definitions linked above ...
125.15 does seem to apply to both Isnora and Oliver (from an intent perspective), however Isnora has a bit of a pass if the medical evidence doesn't suggest that any of his rounds killed Bell. One of my references clearly stated the autopsy indicated that two of Olivers rounds caused the death so perhaps Isnora should get a pass on this point.
125.20 does not seem to apply since I don't believe that anyone involved
intended to kill Bell. If Guzman had died it would have applied in that
case.
120.10(1) clearly applies to both Oliver and Isnora with respect to Guzman. I don't see any way to make a case for how it does not. So there must be some other statute at play here absolving police of these charges if they were acting pursuant to their jobs and felt that they were protecting the public somehow. Otherwise any police shooting would have the officer guilty by these definitions.
120.20 could apply to Cooper, Oliver, and Isnora. The key point is whether they were reckless under the statute which includes:
In this case the entire thing rests on whether you feel that their actions were justified or not. Reckless endangerment only applies when your actions were unjustified. I don't think that Isnora was justified so reckless endangerment with respect to Bell and Benefield seem to apply. Assuming that Isnora yelled "he's got a gun" and was firing on Guzman the other officers on the scene would be justified in taking action immediately but had a duty to halt such action when it should have reasonably become obvious based on their own observations that such action was unwarranted.
So, based on the "split second defense" analysis I provided elsewhere (I'm sorry, I dreamed up out of thin air during my flip flop) the firing of 2 to 4 rounds would be justified in my mind based on Isnora's actions. Beyond that the shooters are taking full responsibility for their own actions based on their own observations. Under this criteria Cooper is on the line, Oliver obviously is over it and was likewise not justified in his actions based on the number of rounds he actually discharged. I would have ruled/voted accordingly.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4125.20 can apply
Quoting from the PDF: Under our law, a person is guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree when, with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he or she causes the death of such person [or of a third person]. [...] Under our law, it is not required that the person who dies be the same person who was intended to be injured.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I stand corrected.
I didn't catch that last bit...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Cooper
I think got charged because he stated he was in an off balance position when firing (paraphrased) and one of his bullets hit the Air Train terminal. The defense expert testified that it might have ricocheted or else been aimed only a bit high of the car.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
My charge of reckless ...
rests on:
By his own testimony Isnora had maintained eye contact with both Guzman (the passenger) and Bell (the driver). He had just been "hit" by the car with Bell driving. He knew where he was with respect to the car and therefore knew that Bell was in the line of fire should he miss Guzman or should the round pass completely through Guzman. He fired anyway, and not just a couple of rounds but an entire clip in rapid fire. And not in a controlled manner as evidenced by the fact that he can't remember what Guzman was doing while he was firing. He simply blanked out during the entire period where he was firing and his firing training kicked in.
On the one hand I feel sorry for the guy because he was obviously scared witless and panicked. But on the other, this does not excuse his actions. "I was scared" cannot be made a valid justification for killing someone. He ultimately made the decision to fire knowing the circumstances of the situation. You can't claim that he was unaware that Bell was in the line of fire, or shouldn't have reasonably been expected to be aware given this account.
CCW holders are taught to be aware of and actively avoid tunnel vision. They are taught that you have to be aware of things that may be in the line of fire and that you have a duty to not put innocent people at risk. I can only assume that police officers are given comparable training as this is what is required of you should you fire your weapon.
Most CCW holders likely shoot for sport as well. They will visit firing ranges and may even shoot competitively expressly for the purpose of pacticing and training for situations where they may end up using their firearms in real life. The whole purpose is to make these types of thinking second nature so that even on "autopilot" you tend to do the proper thing. I can only assume that police officers are required to periodically undergo such training to avoid exactly what happened here.
Isnora obviously had practiced to some level. In his testimony after firing his full clip and having the slide lock open he instinctively dropped the clip from the gun. When asked why he did that he didn't have a reason.
The explanation is obvious to anyone who trains for such situations. You train to reload as soon as the slide locks open so the act of dropping the clip becomes so ingrained that it is automatic. He doesn't even have to think about it, he just automatically does it. This, to me, is evidence that he has been trained and, so, has little excuse for blanking out like that or for ignoring his line of fire. IMHO he is guilty of manslaughter but in sentencing I think he deserves something on the lighter end of the scale.
The same thing applies to Oliver, most likely, but in his case he just didn't stop after dropping the clip his training induced "autopilot" carried all the way through the reload and firing the second clip. To call what Oliver had a "line of fire" would be a farce. If we give him the benefit of the doubt that he hadn't actually directed fire an Bell intentionally, then what Oliver had was better termed a "cone of fire" and a pretty wide one at that. Unfortunately for Bell he was in that "cone of fire". So my opinion on Oliver is basically the same, guilty with a sentence on the lighter end of the scale ... but probably more than Isnora.
What is blatantly obvious to me is that neither of these two should be armed police officers out on the street. Their lack of control in stressful situations should be obvious to all.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you really believe he "blanked out" during shooting
I believe you have to acquit. The very reason why the "split second" defense must be considered is that an extreme emergency situation can cause a person to not be aware of consequences for that moment-- they are unable, for that brief moment in time, to summon some of the basic guidelines they learned in training. It is not simply a matter of "awareness" + "paying no regard" to consequences if you can't, for whatever reason, see the consequences or have "tunnel vision" which is induced by the extreme emergency nature of the situation.
In other words, you're only showing that he "paid no regard" to the consequences, and that he had "awareness" at other points in time due to his training, but not at the time at which he took the shots. In this way, "being scared" in an emergency can be a defense if it causes you to be not aware of the deadly consequences; that why you are asked to consider the split-second nature of these kinds of emergencies, because the Court has recognize that they bring up special issues.
I think to convict Isnora, the key nugget of evidence is the timing of when he said "he's got a gun", which was disputed in the testimony. If he said this after he took his first shots, and then took more shots, then that would indicate to me that he did not have the tunnel vision he claimed, that he realized that he screwed up as he was shooting and made a calculated effort to excuse his actions by indicating to other officers that he thought he saw a gun after the fact, and you could even argue that perhaps he made a calculated effort to induce fire from other officers to shoot at that point, knowing that he had screwed up and actually seen no gun. If you can prove all that, then murder becomes a possibility. If you can convince just that he said "he's got a gun" to clean up his mess, then manslaughter is a slam-dunk.
Agreed on this. They should be let go from the force. These guys screwed the pooch when push came to shove, showing that their particular mental makeups did not allow them to stay cool enough to recall very basic points of training in an emergency situation. This is probably not uncommon in police officers taking their first shots in the line of duty, but these guys had the bad fortune that they killed a man and seriously injured two more, making their lack of cool painfully obvious.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I think you need to read this again ...
Lack of awareness EQUALS paying no regard and is the very definition of part (a) above. What else does "paying no regard" mean?
If "paying no regard" somehow includes "awareness" (i.e. "foreseeing") then part (b) is redundant and meaningless.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know which source you're quoting that from
I believe that "paying no regard" in this sense means, roughly, "conscious disregard", as given in Brendan's source on New Yourk's involuntary manslaughter law:
Conscious disregard is not the same thing as lack of awareness, can we agree on that?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Blanking out is no defense ...
otherwise everyone will just claim that they blanked out. Neither is ignorance of the law and for the same reason.
Hell, we don't really know for sure if he blanked out or not. It is clear to me from his testimony that he was coached on how to respond.
For example, at one point he is describing the events of when he was hit by the car. He says he made eye contact and a second later he was hit ... then backtracks and says (paraphrasing) "what I mean to say is a split second later ..." He was obviously coached to use the "split second" terminology.
As for the tunnel vision thing, the lawyer lead him on that one by introducing the term himself.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Mistakes aren't crimes generally.
I'm not saying that a cop could do any of the things you suggest, just that if the situation was caused by simple errors in judgment, that it would be a matter for civil and not criminal courts. There should be something more than just mistakes and a tragedy to prove a criminal act.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
They aren't charged with the mistakes, but
if the mistakes create a situation in which later actions lead to avoidable injuries and death, then they are charged with those actions.
The point is that the actions need to be evaluated in the context of how their created the situation. In the case of the cops, they weren't randomly faced with some guy trying to run them down, brandishing what they thought was a gun. They cornered a guy while wearing street clothes, pulled a gun, then shot when he tried to get away because they (allegedly, let's keep in mind) thought the passenger was reaching for a gun.
Lemme try a different analogy. If a criminal wielding an ax is trying to break into your house, you have the right to defend yourself. If the postman bangs on the door and you mistakenly think it's an ax murderer trying to gain entrance and you shoot the postman, your crime isn't mistaking him for a threatening intruder, it's shooting him -- but that action becomes criminal because of your mistake that created the situation where you perceived a threat that didn't exist.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The postman case bears no resemblance to the officers' story...
...a story which the judge found to be credible.
Your postman didn't say he had an ax. Your postman didn't say he was going to go get said ax. Nobody told you that the postman said he had an ax, and was going to get the ax. The postman was not drunk. The postman didn't crash his mailtruck into one of your vehicles.
And of these items of distinction between your postman and Mr. Bell, only the crashed car occurred after this alleged mistake of no proper identification-- a mistake which may or may not have happened as the victim's supporters represent, because it seems possible to me that the detectives could have identified themselves as police, as they testified, and that some folks at the scene did not hear them or simply don't recall hearing that. I would find it very hard to convict someone on something like this, especially since the victim was drunk-- it seems to make it more likely that the victim wouldn't have comprehended that someone had announced themselves as "police".
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
All of those points are contested
and in most cases only police (no independent witnesses) support those claims.
In fact, Lt. Gary Napoli testified that
he did not hear Detective Isnora, who fired first, yell, “Police!” Nor did he hear any of the other officers, including the other two on trial, Detectives Oliver and Cooper, shout the word.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Because an eyewitness in an event does not hear something
...does not mean it did not happen.
It could very well be that the detective did not say "police", but that he believes that he did say it. He could have said it, but not clearly, and it was not heard or understood by the victims or bystanders. The detective might have said something other than "police" but that would have conveyed that they were police.
Neither of us was in court to hear the evidence, and it would be overreaching on our part to assume that the officer is lying about this, when the judge in the case, who did hear all the testimony and the evidence, seems to have come to the opposite conclusion.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The details of the testimony
and at least some transcripts are available online.
For example, concerning whether Isnora said "Police!" before shooting, we have this
:
See page 129 of the 169 page PDF of Carey's testimony, linked from the above url.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It isn't intended to resemble it
I already presented the appropriate analogy: an undercover hassling someone, then pulling a gun, then shooting when they react.
The postman story is intended solely to illustrate that if *you* make a mistake that leads to you harming someone, you are responsible for the outcome.
All I'm saying is that it's not a sufficient defense to claim the officers felt threatened.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Re: the judge found to be credible
Police generally get the benefit of the doubt in court, with juries or judges. What do you think about the judge cit[ing] prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses [and] cit[ing] the demeanor of some witnesses on the stand?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, I wasn't in the court
It's hard to make a judgment in this case, and I don't know the legal issues involved with bringing up prior criminal records. But in general, if an individual involved in the incident had a prior criminal history of violent acts, it seems to me that it would lend credibility to the officer's story that that individual did indeed make the threatening acts alleged by the officiers involved.
I don't know about the "demeanor" part-- you'll have to fill me in on what you've read about that.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Presumably the judge
was referring primarily to Guzman's testimony
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Professionals are held to
Professionals are held to the standards of what someone in that profession would do.
Getting tweaked and then starting a shooting spree isn't typical police conduct.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
OK then ...
Consider this hypothetical:
Should the officer get a pass on any criminal charges?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Totally different situation
The officer has no valid reason for believing that the person has a gun in their pocket in your hypothetical, given the facts as you present them.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ok...
After the shooting the officer testifies that he heard the guy say that he had a gun.
Turns out he didn't, but hey, can't take the chance...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But the police officer already has his weapon trained on the guy
It seems like if he has a clear view, daylight, etc, the officer should actually see the weapon and believe that he was going to be imminently fired upon before firing. The man could have simply said he had a gun to inform the officer of the fact, with no intent to threaten.
All that being said, real-life situations are rarely as simple as these hypotheticals I'm being presented with here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
OK, fine, add this one additional point ...
Before the officer yelled "Stop, Police!" he observed a bulge in the individual's pocket that he believed was a gun even though he didn't actually see it clearly.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bulge in the pocket could be anything
Given that this was just a random person, there's no reason to believe that the bulge is a gun. And even if it is, we can clearly see the individual and see that the weapon is not aimed at us. If the person drew a weapon on us, we would have time presumably to see the weapon coming up toward us and then we could shoot to defend ourselves.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Now imagine that this random
Now imagine that this random person is black and came out of strip club. Lots of guys get lap dances with an actual gun in their pocket to get in the way.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Still not justified.
Now, if it was a big black guy, maybe with dreadlocks...
:-p
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But this is exactly my point.
The officer in question has not verified that he is actually in danger.
This example completely mirrors the specifics of the real world case at hand. The officer had reason to believe that the "suspect" had a weapon but was not able to positively confirm this fact (in hypothetical case he saw a bulge that looked like a gun to him, in the real world case he heard someone say he had a gun). The suspect made a supposedly threatening move (in the hypothetical case the suspect was reaching for what the officer believed was a weapon, in the real world case the suspect made "a sudden move") so the officer fired in what they felt was self-defense.
I believe that these are the key points in your argument in the real world case.
So why are you reaching a different conclusion in this case?
There is one relevant difference in the two examples, however, in my case the officer only fires a single round whereas in the real world example at least one officer emptied two clips. So, let's correct that discrepency.
Modify my example such that instead of firing only a single round he instead empties a full clip into the guy, reloads, and then empties a second clip into the guy. Would you support a charge of manslaughter in THIS case?
If so please explain the substantive difference between the hypothetical and the real world examples which accounts for the difference in your determination.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just to point out,
in the real world case he heard someone say he had a gun
technically he *claimed* to have heard someone say he had a gun. AFAIK the only witnesses who testified that this occurred were police; Guzman denied saying anything of the sort. I'm not saying it did or didn't happen, just pointing out that there is debate on this point.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
This example completely
Just not true. You have only captured only a small subset of the key facts in the real life case. In the real life situation, the suspects are in a vehicle, partially obscured, and it is nighttime. In the real life situation, the suspect vehicle has rammed a detective on foot, has backed up, and has rammed a police van, injuring a second officer, and is arguably being used as a deadly weapon. In the real life situation, the suspects are not just random people, as in your hypothetical-- they are suspects in a crime; they have been in a verbal altercation and have issued an implied threat of violence with a gun during that altercation. In the real life situation, there are multiple officers involved at various locations around the vehilce, introducing the possibility of crossfire.
You are the one reaching a conclusion, not me. You're the one who is saying that these "yahoos" are guilty; I've reserved judgment. I'm surprised that nobody has even singled out Oliver, the guy who took 31 shots, and tried to show that he at least was not justified in taking his shots, by witness testimony or other evidence regarding his circumstances in the situation. What did he know about the suspects' actions to that point? What was his angle? Who was he shooting at? Was he directly threatened, or was he shooting to protect someone else? What were the circumstances when he reloaded his gun? What did witnesses say about Oliver's actions that night?
If you're going to say that these officers are guilty, a good place to start might be to show that at least one of them was guilty, rather than conjuring up trivial hypotheticals that don't capture the scene that night. I've repeately hinted that I *might* be able to be convinced that the guy who took 31 shots is guilty of some crime, as I've tried to separate out the actions of the various actors. That is, after all, a lot of shots by anyone's standards. But when I don't think someone actually knows the circumstances in which those shots were taken and yet is claiming the man is obviously guilty, I'm not going to let them get away with it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It does for all of the facts that matter ...
None of this is pertinent to the determination of a charge of manslaughter.
Please explain how this justifies firing two clips of ammo at someone when you haven't confirmed a threat.
After the vehicle came to a stop it was no longer a threat, at which point the officers are required to stop firing. Were any of these 50 rounds fired after the car came to a rest? If so those shots were NOT justified based on the vehicle being used as a weapon.
Likewise, this would only be a threat to someone directly in line with the direction of motion of the vehicle. So, while the vehicle was not moving towards one of the officers there was not threat and any shots fired at this time would not be justified.
Basically the law says that as soon as the threat abates you are obligated to stop firing. So, if someone is in your house with a gun and threatening you you first have a duty to retreat and only when you cannot retreat if you are still under threat you can fire. But if after you fire if the invader turns around and tries to leave you are NOT allowed to continue firing. A similar line of reasoning applies to these officers.
Really? What crime are they suspected of committing? They can issue all the threats of getting a gun that they want. Until the actually get a gun and threaten someone with it, they have committed no crime. Implied threats carry even less weight than actual threats.
Under what law are the police justified in killing someone for claiming to go get a gun?
I have no idea why you think that this is significant here. How does the fact that they were firing from different positions justify the shooting?
You haven't reserved judgement, you have affirmed that you would have made the same determination as the judge in this case:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah
It introduces the possibility that an officer could reasonably believe that gunfire was coming from the vehicle.
Ridiculous. I have no idea if I would have made the same determination as the judge. Read my statement you quoted again. I'm cleary saying there that I couldn't convict based on what I had read to that point here on Swords Crossed, and to stretch that into something more is yet one more distortion on your part, or just a glaring error in reading.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
When was the last time you heard of a bunch of CCW permit
holders doing something like this? I can't remember any.
Not so long ago you said:
I'm sure the victims in this case would have agreed with you, eh?
Well trained? Yea, right.
This is EXACTLY the type of thing the CCW training teaches you not to do. Perhaps the police training needs to be upgraded a bit here? Shoot first and let god sort them out is supposed to be a joke, not standard operating procedure.
Since there was no weapon in the vehicle it should have been blatantly obvious that no one was firing on the police officers. You might give them a pass on a couple of rounds under these circumstances but emptying 2 clips with no shots fired in return? Absurd. They were obviously just firing blind as fast as they could. That is reckless on its face and a charge of manslaughter is in no way out of line here. They should have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone, never mind the testimony.
You don't just point and shoot blind into a vehicle, especially when there is no return fire. These police officers are supposed to be making sure that they know what they are shooting at and doing so in a controlled manner. This obviously wasn't the case.
And this story just confirms how right you are to be scared.
Me? I'll take my chances with the average law abiding CCW holder who really HAS been well trained in comparison to these yahoos.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4For whatever it's worth, I've been re-evaluating my position
on concealed carry. Especially if the quality of mandated training is high it seems like there are a lot of potential benefits (deterrence, self-protection, and potentially being able to step in and stop a crime). Of course I would expect that anyone who shot recklessly or unnecessarily and injured someone would face charges, which would help prevent wannabe heroes from getting trigger happy.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It's covered
A concealed carry license does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions. My instructor covered that extensively --- pull only for bona-fide life threatening situations (and no, someone stealing your car does not qualify) and make sure you open your mouth and explain what you're doing to everyone in earshot, because you may need their testimony in court.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Good
Thanks for the info.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Who has the better chance of being well-trained with a weapon?
Policeman A, with years of training, who handle the weapon as part of their job, who are in dangerous situations frequently, or
Average person with CCW permit B, who has perhaps never been in a dangerous situation before, who does not handle a weapon as part of their job, and has the minimum training allowed by law to obtain the CCW permit?
I will take my chances with A, recognizing that there's about equal chances that A or B might be a bad apple. Pick any group you want in society, and there will be bad apples. Your implication that CCW carriers get better training with handling weapons in deadly situations than the police do is dubious, considering that I bet a large majority of the CCW instructors are current or former law enforcement officers themselves.
Also, the police take an oath to serve, protect, and defend (or similar). If I'm in a tough spot and being threatened by someone and the police arrive at the scene, I'm fairly sure that they will at least take some action because it is their sworn duty to take action, whereas the CCW permit holder might be on the scene but might very well decide to just walk on by and not get involved, since their purpose for carrying the weapon in most cases is for self-defense. In fact, the obvious reason why there are so few incidents like this involving CCW carriers is because they so rarely come to the defense of someone else and have no obligation to get involved in dangeros situations involving others, unlinke the police.
BTW I'm certainly not suggesting shoot first on just any old sudden move. But if there's good reason to believe that the suspect has a gun and is going for it, then that's different. In this case, the officers were allegedly told by another officer that the suspects had a gun and had been in an altercation. Then they witnessed reckless behavior by the suspects (crashing the car). THEN they allegedly saw the sudden move. It could all add up to a reasonable belief of a threat. Your quibble then boils down to the amount of rounds shot into the car.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Their car was blocked by the minivan
according to the NYT interactive graphic
of the shooting. This was a crash that occurred because the police were trying to prevent them from leaving.
Isnora claimed he himself overhead Bell's friend say "Yo, go get my gun." He's the one who shot first, emptying his pistol.
Oliver came in the van, and shot 31 times, pausing to reload.
None of the officers had ever fired their gun in the line of duty before.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
This works both ways
This may go towards showing that the officers were inexperienced and therefore made mistakes, but it also works against the idea that the officers were trigger happy yahoos who used their weapons lightly, as has been alleged in this thread.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The cops were so
The cops were so inexperienced that an officer reloaded his weapon after emptying a clip firing at an unarmed suspect at near point blank range [car blocked some shot] with 2 other officers doing nearly the same and other officers nearby.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Fair enough (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well ...
The lack of examples of multiple CCW holders all firing multiple clips blindly at unarmed individuals in a vehicle (in the same incident) seems to suggest that the CCW holders are better trained.
I think you grossly mischaracterize both the life experiences and firearms training and handling of the average CCW holder. Most people don't bother to get a CCW for fun, they have a good reason ... like they have a dangerous job or have to be in dangerous places and so they want the extra protection.
I would guess that the average CCW holder has at least as much range time as the average police officer. A very significant percentage of these people will visit the range on a regular basis AND a large number of they may actually compete competitively in matches which are designed to simulate various real-world situations.
Finally, I would also expect that the average CCW holder takes the reponsibility of carrying a weapon more seriously than the average police officer. As you point out, carrying a weapon is just another part of the police officer's job ... they take it for granted after a while whereas the CCW holder is constantly aware that carrying concealed is a privilege that has to be taken very seriously.
Who provides the training is irrelevant, actually. What is more relevant is the degree of attention and serious desire to focus on the training as it is being given. For the CCW holder this is a very important gate that they have to pass through to get to their goal. For the police officer it is just another part of the job after a while.
But if you want to consider who provides the trianing your assessment is probably correct that they are current or former law enforcement officers ... but they are not just any such officers they are the ones who care enough about the topic to be involved and participate as trainers. I would argue that these individuals will therefore know the material far better than the average officer, and hence will be in the best position to provide expert advice.
Produce some stats to back this up or it get filed under just so much hot air. This fact is far from obvious.
My point is not simply a quibble. My point is that these officers should not be discharging their weapons at all unless they actually SEE a weapon and it is being yielded against them. You don't kill someone on a hunch, or a guess, or a suspicion. You are only allowed to use deadly force when you are ACTUALLY under threat. They obviously weren't in this case as no weapon ... other than possibly the car ... was even in the possession of the people they were firing upon.
Every round that they fire is supposed to be specifically aimed and fired based on a continuing sense of a threat. It is simple not possible to take deliberate aim at a suspect and fire two clips of ammunition at them without noticing that they, in fact, DON'T actually have a weapon. That's not a quibble, it is a reality for anyone with any firearms training or experience.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
No, it just means that CCW holders aren't involved (in any kind of volume) in the kind of incidents that the police are. And when a non-law-enforcement CCW holder does intervene with a firearm in a third-party situation, they don't have any means for coordinating with their other fellow CCW holders, so it would usually just be a coincidence if two CCW holders responded to the same unexpected situation.
Where's your stats? You're the one who is assigning all these angelic qualities to CCW holders. The fact is, police come to the aid of third parties in highly charged situations all day long, thousands of times every day and night. I'd be surprised if CCW holders intevened in situations in which they weren't involved in even as much as 1% of the number of incidents that police respond to. I don't have the stats, but that's my best guess, just like your guess about the range time of CCW holders.
Sweeping generalizations, and probably not true even in the general sense. And if this were true, then we would expect that CCW holders to also become less serious about their training "after a while."
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bah.
You're the one making a specific claim regarding the characteristics of CCW holders, not me. I am merely pointing out (by way of alternative credible characterizations) that your claims are not obvious on their face and so you either need to back them up with some stats or they will be considered to be just so much hot air.
Not true. Police officers are assumed to be entitled to carry a weapon whereas Joe average citizen is not. Police officers are not required to regularly renew their application for the right to carry, CCW holders (depending on their jurisdiction) typically are.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All fine and good.
So then, being a fair person, consider carefully your following statement:
Does not every claim you make in these three paragraphs fit your definition of just so much hot air: "claims are not obvious on their face [that are not] back[ed] up with some stats.?"
I come forth with stats my share of the time, but the gun issue is your turf, you're the one who purports to be the expert on the issue, you're the one who ought to have the stats at his fingertips. I readily admit that my "hot air" is nothing more than a reasoned guess. But it's laughable to suggest that I'm the only one making unsupported claims here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You miss my point, not quite sure if you did so on purpose. :)
The statements you quote above are exactly what I was referring to in the underlined portion of this statement:
So I readily admit that I have not provided any stats for my counter characterizations. My point is that in the "just so much hot air" category we are now in a bit of a standoff. Since you were the one initiating a point based on "just so much hot air" if you want the point that you initiated to stand you need to provide some stats to back up your assertion (and thus prove that it is my assertion that is just so much hot air).
Failing to provide any proof of your assertion my counter assertion leaves your point effectively in limbo which sort of negates it as being proof of anything and, thereby, negating anything which is based upon it. Since this is sufficient to my purpose, and given that I doubt that you can provide any such stats, I defer to you to either back up your point with suitable stats or accept that it has been countered/negated. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You OPENED with hot air in this thread
Let's look at some of your claims in your comment which I replied with so much alleged hot air-- the comment which initiated this subthread:
This is precisely just so much hot air by your definition. You provide no evidence to support the "fast as they could" claim, even though the testimony and evidence presented in the case are public record. You draw no distinctions between the officers involved in the shooting, even though only one of them took over 60% of the total shots in the incident. You offer no support for the "firing blind" claim, even though both the prosecution and the defense presented evidence that sheds light on the individual point of views of each of the shooters.
Your "hot air" here preceded any of my hot air, and certainly is not your first issuance of hot air on this fine blog. Your denunciation of my hot air is therefore nothing more than another one of your mildly amusing but arbitrary red herrings, meant to divert attention away from the shortcomings of your own arguments.
BTW, not that this is a court of law, but I would remind you that in a criminal prosecution, it is the prosecution which has the burden of proof. The defense only has to show that that whatever evidence the prosecution has presented leaves a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendants. All I have said from the very beginning here is that none of the commenters has, IMO, made any convincing arument to show the guilt of the defendants based on the facts of the case. That is still the case, more than three days into this thread-- plenty of hand-waving, but no attempt to break the incident down man by man and see the facts from each officer's point of view. In a criminal case, an advocate for the defense can get away with only issuing just so much hot air, if the prosecution isn't making a case for guilt. The prosecution clearly has to do more than issue just so much hot air in every case-- they actually have to prove something.
You guys who think these officers ought to hang don't even have to prove anything yourself-- you can merely present the most compelling elements of the prosecution's case which you felt proved guilt for each of the officers. But the only thing you've presented so far is that 50 shots total were taken, and one of the officers reloaded, and the suspects turned out to be unarmed. Well, that's not nearly enough to convict in my opinion. I could easily construct a hypothetical situation with those facts where the officers were perfectly innocent of any crime.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
More or less, I agree with
More or less, I agree with GoRight on this issue
How about this, skymutt:
"They were obviously just firing blind [nearly] as fast as they could."
All the shots came from one direction, correct? No crossfire? No shots for the officers to dodge, just firing and one of them reloading and firing again.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Shots came from diferent directions
They definitely weren't shooting all from the same direction. Some of the officers were on foot in various positions around the vehicle, and some were in the van that got rammed in front of the vehicle. I do not know what evidence was given by the defense in court, but I do know that in news reports at least some officers were defending the shots taken in this case based on the fact that shots that went thru the vehicle from various angles led them to believe that they were being fired on from inside the vehicle. Officer Carey (not charged), whose testimony I read, took three shots from the van at the front passenger, but stopped shooting because Detective Isnora, who was on foot on the passenger side of the vehicle, was waking into his line of fire.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Is this an exercise in debate or an attempt to
ascertain the truth?
You provide no evidence to support the "fast as they could" claim
This is the police line; the defense witnesses testified that the shooting happened very quickly. The defense expert testified that he shot 31x in 12+ seconds, although he had to exert significant effort to squeeze the trigger so many times in succession.
the only thing you've presented so far is that 50 shots total were taken, and one of the officers reloaded, and the suspects turned out to be unarmed.
How many shots would you, in your expert opinion and based on your familarity with the firearms in question, consider excessive? How many reloadings is too many? (Might it not be the case that GoRight knows more about this particular topic than you do?)
I could easily construct a hypothetical situation with those facts where the officers were perfectly innocent of any crime.
But we're not dealing with a hypothetical. The facts of the case are well established.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Attempts to acertain the truth would be refreshing
All fine and good. Go Right didn't know this at the time he made the comment. We found out later that he had no idea how many officers were involved, or how many shots each took-- basic facts of the case. Not that I knew all of the facts of the case either, or do now-- I don't-- but then again I'm not the one claiming that this judge's decision was such a travesty.
I'm not familiar with firearms at all. I'm quite sure that GoRight knows orders of magnitude more about the weapons that were used by the officers in the case than I do. But he has not demonstrated that he is aware of what particular weapons were used by the officers in this case, nor do I think he has knowledge to this very point of even more pertinent facts like where the officers were positioned around the vehicle and the evidence presented as to the timing and circumstances of each officer's shots. I've at least read Officer Carey's testimony, which gives a picture of his view of things and sheds light on his shots and to a lesser extent Detective Isnora's. So it's not like I've just sat back lazily and counterpunched here without going out on my own and learning some stuff about the case. But I think you're the only other one who has demonstrated any interest in going out and learning more of the details of the case. You've posted several nuggest of info. You posted the link to Officer Carey's testimony. Well, I read it. Who else has done the same? Yet I'm the one that is taking this case "cavalierly", according to some.
All fine and good, and there probably is a wealth of information available on the case to those who are interested. Unfortunately, those facts have not made their way into the arguments of my opponents for the most part... you being the exception, but even there I do not think that you have drawn the facts you have presented into a convincing argument for guilt for any of the officers. I have no reason to believe that any of the other bloviators in this thread have anything but the most superficial grasp of the events of that night.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
We already have all the facts required to convict on ...
a charge of manslaughter IMHO, for those officers who fired a significant number of rounds (let's say more than 2).
Fact 1: The officers fired a significant number of rounds (2 clips in one case).
Fact 2: The officers could not possibly have confirmed an actual threat.
Firing two clips of ammunition without having confirmed a threat is reckless. Period. Taking such a reckless action justifies a conviction on manslaughter.
All of the rest of this discussion is actually just smokescreen from the defense.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let's not forget the other facts of the case
The vehicle was arguably being used as a deadly weapon. It would be arguably justified for an officer to shoot at the driver if he reasonably believed the vehicle was an imminent and deadly threat to himself or other officers.
Officers were at various positions around the vehicle. Crossfire could have led officers to believe that shots were coming from within the vehicle, when in fact they were actually coming thru the vehicle. It would arguably be justified for officers to take shots at a target in the vehcle, if he believed that the target within the vehicle was shooting at him or others.
Detective Isnora had screamed "he's got a gun", and began shooting at the front passenger. In such a circumstance, it seems reasonable for other officers to also shoot at the front passenger, if they can ascertain who Isnora was shooting at and can see that individual but not the weapon, in order to protect Detective Isnora. Note that the grand jury did not even indict Officer Carey under those exact circumstances-- they concluded, as I have, that even though he did not see the weapon, his shots were not reckless. I believe that your requirement and definition of "confirmed threat" is some understanding you have gathered out of some weapons training you have received and probably has no legal basis.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Only up to the point ...
where it came to a stop after crashing into the minivan. At that point it was no longer a threat and the officers had a duty to halt their fire.
If the officers in question cannot distinguish weapons in the hands of other officers who are OUTSIDE the vehicle from weapons (or more importantly the lack thereof) in the hands of the suspects who are INSIDE the vehicle they have no business firing a weapon at all. I don't accept that this is a valid scenario that can justify these actions
This does not absolve the other officers of their responsibility to personally assess the potential threat BEFORE firing. I have allowed the split second nature of this circumstance as justifying up to 2 rounds, but nowhere near 11 or 31. By the time they fire 2 rounds at an explicitly directed target they should have had sufficient time to at least question whether there is truly a threat.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Regarding the vehicle
I want to repeat what I said above, which is that the (unmarked police) minivan was deliberately positioned in the flight path of the Altima.
However, regardless of that, the NYPD guidelines
* for use of deadly force specify that
* 2004 edition, patrol guide -- if this information is out of date or does not apply to these officers please correct. Edit: this link
seems to suggest the information was current at least at the time of the shooting and does indeed apply.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Exactly correct.
If the suspect is running (or driving) away your claim of a credible threat goes away and you are obligated to halt firing. You can only fire in the face of an on-going credible threat.
UPDATE:
Having read the NYPD guidelines you link to above, they are completely in line with everything I have said ... but of course I knew that they would be. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All fine and good
Nobody has actually produced any evidence here that anybody shot at the driver to stop the vehicle from being used as a weapon anyway.
And, being guidelines and not laws, is it a crime in itself to act counter to these guidelines?
Let's look at the definitions of "guidelines", as found by Google:
If we hold police to the "same standards" as everyone else, as GoRight has suggested in other contexts, then violating a work guideline certainly might be grounds for work discipline, such as firing, suspension, demotion, or reprimand, but and could be grounds for a crime like manslaughter, but not necessarily. Just because a extra-legal workplace guideline has been violated does not mean that a crime has been committed. I will tell you right off the bat that I would not vote to convict an officer for manslaughter in certain circumstances for shooting at the driver in a moving vehicle that was being used as a deadly weapon, regardless of the guideline, unless I was instructed that breaking the guideline= breaking the law.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I genuinely don't understand
what you're trying to establish anymore.
Nobody has actually produced any evidence here that anybody shot at the driver to stop the vehicle from being used as a weapon anyway.
Nobody has produced evidence to corroborate *your* argument as to why shooting under such circumstances might be justified, you mean? You just said one post above that The vehicle was arguably being used as a deadly weapon. It would be arguably justified for an officer to shoot at the driver if he reasonably believed the vehicle was an imminent and deadly threat to himself or other officers.
Can you just clarify for me whether you think the car was used as a deadly weapon in this case, and if so against whom?
As an aside, I think several of us have become mini-experts on this case by now -- I wonder if we could work a formal debate out of it sometime later in the week. Anybody interested?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Here's what I'm trying to establish:
I'm trying to establish that unless you've eliminated all reasonable justifications for using deadly force which could have existed on that night, there could be reasonable doubt of guilt for manslaugher. It's really irrelevant to my argument whether the car actually was used as a deadly weapon, or whether shooting at a car in such a case is recommended under police guidelines; my point is that if you haven't examined the facts of the case and excluded these kind of extenuating circumstances as justifications yet you pronounce the officers guilty, you are prejudging the case.
I have not ruled out to this point that the car was used as a deadly weapon against officers on foot and in the van at some point in time. It was testified by officer Carey that the car was accelerating as fast as it could both when it hit officer Isnora on foot and when it hit the police van with officers inside, injuring officer Carey who had the door open and IIRC had his leg out of the vehicle. From Carey's testimony, I would say that it appears that the driver in the Altima had gross disregard for the lives of the officers at the scene at minimum, and it may have been reasonable at some point in time for an officer to believe that the car was being used as a deadly weapon against themselves and others. But I obvously haven't seen all testimony in the case, and there were no doubt other witnesses who testified about the Altima. I agree that there's absolutely no justification in shooting the driver on the basis of the car being used as a weapon after it crashed into the van.
Possibly. On the one hand, we've been going at this for a few days now and it seems we are approaching a natural point for wrapping up the conversation and moving on. But on the other hand, I still believe that there could be grounds for further discussion in examining the actions of individual officers based on testimony in the case, which we really have not done here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The car moved, according to Isnora himself, a whole
foot from rest before striking him. His Grand Jury testimony is linked from this article
. Page 67:
I agree that there's absolutely no justification in shooting the driver on the basis of the car being used as a weapon after it crashed into the van. From page 73:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But Isnora was shooting at the passneger, not the driver:
Guzman is the front passenger. So we can't convict Isnora on the basis for shooting at the driver of a vehicle that's already stopped, based on his grqand jury testimony.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ok...
Guzman is the front passenger. So we can't convict Isnora on the basis for shooting at the driver of a vehicle that's already stopped, based on his grqand jury testimony.
Yes but none of the officers were charged with "shooting at the driver of a car that's already stopped." The issue throughout* has been whether a claimed "sudden move" in this case was sufficient justification to fire -- see the initial post.
Is this just a fancy way of saying that you are now discarding the possibility (which you appeared to raise earlier) that the actions of the car could provide reasonable justification for the use of deadly force? Because as my posts would suggest I would agree with such a conclusion, anyway =)
* Edit: for Isnora. For Oliver my issue is him shooting two full clips without seeing any specific threat. Admittedly I haven't always been clear to distinguish between the actions of the two when describing the overall incident, as you've fairly noted.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obviously not.
Nor has anyone claimed that it would be. A strawman of sorts on your part, I guess. :)
But here are a couple of question for you to ponder here:
(a) Why did the NYPD even bother to come up with guidelines?
(b) Would the NYPD guidelines be designed to keep the officers within the law or not?
I would argue that the NYPD created these guidelines to (1) first and foremost protect the department from lawsuits, and (2) protect the officers involved from lawsuits.
Given this, straying outside the guidelines may not in and of itself constitute a violation of the law but doing so clearly puts you into the area that the NYPD felt you were beginning to be on thin ice from a legal perspective. Right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Agreed
Except for the strawman part. I would only call a strawman on a rhetorical question like that if there was some aggravating circumstance, usually sarcasm or hyperbole, or the use of the second person, which indicated that the opponent in the argument had somehow made the argument in the question thru statement or implication. My question is merely a rhetorical question to emphasize a particular point which I wanted to make. Contrast this to when I called a strawman on you in this thread, where i felt you used hyperbole in the form of a false dichotomy by using the words "complete pass" to encompass all outcomes except conviction on criminal charges, and that the hyperbole was used in such a way as to assign that argument to me. It was not the most blatant strawman ever, and perhaps I should have simply called it a false dichotomy and left it at that.
But yeah, operate outside published guidelines for using deadly force, and I think you're on thin ice legally.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Also, I keep coming back to one of my main themes
...which is the "lumping" of all the officers as to guilt. Only one of the officer reloaded and fired two clips of ammunition. You say here that firing two clips of ammunition without having "confirmed a threat" is reckless on its face. Well, I don't quite agree and think that you still must examine the circumstances in which the officer took those shots, but just for the sake of argument, let's say that shooting two clips at an unarmed suspect is evidence of recklessness on its face. On what basis are you going all the way down to three shots in convicting on the manslaughter charge merely on the basis of how many shots they took? Why is three shots reckless? You don't say. And if 3 shots is egregious and reckless in all cases where the suspect turns out to be unarmed, why do you consistenly have to resort to talking about the officer who "reloaded" and "emptied two clips", thereby using those facts to besmirch the other "yahoos" involved? It seems that if you're going to say that 3 or more shots is manslaughter on its face, you should be arguing about the guilt of the officer who did only take three shots and why he is guilty, and not about the guy who took 31 shots.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yes, you do ...
But what part of this post did you find confusing?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It was only lip service on your part, it appears
You haven't examined the indiviuals' actions in this case, and you haven't judged those actions independently. Instead, you have continued to lump them all after you made that statement, and judge them guilty. In fact, you have so failed to distinguish between the individuals in this case that I have no idea which of them you think are guilty at this point. At one point, you said that everyone who took three or more shots were guilty on that fact alone. Then, you said that you were okay with the prosecutor's decision to let the ones who took 3 and 4 shots off easy-- a flip-flop that John Kerry would be proud of. Well, here's a novel idea: instead of flipping a coin to decide some arbitrary number of shots which determines the dividing line between 25 years in the pen and walking free, how about examining individuals' actions and judging them independently?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't have to assess their actions independently ...
I am articulating the parameters and guidelines that, IMHO, determine who falls within reasonable doubt and who does not. So, given my statements any officers who fall within the reasonable doubt category get a pass, those who don't pay their debt to society.
Thus far my analysis and statements seem to be spot on with respect to who was charged vs. not. So under the constraints where I indicate conviction is justified, only those officers who fit my criteria are actually included in my assertion of guilt vs. innocence.
Given this, anyone who fired more than 4 shots (on the outside) or more appropriately 2 shots (by my personal standard) should have been tried. As it turns out, given the 4 shot standard above the officer who happened to fire that many shots was only charged with a lesser crime compared to those that exceeded the 4 shot "allowance".
As stated elsewhere in this thread, the 2 and/or 4 shots is NOT an arbitrary number but is, in fact, a reasoned value based on reasonable rates of fire (no greater than 2 per second) and reasonable allowances for reaction times (1-2 seconds).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am articulating the
Of course at first you didn't even know how many shots each of the officers took or which officers were standing trial for what charges, yet you were willing to lump them all as "these yahoos", with the implication that they were all equally guilty if they took any shots at an unarmed man. There was no indication at the start of this thread that anyone here would have cleared any officer of manslaughter in this case, even if they only took one shot; it is only after my prodding that you've even bothered to look into the bare minimum of facts in the case. It is only after my repeated prodding that you have developed this "split second" defense, which would tend to clear some of the officers involved. Note that it is your conjecture that those who took fewer shots were "given a pass" by the prosecutor because they were clearly innocent by this "split second" defense (which would apparently allow 3 but not 4 shots), whereas I think it's very likely that they were given a pass at least partially because if they weren't on trial they could be forced to testify in the trial of the other shooters.
You picked an arbitrary number of shots (2) as a standard for the split-second defense, then modified that up to 4 shots to fit the facts of the case. You learned who was charged in the case and how many shots they took, and then crafted some "analysis" to fit those charges.
Again, your criteria came only after my prodding, days into the discussion, and were modified to fit the charges in the case. At the beginning of the thread, there was no indication that you or anyone else in this thread thought that any shots could have been justified, since the suspects were unarmed. The standard you were stating at that time was "confirmed threat", which seemed to involve actually seeing a weapon; any shots taken without seeing the weapon meant guilt for manslaughter. So i sense movement in your position here in this "split second" argument.
And who among us is suggesting that they should not have been tried? Certainly not me; I have not suggested any such thing.
All fine and good, but again, I must point out that your allowance of "split secnd" shots in some cases when by your initial standard there is no "confirmed threat" represents movement in your position.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Listen dufus ...
I am not making any of this up as I go along. My statements from the very beginning have been based on the law. All of my statements had, even if your ignorance of the law failed to allow you to discern them, the basic elements of everything that has come out in this thread (which, BTW, has only had to be expressed as a matter of enlightening you regarding the law). I knew all of these things from the very beginning.
My mistake, apparantly, was assuming that all of the details which were expressed subsequently to my initial comment were not already common knowledge to the likes of you.
You may think that you have somehow argued me into a position where I had to later look up the facts of the case but I didn't. And I still don't. The facts I set forth in my initial comment are the only relevant facts under the law. The shear quantity of rounds fired told me all I needed to know to assess the guilt of anyone who fired that many shots, and as I have subsequently detailed (by way of explaining my initial position and nothing more) my initial position is still born out under the closer scrutiny you requested.
Whether I called people out individually or lumped them together initially is not even a salient point. I have subsequently clarified my meaning. Excuse me for not being clairvoyant enough to anticipate the hairs you would choose to split.
Even so, I can argue that you are distorting even those facts as my initial statement could only have been interpretted as having applied to those who were actually tried. I never gave any indication that my statement expanded beyond that group. So the only individual I have supposedly wrongly lumped in here is the guy who shot 4 rounds. The others were never even part of the initial discussion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4BS
You said this early in the discussion:
But later, you came up with the "split second" defense:
The first statement says that the police HAVE to see a weapon as a precondition for firing-- to shoot without seeing a weapon indicated recklessness, and by extension, manslaughter. The second quote, given later, seemingly carves out an exception to what you had formerly expressed as a hard-and-fast rule.
A shift in position, if not a full-on flip-flop. Also, at first you were talking about how police are to be held to the exact same standards as any average citizen with regard to when they could justify firing a weapon, and now you're saying that police deserve some deference in some "split second" cases. More movement in your position.
So, you can take your "dufus" BS and shove it :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Let me summarize my position one last time ...
This statement is based on the law and this is the actual standard that counts from a legal perspective. If you only wish to talk strict legal interpretation that is the correct one.
Based on this standard alone ALL of the officers who fired are guilty of manslaughter under the law, regardless of the number of rounds because they simply could NOT have identified a valid threat since there was no weapon.
Any other interpretation you may think that I put forth was merely a miscommunication or a fabrication on your part.
The "split second defense" has no legal basis whatsoever. There is no statute that allows for a "split second defense", as I stated. The only applicability for this is in the context of juries giving the police the benefit of the doubt for the initial shots fired when they have reason to believe that they are in an imminent threat of death.
The fact that the prosecutor chose not to charge people who shot fewer than 4 rounds reflects their recognition of this reality, IMHO, but this is by no means a statement of fact on my part ... merely an educated guess based on familiarity with the topic.
These statements are not meant to be alternatives, so they cannot be viewed as flip flops on my part. The first states the law, the second recognizes the reality of the jury system as well as recognizing that the police are in a unique situation which warrants latitude be given in certain instances. A position that you, yourself, expressed. I am merely agreing with you on that point and expressing what the typical degree of latitude actually is ... or should be ... as the case may be.
In these cases I am not arguing anything. I am merely stating the realities of how the law and the jury system operate in common practice as I see them within the context of cases such as this.
Any other interpretation you may think that I put forth was merely a miscommunication or a fabrication on your part.
I am saying that legally the police ARE held to the exact same standards as any average citizen in the sense that there are no special allowances written into the law which allow the police to shoot people in situtations where an ordinary citizen is NOT allowed to act comparably.
I am saying that is a practical sense in the context of a jury, that even though the law itself does not provide for any special latitude on the part of the officers that juries often do.
Neither of these two statements has anything to do with my personal opinions, however I have further stated specifically that my personal opinion is that the officers should be given latitude in specific circumstances owing primarily to the nature of their jobs. This is a position that you, yourself, have arguing in favor of and I am merely stating that I agree in principle and that the criteria I would apply are as stated in this thread.
Any other interpretation you may think that I put forth was merely a miscommunication or a fabrication on your part.
And you are being a dufus here ... dufus.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Chapter and verse, please.
Let's have the chapter and verse of the law, counselor, that proves seeing a weapon and belief of intent that it is going to be fired to be the "actual standard that counts from a legal perspective"-- lest you once again be accused of issuing just so much hot air.
Well, let's have the relevant statutes, counselor, since you know the law so well! Educate me, please! Or is all this just smoke-- some fourth-hand legal wisdom perhaps exchanged over a display case at a gun show?
Shove it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Not that I haven't given you enough free education already ...
First let me make the following point:
"Based on" does not equate to "is an articulation of". So in the same sense that the NYPD Guidelines are "based on" the law, so is my original statement. It is a summarization of countless court cases and legal proceeding boiled down into a single simple statment that draws a clear line through a grey area.
This google search
turned up the following 
(see first item in the list) discussion of the topic (which is based on Connecticut law and the details varies somewhat from state to state but this is pretty representative):
This pretty much aligns with my one sentence summary. Just like the NYPD guidelines, my statement is based on the concept of drawing a line between the solid and the thin ice. Stay consistent with my statement and you have a solid case. Stray from it and you are on thin ice.
So let us review some of the key statements made above ...
The key word here is "imminent". Review the other references in the google search if you think I may be cherry picking here. Some states have laws requiring you to make an attempt to retreat BEFORE using deadly force. Others do not or are changing that (see Florida news, I don't have the URL handy).
So, if you can't even see a weapon it will be difficult for you to make the case that the threat was "imminent". You may get lucky, you may not. It all comes down to the whim of the judge and jury as to whether you are credible. So my advice? Don't take the chance. Make sure you see the weapon before you fire.
So in other words, there is no clear cut definition in the law. There is no mechanical process by which to make the call.
Given that, my best advice (and the advice likely to be given in CCW training) based on the law is to make sure that you actually see the weapon before your fire ... otherwise you are on thin ice with respect to the "reasonableness test". If you actually see the weapon your judgement cannot be construed as NOT being "objectively reasonable". Anything less and you are on thin ice with respect to "objectively reasonable".
On the "split second defense" part of my previous discussion, note that the Supreme Court indicates that “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
This is basically consistent with what I said. There is no statute that discusses the "split second defense" but rather allowance must be made in that respect (by the prosecutor? by the jury?) in the case of police officers.
OK, there's my backup material for my statements. Knock yourself out if you want to read through the other references available via the provided google search.
Now please provide some material to demonstrate that in a court of law:
(1) I heard a verbal threat and a vague reference to "getting a gun" (which actually suggests that the suspect was unarmed), and
(2) I heard someone shout "he's (singler) got a gun"
should be considered "objectively reasonable" justification for firing on anyone in a car containing three people when you, yourself, cannot see the weapon?
Stick it where the sun don't shine, dufus! Oh, and I mean dufus in the nicest possible way, of course. :)
(We're kidding around here, right?)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Thanks for looking into the law on this
...but you do realize that your source completely contradicts you on the points I was challenging you on, right?
1. Your source says that the "split second" defense is a legal standard, ruled upon by the Supreme Court, which has said that "allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments". Earlier, you had said this:
Well, obviously that's not true: the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue, certainly giving the split-second defense a legal basis, and moreover it has said that the split-second issue MUST be considered.
2. On the other hand, you had said that seeing the weapon WAS a legal standard, and yet your source indicates it is not, and moreover, it indicates that the court has ruled out such a standard:
"Precise definitions" or "mechanical applications" would include such possible standards as total number of shots taken, the time it took to take those shots, the fact that an officer reloaded, the fact that there was no weapon, the fact that the officer did not see a weapon, the fact that the suspect did not have a weapon, and so forth. The Supreme Court is saying in essence that you can't cherry-pick a certain mechanical circumstance of the event and conclude that that mechanical circumstance indicates guilt on its face.
So when you said:
you were again exactly wrong, and what's more, the Supreme Court has ruled out any such standard in determining reasonableness. Instead, the legal standard is that you MUST examine the situation as a whole from the point of view of the officer, which is what I have been arguing for all along, even though I was unaware that the Supreme Court has ruled that you HAVE to do this.
Anyway, kudos to you for actually digging up relevant legal info. I only meant "shove it" in the nicest possible way before :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bah.
No it doesn't, you just think it does.
I guess this depends on what one means by "legal basis" as opposed to "legal standard". Oh wait, I clarified my meaning in the actual statement ...
Supreme court rulings are not statutes. As I used the term above the "legal basis" for something derives from a statute and nothing else.
This ruling by the supreme court is merely an affirmation that what I said was accurate ... in deference to the circumstances police are put in that juries and the courts can and should take the split second decision making into account. This is not inconsistent with what I said since the court does NOT site any relevant statute as the basis for this ruling. The court merely affirms that taking such considerations into account is reasonable and therefore should be considered valid.
This ruling IS, however, inconsistent with your claim that I somehow dreamed it all up.
No I didn't. Your selective parsing and reading merely indicates a miscommunication on our part. I acknowledge that I may not have been as clear as I could have been, so allow me to clarify. My original statement was:
I then stated:
A clarified wording of this latter statement would be:
This is what I meant. Take it or leave it.
Your assertion is incorrect given the definition of "legal basis" that I was obviously using in my statements.
In the end any application of this defense falls to the jury (in the case of a jury trial) which is exactly where I said it rested, or the court itself in a case such as this where the dependents waived the right of a jury trial (which case I never addressed in my statements).
Any relief under this principle all comes down to what is
reasonable in the judgment of either the jury or the court.
Lacking any objective assessment of the reasonableness of the "split-second defense" this interpretation would be meaningless as it would amount to Carte Blanche for the police to do anything simply by claiming that they had to make a split second decision.
My analysis of the implications of the split second principle which arrived at the conclusion that a range of 2 to 4 rounds fired based strictly on split second decision making was an attempt to determine what would be reasonable. This analysis is not an attempt to establish are hard and fast rule or standard to be applied in all cases, although the reasoning would certainly be applicable in other cases, but is in point of fact merely my attempt to quantify the facts in order to more fairly determine the reasonable parameters which should be applied relative to our consideration of the split second principle at play in this context.
My intial claim of only 2 rounds as being reasonable and later accepting the judges apparant decision that 4 rounds was reasonable clearly demonstrates that I am NOT attempting to establish a hard and fast rule here as you seem to believe. That which you term a flip flop is, in fact, merely the proper application of the recognition that no such hard and fast line exists coupled with the equally valid recognition that making split second decisions is NOT Carte Blanche for ongoing actions which occur long after the decisions had to be made.
My analysis and application of the split second principle in this case is completely consitent with the meaning and intent of the Supreme Court's ruling. If you feel that you have somehow cornered me on a technicality in my use of the terms "legal basis", "legal standard", or whatever then fine, I concede that I may have misspoken since it matters not. If you feel that the substance of my claims and assertions are at odds with the acutal meaning, intent, and practice as applied by the courts in cases such as this then I must respectfully disagree. Nothing I have told you is substantively at odds with how these cases are tried or ruled upon.
Well duh. Where did I ever say that these people shouldn't have had their circumstances examined? They clearly should and that is the responsiblity of the judge and jury, not mine in this case.
My point all along is that the fact that they fired 50 rounds in a time span measured in seconds when they hadn't even seen a weapon means that they had to have been reckless. There are no circumstances (I think I actually said that) that could possibly justify such an occurrence. Does that mean that I think that these are the only facts which should be presented to and considered by the judge and jury? Umm, NO.
But as we have seen my initial assessment has proven correct, at least in my opinion. There is no way that Isnora or Oliver should have fired that many rounds in the short time that they did when they obviously never observed a weapon. In my estimatation of reasonable, this will cross the line every time.
I have waded through all of this crap (something I was trying to avoid) and in the end I found exactly what I expected (which had prompted me to jump to the bottom line in my original statement) and my conclusion, therefore, remains unchanged.
Just because I dug it up doesn't mean that I didn't know all of this BEFORE this thread even started. I did. Similarly the fact that I haven't stated every possible circumstance and occurence or intepretation UP FRONT, does not mean that if I later address any point which had not been initially covered in response to a more detailed point raised by you after the fact DOES NOT mean that I am changing my position or flip flopping.
And just for the record, I continue to disagree with your attempt here at spinning this to somehow fit your own side of the argument. If what you were arguing all along is that the principle of a "split second defense" is reasonable and that it exists within the context of court proceedings as a matter of course, well then we are in agreement. If you were arguing anything else, well then you were wrong.
Let us revisit a couple of your statements from a previous post:
Look, legally you are REQUIRED to have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat to you or someone else prior to using lethal force. Can we please agree on that?
My statement is merely articulating a guideline or rule that shooters are strongly advised to adhere to based upon that legal requirement. Failing to do so will leave you open to the whim of the judge and/or jury as to whether you acted reasonably.
My statement is merely articulating that in most people's minds actually observing a weapon, having it pointed at you or someone else, and the suspect having their finger on the trigger goes a long way towards having your actions judged reasonable. Anything short of that and you are on thin ice from a legal perspective.
Gun not pointed at anyone? Lawyer argues no imminent threat. Finger not on the trigger? Lawyer argues no imminent threat. These are actual viable positions that could be argued in court and the outcome would be uncertain.
So letting the lawyer argue "the suspects hadn't done anything illegal (as applies in this case), the officer affirmatively had evidence to believe that the suspect was UNARMED (i.e. go get my gun) before entering the vehicle, no actual reason to believe that there was ever a gun in the vehicle (as applies in this case) and that prior to the shooting the officer can't even legitimately claim to have seen a weapon" seems ludicrous to me on it's face. I mean it's just laughably ridiculous to call that an "objectively reasonable" belief that a threat existed AND it was imminent.
Isnora somehow convinced himself (but by no reasonable means that I can see) that Guzman was armed and he panicked. But in the end his actions resulted in the death of Bell and should be held accountable, IMHO.
I haven't carved out anything. The "split second defense" is not a fabrication of mine. It is a legally recognized court precedent (which has no legal basis in the sense that there is no statute that codifies it). I am merely raising it to fill in the gaps in YOUR knowlege. The fact that I didn't mention it initially doesn't alter the fact that it is what it is nor is it an indicator that I have somehow flip flopped since its existence predated this thread.
Have I in any way mistated or misrepresented the substantive purpose or intent of this principle?
Excuse me for informing you of the legal realities as the dicussion evolved. I hereby claim that every claim or fact that you have introduced into this thread subsequent to your initial post constitutes "movement" on your part since, well, you hadn't stated it all up front. Ergo you must be making things up as you go along per you logic above.
Finally, I notice that you completely dodge MY request so I will hereby renew it:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You can run but you can't hide
How is the standard of "You actually HAVE to have SEEN the weapon AND you have to have reason
to believe that they INTEND to fire it before you could shoot" based on or derived from statute, in a way that the "split second defense" could not be said to have been based on or derived from statute?
Look at what you said in a previous post:
So by extension, you are saying here is that a statement that summarizes the results of countless court cases and legal proceedings can be said to have "legal basis" or be "based on the law" or be "based on or derived from statute."
But you said that the "split second defense had no legal basis whatsoever" when in fact it too summarizes the outcomes of countless court cases and legal proceedings and even has the added benefit of an affirmation by the Supreme Court!
So now you either must admit that the "split second defense" has "legal basis" due to the court cases which have affirmed the concept, or admit that your standard (having seen a weapon and having belief that they intend to fire it) does not have "legal basis". Your choice, counselor.
And this "clarification" I just simply do not buy:
I'm calling BS on your "clarification" of the word "this" which I bolded. By "this", you did not mean "the law or statutes that codify [my statement]". I wasn't born yesterday, sir. By "this" you were referring to your statement which, according to you, was the "actual standard that counts from a legal perspective". No way would you have structured the sentence the way that you did if you meant otherwise. You're asking me to buy the fact that 1). my interpretation, which makes perfect sense based on the structure of your sentence, is wrong; 2) you wrote a sentence that was grammatically incorrect in a way that is very untypical of your writing; 3) you wrote a sentence in a way that was grammatically incorrect but in such a way that it made perfect sense, just not in the way that you intended, and 4.) that you would ever bother to make the point you now claim you were making in the first place, given that it would be a tautology-- you're claiming that you meant to say that "the law is the legal standard".
The law is what it is. I agee that this is a common sense statement, but the law has particular meanings for terms like "reasonable" and I'm not sure if we've covered enough ground here to establish that if your belief was not reasonable, you would have violated criminal law and committed manslaughter, which would require gross negligence, or whether you you would have just committed negligence.
LOL. You are learning as much as I am as we go along here. It's just that I'm the only one not acting like all these detailed legal concepts are old news to me.
I might have given you a pass on your armchair lawyering here, except for the now infamous "just so much hot air" comment you made the other day-- after that, I unofficially declared "open season" on any questionable unsourced future claims you made for an indefinite amount of time. (probably until this thread dies.)
I would like to humor you on this, since you've responded at some lenght to my posts, but I really can't answer yes or no to this, because it depends what led up to this, and what the point of view of the shooter was at the time of the shooting. I believe that these oversimplified hypotheticals represent "mechanical applications", and like the supreme court has ruled, the concept of reasonableness just does not lend itself to these kinds of simplifications. You have to take into account the whole story, and I don't think your story satisfactorily summarizes the point of view of any of the officers in this or any other case.
Besides, in a criminal court, the defendants would not have to show that their actions were objectively reasonable. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove recklessness or some other factor which constitutes manslaughter under the law.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Don't flatter yourself.
I know what I know far better than you.
As expected. Enough said.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Did I not already answer several hypotheticals upthread?
Yes I believe I did. And it didn't get us very far. How many hyothetical scenarios am I supposed to respond to, before it becomes unreasonable? 11? 31?
Don't make me laugh, counselor. We both know the other is not a lawyer. I might have given you the nod as far as authority regarding the legal aspects of this early on, but it has become clear to me that your understanding of the legal aspects of the issue was polluted with misconceptions, perhaps a worse starting point than my relatively blank slate.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
These are not hypotheticals.
They directly apply to this case.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So did the other hypotheticals, supposedly
I disagreed, because they did not encompass the totality of the situation. Later it was learned that my view on the weakness of these simple hypotheticals was supported by no lesser authority than the Supreme Court, which has ruled that "[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at
the scene.” If there is no well-formed scene given but rather a overly simplified hypothetical, how can I make a yes or no judgment in any but the most trivially obvious cases?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Duh.
The "scene", obviously, is the totality of this case. Pick and choose whatever you want from the facts in making your determination of whether the officer's actions were "objectively reasonable" (which comes from the same passage as your quote).
I have included what I believe are the relevent facts from this specific case which are required in order to assess whether the officer's actions were "objectively reasonable". Feel free to supplement my list with any that you want (from this specific case) but be prepared to justify, as I have, how the facts you are introducing are relevent to that determination.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4More learning ...
Well I have a bit of a conundrum here. I can bother to go dig up the material to demonstrate what I know to be true, but when it shows that I was right you will just claim that I didn't know it in the first place and somehow "learned it" as part of my demonstrating I was right.
Under these circumstances, why should I bother?
The fact that I can't just construct full fledged legal briefs with references to supporting material in a blog post off the top of my head doesn't mean that I don't know what I know. Do you honestly believe that this is the first time I have ever dug into these topics?
No lawyer ever works off the top of their head, so why should I exactly?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No need for a conundrum
I didn't ask you to bother. You asked a question and I answered it. Respond as you see fit.
Only problem is, when you started expressing in words what you knew you knew about the law, incontrovertible fact from rock-solid sources began to contradict what you thought you knew. A good example of this is included in the first half of my previous post-- the part you haven't responded to yet. If you are conflicted about bothering to respond to other parts of my post, why not respond to the first half of my post instead.
If you say you have, I have no reason not to believe you, but those previous forays into the subject matter have evidently left you with serious misconceptions about the legal aspects of the issue.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Hardly ...
You are arguing irrelevant terminology (i.e. whether "legal basis" is the proper way to describe one versus the other of my two points) which I have already conceded since such a discussion is, obviously, pointless to the topic at hand.
The fundamental questions are:
My answers are:
And yours are?
------------------------------------------------------
* The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively
reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them
“(Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 396, 397 (1989)).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Does the "split second
The split second defense does exist.
Not you did not, but you did undermine it by implying that it was an extra-legal phenomenon of juries with no legal standing, when in fact the Supreme Court has ratified the spli-second defense.
Yes, that is the Connecticut standard... since then, Brendan was kind enough to track down similar information on New York.
In most practical situations, yes, assuming that other aspects of the manslaughter law were not violated. It would be possible to sucker a person with a weapon into drawing a weapon with intent to use it, like in the old cowboy movies-- that would not be a justified use of force. Also, if I see a person with a weapon and intent to use, and I believe that their use of the weapon is justified, I can't shoot them.
Of course, not having seen a weapon does not exclude a shooting from also falling into the objectively reasonable category.
No. If I have reason to believe that a person is unarmed and that they are not therefore a deadly threat to anyone, then shooting them is not objectively reasonable.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well, then on the substance we are mostly agreed.
Some additional points then:
I accept that you may have misunderstood my intent based on my original statment. Given your expanded definition (relative to mine) of "legal basis", I concur.
How ever we wish to split the definitions of "legal basis" in this discussion, then, it does not alter the substance of my prior points where I discussed the principle of the "split second defense". The "split second defense" exists and its reasonable application is judged primarily by juries in the case of jury trials, or by a trial judge in the case of trials with no jury such as this one.
Agreed?
The "objectively reasonable" criteria is actually a federal standard based on federal case law and federal court rulings and is derived from (i.e. its legal basis is) the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. As such, it is NOT limited only to Connecticut but is, in fact, applicable in all the states.
Agreed?
And consistent with the principle that the states are barred from passing laws which conflict with federal law (i.e. that federal law trumps state law in areas where federal law has a proper jursidiction) New York state law cannot require a TIGHTER set of criteria for establishing justifiability (i.e. if "objectively reasonable" is sufficient for establishing justification at the national level it must also be sufficient at the state level).
Agreed?
I disagree with this interpretation of the law, although I agree with your intent. Even if you provoke someone (barring phsyical assault, obviously) if they draw a weapon AND clearly intend to do you bodily harm you are still justified in defending yourself.
Agreed?
An interesting point, but one would have to ask why you would shoot such a person in the first place. Agreed?
Conversely, if I observe a person with a weapon and the intent to use it AND I am in any way unclear as to whether their actions would be justified then I have an obligation to hold my fire. Agreed?
Agreed. But my point all along is that under these circumstances your case will be necessarily more difficult to demonstrate AND will be much more subject to the whims of the judge and/or jury on whether they choose to accept your argument (i.e. you are on the thin ice). Agreed?
So in the specifics of THIS case, if Isnora heard Guzman say "go get my gun" as he claims, then it is fair to say that Isnora had reason to believe that Guzman was unarmed at the time of that statement. Agreed?
So in the specifics of THIS case, no evidence was presented to suggest that the suspects actually had a gun in their vehicle (as opposed to somewhere else like their apartment/home). Agreed?
So in the specifics of THIS case, Isnora could NOT have actually seen a weapon in Guzman's hand while he (Guzman) was in the car (since there was no weapon in the car). Agreed?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Okay, here they are
Seems like you keep making perfectly clear statements, and then when I bring up the factual incorrectness of the perfectly clear statement, and the inconsistency of your statement with other statements you have made, you claim that it is my misunderstanding. I have no expanded definintion of anything. The discrepancy between definitions of "legal basis" and similar is between you and yourself, as I have clearly pointed out and won't repeat here.
You drew a definite distinction between the "split second defense" and the standard of "seeing a weapon" etc.. You indicated that there was some legal standing that the "seeing a weapon" standard had which the "split second defense" did not. As it turns out, there's no such distinction.
You said that you HAVE to see a weapon before firing. That's not true. Much later you said that this was only a guideline to keep one off of thin legal ice.
You said that in a strictly legal sense, all five shooters are guilty of manslaughter based on the fact that the suspects turned out unarmed and thus none of them could possibly have confirmed a threat. That's not true-- no such legal litmus test of "seeing a weapon" or "confirming a threat" in terms of affirmatively seeing a weapon exists for manslaughter. Instead, legal standards allow for situations where it is justified to fire without such information if it believed that waiting to observe additional information presents a deadly threat.
You said that firing a certain number of times without confirming a threat in terms of seeing a weapon constitutes manslaughter on the face of that fact alone. The supreme court says that no such test can be made because reasonableness does not lend itself to such tests; instead, you must consider the point of view of the defendant in such a case.
You said that the defendants in this case shot down the victims "in cold blood", In legal terms, "cold blood" implies premeditation and deliberateness; then later you say that Isnora was scared, just about the opposite of "in cold blood"; but you bristle at my suggestion of "movement" in your positions and act as if you've been 100% consistent throughout the thread.
Do you see my problems here? I have conceded on one misunderstanding already, but I don't think I've misunderstood your intent in all these cases. You have admitted to bluffing already; now I think is the time to be honest and say that you were wrong on your bluffs on some of these salient points, rather than to persist in claiming that these discrepancies and others are just my misunderstanding of your intent.
I honestly do not know... I did not read the source that said this. If you have a definitive source on this, then it's agreed.
I think you are mistaken on this. The fourth amendment only sets the standard for the definition of what is reasonable and unreasonable, I believe. There is no requirement that state manslaughter laws measure justifictation based on what is " objectively reasonable" and no tighter standard. In fact the New York condition for involuntay manslaughter is "gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation".
So, not agreed. Granted, I'm not a lawyer.
Not agreed. I think crimes other than physical assault which provoked the situation would preclude a justified self defense in this situation. Granted, I'm not a lawyer.
Not agreed-- if I believe there is a deadly threat and I believe that their actions are unjustified and it is a split second situation where I believe that waiting for the situation becomes clearer presents a deadly threat in itself, shooting could be justified.
Not agreed that this was your point all along. At first, your point was that you have to see the weapon. It was only later that you acknowledged that that was only a guideline that would likely cause one to be on legal thin ice if one crossed it, etc. etc. etc. If you want me to acknowledge that items like this are "your point all along" in the future, please be sure to actually make those points in words that convey those points near the beginning of the thread, rather than claiming I misunderstood your intent ;-)
Agreed.
Agreed, to my knowledge. In scanning for info on the case, I came across various items regarding a "fourth suspect" with speculation that that suspect left the vehicle with a gun, but I have no idea if that was presented in court.
Agreed. But if Isnora believed that Guzman was raising a gun that was in the car, and that he was raising it as a deadly threat to himself or someone else, his shots could be justified. This is distinct from a situation where the factors that supoort that he has a weapon and the factors that support that he does not have a weapon roughly balance in the mind. If that were the situation, he should hold his fire. So I'm defining "reason to believe" as believing something, and having a reason for it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
And likewise ...
And likewise it seems that when I attempt to make perfectly clear statements, and then your biased and unjustified misreadings of them raise some sort of conflict in your mind, you issue elaborate conspiracies laced with nefarious intents on my part where none truly exist.
Similarly, I keep bringing well-founded source material to this discussion whereas your commentary seems to consist primarily of convoluted misreadings of the statements of others.
Misreading number 1. Discussed and explained. You simply refuse to see how it is possible for you to have misunderstood my meaning.
Misreading number 2. Discussed and explained. You simply refuse to see how it is possible for you to have misunderstood my meaning.
Misreading number 3. Discussed and explained. You simply refuse to see how it is possible for you to have misunderstood my meaning.
Potential misreading number 4. This appears to be new material.
Please provide the legal basis for the following statement: "In legal terms, 'cold blood' implies premeditation and deliberateness".
I do not believe that this is accurate, but for once it would be nice if YOU provided the source material.
Why yes, I do. I have even attempted to point them out to you. You, however, appear incapable of seeing them.
Just for the record, I have already conceded that I may have given the wrong impression as to the legal standings with respect to the "split second defense" as well as the "you have to see a weapon" comment (i.e. with respect to the concept of "legal basis" and my use of the term versus yours). I also sought to clarify my meaning in both cases.
Extending the Olive Branch:
I wish to move past all the pointy sticks here as they are irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. I guess the crux of our problem here is that what I refer to as "clarifying my meaning" you refer to as "moving my position". I object to your phraseology here because it implies that I have altered my understanding of the law and the subject matter at hand but, in point of fact, I have not.
Perhaps the following will help us to simply move on:
(1) Did I express my thoughts in a manner that was open to misinterpretation?
Yes, I freely admit this and accept full responsibility for any misunderstandings that may have arisen because of this.
(2) Does any such misinterpretation based on my admittedly unclear prose in any way reflect on the intelligence or reading ability of the reader?
Absolutely not. It is the writer's responsibility to clearly express their thoughts. If they fail to do so, assuming the reader has made a reasonable interpretation as has been done in this case by skymutt*, the blame for the miscommunication rests with the writer.
(3) Have I changed my views, understandings, or interpretations of the legal basis or court precedents for the subject matter being discussed in this thread in any way?
No, I have not. Although I accept as reasonable that from the point of view of anyone that may have been mislead by my original statements that my clarifications thereto may appear to them as having been movement in my position relative to their previous, but erroneous, interpretation of my position.
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye! All gather 'round for the pronouncement:
Does that help?
--------------------------------------------
* Disclaimer: Given how this thread has progressed, I feel obligated to restrict the scope of this statement somewhat. I make this statement with respect to the general nature of our disagreements and not to every piece of minutia that may exist within any of the items I have labeled a misreading above.
For example, you assert in misreading #2 that there is no requirement to "confirm a threat". I disagree. There is a requirement that your actions be "objectively reasonable" and, therefore, I would argue that the need to "confirm a threat" is implicit in the notion of having your actions being "objectively reasonable". "Mere suspicion of a threat" is not just cause for the use of lethal force since it clearly is not "objectively reasonable" to shoot someone simply because you THINK they might be up to something.
I therefore reserve the right to continue to reject substantive points such as these which are unrelated to any misinterpretations of my original statements as they pertain to my true positions, especially with respect to details which have not already been brought forth into the discussion such as the example above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wrap it up
When you start getting a horizontal scroll bar, that means the thread is getting too long. :-)
(of course, I'm just kidding; feel free to debate this topic until you crash the server)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Cold blood
Cold blood:
As to the rest of this: Nice attempt at continuing to characterize these disputes as "misreadings", thereby getting in the last pointy stick, and then extending the olive branch in the same comment. I contend that I have "misread" in none of these cases. The only matter that has can be reasonably disputed in so-called misreadings #1, 2, and 3 is whether you misspoke initially and I misunderstood your intent or whether your position moved.
However, in the interest of moving on, and recognizing that you are entrenched in your positions here, I am going to let the disputes over these matters #1, 2, and 3 drop at this point. I am satisfied that you are now at this point in time examining this case by taking into account the relevant facts of the case and basing your judgments on the law and legal concepts and precedents to a reasonable extent for a layman with no formal law education. This has been my main all along-- to move past initial reactions and snap judgments and to make better-developed judgments based on the testimony and evidence in the case and the law.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I have replied below ...
RE: Cold Blood - Need Chapter and Verse please.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4OK. so far so good.
Hmm. I think we are close here but I think I see a glimmer of potential for misinterpretation in this statement.
So let me ask a clarifying question, does the "reason for it" have to be "objectively reaonsable"?
For example (and I am stating this in the extreme merely to illustrate the point), would it be sufficient for Isnora to claim that be believed that Guzman had a gun and the reason was that he had a psychic vision of that fact?
So now, as pertains to the specifics of this case, do you believe that Isnora had a "reason to believe" that Guzman was armed at the time that he opened fire? If so, what was that reason?
UPDATE:
I agree with stinerman, lets move this to the left. Reply here please.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's your grammar lesson for the day ...
Well, again, I must give you a lesson. If a pronoun is ambiguous, as it is in my original statement, the rule of thumb as that the antecedent it refers to is the one closest structurally to the pronoun in question.
See this
if you want independent clarification on that point.*
So, here is my original statement:
I have taken the liberty of underlining the potential antecedants for you, as well as emboldening the relevent pronoun. And the closest antecedent to the pronoun is? You guessed it, the law.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Are
weyou learning anything yet?The recommended means of correcting the ambiguity is to reword the sentence, which I have done with my clarification. :)
-----------------------------------------------
* Full disclosure:
While I learned this in about the 7th grade, I believe, and therefore knew it before you raised the point ... I hearby admit, however, that I have never seen the above referenced website before today and actually dug it up just for you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well
Sorry, GR, but I have to butt in here. The whole point of there having to be a rule about what an unclear pronoun refers to is because it is an unclear pronoun. In other words, such a sentence should be rephrased, because it is highly prone to misinterpretation. So you can't fault skymutt for misinterpreting it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Is this your definition of "faulting him"?
whereupon I recount my previous statements and and then do exactly what you state, rephrase it thusly:
A clarified wording of this latter statement would be:
To which he replied:
How was I being unreasonable? I admitted it wasn't clear and rephrased it. He just didn't accept that my clarification had any grammatical merit and proceeded to, basically, call me a liar on the point. I take except to that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4WAAH! Grow a thicker hide
I'd be disappointed if you never tried to pull the wool over my eyes every now and then. :-) Besides, you toss around the word "lie" as if you get royalties for using it. "Lie" is practically a term of endearment around here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The problem is ...
that this is my pet issue and one that I take very seriously. I have not been trying to pull the wool over you eyes here, am I just presenting the facts and the law as I see and understand them.
Whether these officers are found guilty or not is not the type of thing that I would bother to pull any wool over anyone's eyes. There is no benefit to me for having done so.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, if you are innocent of my charge
...all I can say is that when you have a history of wool-pulling over eyes on issues which you may take less seriously, you can't complain too loudly when you get unfairly accused of it in another spot.
But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will withdraw this particular charge. Perhaps I was hasty in a circumstance where a confluence of a few coincidental anomalies made it appear that you had engaged in chicanery which you had not.
There is a third possibiliy, also: that you simply erred in your clarificaion, but with no wool-pulling intent. Your statement still just doesn't seem to make any sense as you clarified it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Umm, I object to the implication ...
that I regularly pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I do not do so on a regular basis, and when I do I let it be known before the conversation is at an end. In most, if not all, of these cases I am being obnoxious to illustrate a point which I eventualy reveal more straight forwardly.
Pulling the wool over someone's eyes is distinctly different from bluffing. In the former there is an intent to deceive whereas the latter is done merely out of laziness to save time. If you think you are right but you don't want to spend the time looking things up for someone else, then you bluff.
In any event, in this thread, I have not been pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I may have occasionally bluffed up front in this thread but when push came to shove I produced the required references.
A possibility in theory only. My first statement was written in haste which lead to the less than clear framing and structure, whereas the second was more carefully crafted.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4meh
Sometimes your points that you make in this fashion are only known by you. At any rate, when you are arguably disingenuous in some circumnstances, even if you think it is to make a point, it can cause others to doubt your sincerity in other circumstances.
But is it that unreasonable for me to believe that a bluff gone awry early in the thread might lead to an attempt at pulling wool over eyes if an opportunity arose which might salvage the bluff and might not be detected? That never happens?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
OK
I haven't really been reading the thread at all. I was just attracted by the "grammar lesson" title! I don't think you are being unreasonable. Although I get the general impression from skimming the thread that the two of you might have been arguing the entire time over at least two misunderstandings, and that there is actually a whole lot you could agree upon if the communication improves.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ironically, I agree.
But is I say as much I will be accused of flip flopping and adopting his position. This is not the case.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Very likely that we woule vote similarly on the charges
...but, alas, it is not my MO to seek out points of agreement, especially given the fact that 1.) there's been too much patty-cake around here of late and not enough swords crossing, and 2.) Once GoRight came up with the "just so much hot air" line, I wasn't going to let him get away with much in this thread. The result was a discussion in which I learned a lot. So, not all bad, IMO. I don't think there's a particular communication problem. If the conversation gets bogged down in a minor point every now and then, it will eventually get resolved or dropped, no real harm done.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Point taken
"Learning alot" is at least as worthwhile as "coming to an agreement" as a result of a discussion here. It is somewhat in my nature to try to be a peacemaker when I see the opportunity, though. I don't mind patty-cake so much! :)
(One of these days, for example, I'd like to see John and MissLiberties actually agree on something economic. A pipe dream, perhaps!)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Only promlem is, your original sentence is not ambiguous
There are more than enough clues and context for me to undertand exactly what you were saying-- the repetition of the word "this" (each time referring to the same thing-- your statememt), the fact that the alternative interpretation introduces a trivial tautology, and the simple fact that the sentence only makes sense one way. A pronoun is only ambiguous if the sentence makes sense both ways.
The following for instance is not really ambiguous:
I mean sure, the elephant could be "rolling by" the ball in a big car or something. But in our particular case, I know the metaphorical elephant is not in a car, "rolling by" a stationary ball. It doesn't matter that "it" is closer to "elephant" than ball in your sentence. Your source doesn't state any such "rule of thumb" anyway. It merely suggest that some sentences might be made clearer by moving the pronoun closer to what it is referencing.
You're asking me to believe that the elephant is rolling by the ball.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Strictly speaking ...
your example IS ambiguous. You don't need to introduce some hypothetical car, elephants CAN roll, you know.
Even so I am not asking you to believe anything. I am stating what I meant.
UPDATE:
Actually, this little spat on the point of grammar is a fine micro-example of this entire thread. I make a point, back it up with credible references, and you simply choose to ignore them or turn it into a case of my moving my position.
Sometimes a misunderstanding is just a misunderstanding. (Apologies to Sigmund Freud.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not sure either theory fits with what happened in this case
Carey in fact testified for the defense.
Supposedly he wasn't indicted because his bullets didn't hit anybody, according to this
source.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You could be right
However just because he was a defense witness does not mean that the prosecution wouldn't have called him as a witness on their own, or that they did not want to question him on the stand. I think that the prosection might want to be able to question some of the lesser police actors on the stand in a case like this.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Again, you miss the point ...
Let me underline the most significant part of this statement. Their actual rate of fire isn't all that significant, but even if it were by assuming that they were firing as quickly as possible in this instance I am actually giving them the most benefit of the doubt (by reducing the amount of time they had to ascertain that the suspect was unarmed).
We know that there was no weapon found in the car. This is a given.
So we have a case where the officer who emptied two clips did so without ever confirming that the suspect actually DID have a weapon. This is undeniable since there was, in fact, no weapon to see. Claiming that the officer wasn't firing as quickly as they could only makes their case worse because it suggests that they continued to fire after having an even longer time period to observe that the suspect was unarmed.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that officer might not have been in a position to actually see a weapon then, again, one has to question why he was firing two clips of ammo at someone when he hadn't been able to confirm an actual threat. This is just reckless on its face which would justify a conviction on the charge of manslaughter.
The key question is, why did the officers who fired a significant number of rounds do so when they obviously hadn't confirmed a threat (because there was no threat to confirm)?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fair to question 31 shots; recklessness still has to be proven
I do think it's more than to fair to call into question why he took 31 shots, but I think you're off-base in your claim that just because someone can't see a weapon that they can't be justified in shooting. If that were the case, then all five officers, even the two who were unindicted, would be guilty of manslaughter-- after all, one shot could kill an innocent man just like 31 shots. And I just cannot bring myself to pick an arbitrary number of shots and say that any shots above that number is reckless: Is 31 too many? 11? 4? 3? 1? It depends, IMO. If it were that easy, we could just have a maximum number of shots coded into the law; exceed that number and the suspect turns out to be unarmed, you're guilty, no questions asked. But I think that's pretty silly. So, I think you have to at least give a cursory examination as to what Oliver was shooting at, when, and why he might have done so, to exclude possible justifications for his shots. Was he shooting at the driver as the car was hurtling towards officers? Was he shooting at the front passenger? Was he receiving crossfire from other officers near his location?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Why the number of shots matters ...
is because it takes a finite amount of time to fire each shot. Given their profession and the ambiguity of the information available to them in this real world example, I feel it is reasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt based on the "split second decision" defense. You only have a split second to decide to fire in self-defense.
Well, in my judgment the maximum number of deliberately aimed shots that one could fire in "a split second" is 2. Apparently the prosecutor in this case decide on 4, which I don't particularly have a problem with as I admit it is a judgment call.
Once you get beyond that first "split second", you are expected to have had sufficient time to assess the correct nature of the threat. Assuming that you are unable to have personally determined the source of the threat you shouldn't continue to keep firing until such time as you actually have determined that there is a legitimate threat.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Seems counter-intuitive
What new information are you supposed to be gathering in that split second while you are shooting, and what good does it necessarily do for the target, who may very well be killed by the shots you take in that split second? Isn't the time to assess the nature of the threat before you take the first shot? It seems unlikely that you would learn much more in that split second, and I have seen no evidence presented here that this is the training that the police receive, and I am not willing to stipulate that the police receive the same training that you say that CCW permit holders receive. CCW holders may be trained to a standard which would not allow police officers to sufficiently defend themselves, given that the police, unlike average CCW holders, have a duty to enter into the most dangerous situations and confront deadly criminals.
So you'd have to show me that the police received training that they should only shoot for a split second and then pause for me to convict on that basis.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
LOL, you just keep digging that hole deeper, skymutt.
I had thought this was obvious from above but let me take another stab at it. The "split second defense" (my term)* afforded police officers is that they may find themselves in situations where they simply have to react based on the circumstances because any delay to further assess the situation may get them killed. You, yourself, alluded to this very case:
So, in this circumstance, I am going the extra mile as it were, to give these officers the benefit of the doubt that they were, in fact, in a situation which actually DID warrant a split second reaction. But the split second reaction does NOT justify prolonged and sustained fire in the ABSENCE of a confirmed threat.
So the question is, what constitutes a "split second"? Less than a second? One second? Two? Twelve?
As to what information you are supposed to be gathering in that split second, you are supposed to be observing the target you are firing upon for the purpose of ascertaining whether they truly ARE a threat so that you can halt your firing if they are not.
LOL, of course. This is my exact point and the point that everyone who receives training in the use of deadly force is taught. The only legitimate "argument" against this is the "split second defense" which the police frequently appeal to in order to justify their actions when it becomes obvious that they failed to make just such an assessment. This case is a prime example of just such an instance.
If you are willing to stipulate that these officers are NOT justified in asserting the "split second defense" then the fact that no weapon was found becomes just that much more damning to their case. Obviously they failed to assess whether a true threat existed prior to the shooting in which case ALL of the officers are, under that scenario, culpable under the charge of manslaughter.
With all due respect, skymutt, this is a case of you demonstrating your ignorance of the relevant law. The CCW holders are trained in the understandiing of what the law allows, as are (presumably?) the law enforcemenbt officers. The police are held to the very same standard under the law. They don't get a legal pass in the statutes in terms of what constitutes manslaughter or murder. The law is the law whether you are a police officer or not.
That having been said, juries most likely do afford the police some additional latitude depending on the circumstances which leads us to the "split second defense" which is much more likely to be recognized for police officers than average citizens. The jury is where that latitude gets assessed in their determination, not in the statutes.
There is no reason to believe that the police are trained to react any differently than civilians in the use of deadly force because they are going to be held to the very same standard. Either your use of deadly force was justified under the law, or it was not.
I am not claiming that they are trained to pause automatically as this would be folly.
I am claiming that, under the law, they are required to stop firing if/when it becomes obvious that there is not real threat. If you are deliberately training (i.e. aiming) your weapon on a specific target you are by necessity looking at that target. How long do you have to look at that target to assess that the target is, or is not, holding a weapon and actively threatening either you or someone else with it? How long do you have to look at that target to assess and determine that you are unsure of the existence of a threat? If you are unsure that there is a threat then you shouldn't continue firing (in fact you shouldn't have been firing in the first place as you state above).
Suspicion of a threat does not justify firing under the law, but legitimate suspicion of a threat may buy you the "split second defense" in the minds of a jury. But that only goes up to the point where you would be reasonably able to determine whether the suspect truly was a threat or not. In this context, "unsure" equates to "no threat" until proven otherwise.
So, skymutt, as an impartial jurer how long is a split second? How long do you have to look at the person you are firing upon to determine that they are NOT a threat OR that you can't say for sure that they ARE a threat?
If you, as a jurer, determine that the circumstances warrant a pass in your mind based on the "split second defense" (i.e. you believe that their initial decision to fire warrants reasonable doubt) how long in your mind do they get to continue firing while they assess the situation and determine that no true threat exists? Because beyond that amount of time the "split second defense" no longer applies and barring any real evidence of an actual threat the officers should have halted their firing.
So how long do you give them, skymutt? Remember, before they fire they are required direct their fire at a specific target based on what they believe to be a credible threat even within that "split second". If they have failed even that basic requirement they are reckless no matter how you look at it.
My position is actually being fair to the officers (i.e. I am allowing for the "split second defense" to be legitimate in terms of introducing reasonable doubt for the initial shots), but likewise fair to the victim (i.e. by requiring that the police should have halted fire when it became obvious that there was no threat). My threshold has been "a few rounds" which could have been from 2 to 4 throughout this discussion. The ambiguity here is NOT the resuult of flip flopping as you suggested elsewhere, but a recognition that there is room for difference of opinion (among jurers and other reasonable people) to how long the "split second" lasts, and thus to how many rounds you can actually fire in a controlled fashion during that time interval.
So, if we allow for 1 or 2 seconds after you train your weapon on a suspect (who you believe to be a threat and therefore begin firing) to be able to actually observe that they are not, in fact, a threat then assuming that the office is actually capable of sustaining a rate of fire of 2 rounds per second in a controlled fashion this allows for a maximum of 4 rounds fired.
Sustaining 2 rounds a second in a controlled fashion (with a semiautomatic handgun) would be difficult to say the least. This is tantamout to firing as quickly as you can in a controlled fashion. There are professional competitors who can fire faster but it would be hard to make a case that such a rate of fire is "controlled" under these circumstances. The average police officer will not be able to match this.
So let us assess what this means for the officer that emptied 2 clips with 1 reload. We have 16 rounds for the first clip (one extra in the chamber) and 15 for the second clip. At 2 rounds per second that would be a burst of 8 seconds, followed by a reload of say 3 or 4 seconds, followed by another burst of around 8 seconds of firing. This is the absolute fastest that I believe that the average police office would be capable of.
Most likely the rate of fire would be at least 1/2 this and the reloading time might be double. This would generate a burst of 16 seconds, a pause of 6 to 8 seconds, followed by a burst of 15 seconds from this one shooter. Other shooters would be firing throughout this timeframe which just added to the number of shots fired in each burst.
We know from the testimony
that some of the witnesses recalled the following:
So we have a burst of fire, a pause, and another burst of fire. This is not at all inconsistent with the analysis above which supports my original contention regarding the actual rate of fire being, effectively, as fast as the officer could shoot as well as being consistent with the charge that such firing amounted to firing blindly into the vehicle (i.e. you cannot sustain this rate of fire for this long while simultaneously picking specific targets based on observed threats).
Now, as Brendan points out:
So if we are to believe that the shooting COULD HAVE occured in a single burst and that the officer who fired two clips did so in 12 seconds then, assuming only a 2 second reload that leaves 10 seconds to fire 31 rounds. 31 rounds in 10 seconds is 3.1 rounds per second. There is no way that you can fire a sustained burst of 3.1 rounds per second in a substantially controlled manner. That is, in effect, simply firing as fast as you can while trying to keep the firearm trained on the suspect/vehicle. There is no other reasonable interpretation of this IMHO.
Note that if you are, in fact, firing in what is NOT a substantially controlled manner you are, in fact, firing recklessly which, again, would justify a conviction on the charge of manslaughter.
You wanted analysis based on the testimony, there you go.
-------------------------------------------------------------
* I am calling this the "split second defense" not because there is any legal precendent for it but because in situations like these the police frequently make an appeal to the fact that they only have a split second to make a decision. Given their profession I am agreeing that they deserve some deference in this regard, however this is NOT carte blanche to fire indiscriminantly or for a sustained period of fire beyond a reasonable amount of time to determine whether the suspect actually IS threatening you or someone else.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fine
All I wanted from the very beginning of the thread-- for people to actually look at the facts of the case. Of course if you were actually a juror or judge in the case, it wouldn't do much good to prejudge the officers guilty and then review the facts of the case at a later time with an eye toward evidence which supports your prejudged position...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Walmart and the French Revolution
Don Bourdeaux has two great quickies to chew on:
The French Revolution's Reign of Terror
and the effect of price controls.
Walmart
and its effect on small business.
Nice seats
Delta's setting a new standard in coach travel.
See here
.
I hope not only that it gets them some new business, but also that it catches on with other airlines.
I have no basis of comparison
I've never been on an airplane. I take it these seats are extra snazzy?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
They look cool
Reminds me of a bit of first class seats...not that I've ever sat in one but I have seen them from afar and on TV.
:)
Cross a Greyhound bus with a can of sardines...
...that's seating in coach on an airplane. Bus seats except with absolutely no legroom and no room between you and the 300 lb. guy they seat next to you every single time.
You might waint to fly once in your life just for the experience and to look out the window, but other than that, if you can get to where you want to go via ground transpoortation, you're not missing a whole lot.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Quelle Dommage!
I've never been on a Greyhound bus or have had a can of sardines! :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
that's "quel dommage"
It's masculine.
;)
Really?
Mlle LaRue taught us wrong then.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Quelle horreur!
:)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
tres bien!
good gender agreement!
;)
Yeah, that's it...
blame poor Mlle LaRue!
hehehe
Je ne parle pas francais tres bien aussi
Mlle LaRue sometimes liked to have the TV and VCR be in nearly separate corners of the room. She would point the VCR remote at the TV and wonder why it wouldn't work.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
LOL.
(BTW, not to correct again but it's: "non plus" and not "aussi" when it's in the sense of "neither" or "not...either")
No fair
You're supposed to be Italian! :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
hehehe
I am. But I actually speak French better...strangely enough.
I lived in France for a year during college.
Redstate on running against Bush
Ben Domenech says
McCain's statements on Katrina hit all the right notes:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obama and the Blacks Will Take Over!
Y'all have to check this one out:
Obama, Clinton close in Indiana
There the usual poll quoting and usual did-you-know facts about Indiana's electorate. Then we get the following gem:
Yeah that scares me too--and she doesn't appear to be a blogger just trying to get attention. Yikes. Well, I guess I better go prepare...
*Goes to get scepter and war plans for Our Takeover...*
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
heh
Stewart took it a step further and asked Obama
if he would "pull a bait-and-switch, sir, and enslave the white race"?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
dude, if I support Obama in GE
would you put in a good word for me?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It seems 'old fashioned'
but there are parts of Indiana that would prefer segregation.
My girlfriend grew up in moonshine country, and some of those folks don't take to kindly to the coloreds.
However you feel about it, that is just the way it is.
Although I think Obama could help himself by breaking through by way of the sports barrier.
Anectodal evidence of racism is everywhere.
What I love is the people I know who say they would never vote for a ni**er (yes people still yes that word often) who can't stand Hillary or McCain. IF they listen to what Obama says they are moved by his message.
Part of what makes this country excruciatingly unique, is the under current of racism that has dominated our history. Lord help us it was written into our constitution. We have to set ourselves *free*! It can be described it as class warfare.
I'm only half stupid
Martinsville, IN
is hardcore Klan territory.
My mom lives in Indianapolis and always tells me a new story about the goings on in Martinsville just about every time I'm out there
Indiana was once the Klan capital of America, believe it or not. I always tell my mom that Indiana is the sore red thumb of America because of how it sticks up out of the south and is reliably Republican.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I endorse the plan
I'm not so sure having those uppity Negroes take over would be such a bad idea. Us white guys don't have much of a track record of success.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That there are backwards people is not news though.
Yeah, they're out there, and some of them do support Clinton for racist reasons. My fear is that Clinton is going to be thought of as racist herself because of this kind of story where some backwards person votes for her for the wrong reasons. These kind of anecdotes should not be a reflection on Clinton, as she has done nothing to foster these kind of beliefs in her supporters. And as a resident of this general part of the country, I can tell you that there is no shortage of people in Indiana who will give a reporter this kind of quote, but it would be highly unfair to think that people like Ms. Jacobs were representative of the people of Indiana or any other midwestern state for that matter.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Giggle, Giggle
A little comic relief
And a bit more
This one, though, is at least a bit related to politics....well, the billboard at the bottom is
Oh those Belgian campaign ads
Love that though. Wonder if there were any men on that development committee?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
nice ad
and there's even some truth to it.
:)
Michelle Obama and the Terrorist Fundraisers
Michelle Obama's Name Removed from Terrorist Fundraiser's Web Page - Update: Terror Fundraiser's Page Disappears!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But what does it mean?
So you agreed with those who said that Ron Paul is a closet Nazi because white supremacists donated money to him?
And you linked to LGF. Excuse me while I provide an equally biased link
.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Barack Obama's definition of "mainstream" Democrat politics.
Hat Tip Ed Morrissey via Hot Air:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't see the problem here.
Firstly, Obama said she was a part of the "mainstream in Chicago." Nothing about mainstream Democratic politics, and certainly nothing about mainstream "Democrat" politics (lame!).
Secondly, this video purports to show Bernadine Dohrn talking about "overthrowing the American government." Huh? Did you even watch it? I don't see that at all. She uses the phrase "overthrowing everything hateful about this government," and it is pretty clear from the context that she is talking about the imperialist agression that is certainly a part of our history, and arguably a part of our present escapades in Iraq. You really got a problem with that? I know you don't think Iraq is an act of imperial agression, but you can't really have a problem with someone who does believe that wanting to change it, can you? Are you really that upset by people talking about disagreeing with the government?
Thirdly, I'll just end with a quote from an obvious America-hater:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Getting off topic
I'm of the opinion that we need to start everything from scratch at the federal level. We need a new constitution and need to rewrite all our laws from scratch.
I'll use a software analogy. We've been running on diffs since 1787. I'd say it's about time for a complete code rewrite.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I report, you decide.
Note that I refrained from making any form of judgement in the above post. I merely stated the facts. If you feel that stating the facts is an attack, well, that says something and perhaps you should ponder that a bit more.
I am not actually surprised, and this was kind of my point considering your political leanings and their degree of alignment with those of Obama.
Here are the facts, you decide whether they are troubling:
(1) She was a member of a domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground.
(2) She is married (at least I think she is married) to William Ayers, an unrepentent domestic terrorist as part of the Weath Underground who was quoted in 2001 as saying that he did not regret the bombings and in fact felt that they had not done enough.
(3) Both she and Ayers are plugged into the Democrat Party's Political machine in Chicago.
(4) Both she and Ayers helped Obama to launch his Democrat Party political career by bringing together the Obama and the movers and shakers within the Democrat Party in Chicago at the time, and by contributing to his political campaign.
(5) Obama ignores their terrorist past and refers to them as "mainstream".
So given all of this, I am not out of line to infer that Obama sees these people as being "mainstream" within the context of his relationship with them which appears to be primarily as part of Democrat Party politics in Chicago. Ergo, Obama must see t