It's good that he's being charged. This one was wrong. I'm all for siding with the person whose life is threatened in shooting cases, but I don't see how the cop was in any significant risk. He shot the guy two seconds after he put his hand in the window.
I'm willing for more evidence to be presented, but at this point, it looks like the cop shot him for fleeing.
It's good that he's being charged. This one was wrong. I'm all for siding with the person whose life is threatened in shooting cases, but I don't see how the cop was in any significant risk. He shot the guy two seconds after he out his hand in the window.
I'm willing for more evidence to be presented, but at this point, it looks like the cop shot him for fleeing.
@_gaff_: This may be wrong on my part but even though, i don't believe it was murder. I think he should be found guilty of murder. Someone has to be the example that you can't kill unarmed civilians.
@lunacyde: @cgoodness: i don't think it was murder. Murder usually includes malicious intent and some fore thought. When the cop pulled him over I doubt the cops sole intention was to take his life. In the heat of the moment, the cop made a fatally bad decision. But i don't think his initial mindset was to end someone's life. It reminds me of the Travon Martin case
@twentyfive: Where you shoot a person doesn't show malicious intent. He wanted to subdue the man. A scuffle followed. Shots were fired. Proving malicious intent will be difficult. Just as it was in the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown case.
@_gaff_: This may be wrong on my part but even though, i don't believe it was murder. I think he should be found guilty of murder. Someone has to be the example that you can't kill unarmed civilians.
@lunacyde: @cgoodness: i don't think it was murder. Murder usually includes malicious intent and some fore thought. When the cop pulled him over I doubt the cops sole intention was to take his life. In the heat of the moment, the cop made a fatally bad decision. But i don't think his initial mindset was to end someone's life. It reminds me of the Travon Martin case
You're mistaking the legal definitions of murder and first degree murder. First degree murder requires forethought. Second degree murder can be an act of passion.
I can see this possibly being knocked down (and please realize on this point, I have no idea what the actual law is) to aggravated manslaughter considering that the guy was committing a crime by fleeing the officer. I know in certain circumstance, you can get less than a murder charge if you were provoked and used excessive force, but I don't know if that would apply in this situation.
@pooty: It's hilarious how in denial you are. You'd be right at home with the tools who comment on Yahoo! or the idiots who anchor at FOX news. Were you even watching the same goddamn video? What scuffle? He grabbed the man's arm and shot him point blank in the head.
But keep going on with your definitions and technicalities and go on and deny the truth. It makes you such a likable, approachable person.
@_gaff_: This may be wrong on my part but even though, i don't believe it was murder. I think he should be found guilty of murder. Someone has to be the example that you can't kill unarmed civilians.
@lunacyde: @cgoodness: i don't think it was murder. Murder usually includes malicious intent and some fore thought. When the cop pulled him over I doubt the cops sole intention was to take his life. In the heat of the moment, the cop made a fatally bad decision. But i don't think his initial mindset was to end someone's life. It reminds me of the Travon Martin case
That doesn't mean it's not murder. That simply takes it from 1st degree murder to 2nd degree murder. Premeditation is only a requirement for 1st degree murder in most jurisdictions.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
This definition fits what happened in this case. It's murder.
Turns the car on, jams it in the drive and mashes the accelerator. He wasn't slowly pulling away. (Tensing) feared for his life. He thought he was going to be sucked under the car that was pulling away from him. He thought he was going to get sucked under and killed.
If the cop can prove he feared for his life then it's not murder
Turns the car on, jams it in the drive and mashes the accelerator. He wasn't slowly pulling away. (Tensing) feared for his life. He thought he was going to be sucked under the car that was pulling away from him. He thought he was going to get sucked under and killed.
You have to be kidding me. If he feared getting "sucked under" he would have tried to get away from the vehicle, not reach further in and shoot the guy square in the head. The cop murdered the guy for fleeing which is not justified.
The fleeing suspect would have to pose a significant threat of death or of bodily harm to the officer or to others, according to Friedman and other experts.
The fleeing suspect would have to pose a significant threat of death or of bodily harm to the officer or to others, according to Friedman and other experts.
The fleeing suspect would have to pose a significant threat of death or of bodily harm to the officer or to others, according to Friedman and other experts.
You just took all that time to tell me I'm right.
I have no problem with you being right..... If you are.
The fleeing suspect would have to pose a significant threat of death or of bodily harm to the officer or to others, according to Friedman and other experts.
You just took all that time to tell me I'm right.
I have no problem with you being right..... If you are.
Okay good, we concur.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that a police officer cannot shoot a fleeing suspect unless he or she has reason to believe the individual “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Clearly this man posed no such threat to others that required him being shot to mitigate.
@lunacyde: “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Cop said "I feared for my life". that is a significant threat of death. Look at your own statement. A cop only has to BELIEVE that the person poses a threat. The cop doesn't have to KNOW that the suspect is a threat. He only has to BELIEVE it. That word "Believe" is very tricky.
This is more manslaughter than murder. I don't think the cop was going out that day thinking to kill someone and probably shot to wound. However, his actions were foolish, unprovoked, idiotic, and resulted in a death.
@lunacyde: “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Cop said "I feared for my life". that is a significant threat of death. Look at your own statement. A cop only has to BELIEVE that the person poses a threat. The cop doesn't have to KNOW that the suspect is a threat. He only has to BELIEVE it. That word "Believe" is very tricky.
No, he has to have reason for that belief. In court the standard will be whether a reasonable person would believe that they or others were in significant danger of death or serious bodily injury, and whether the use of force he used mitigated that risk of danger. Otherwise no police officer could ever be charged with murder, they would just need to say "I feared for my life."
This is more manslaughter than murder. I don't think the cop was going out that day thinking to kill someone and probably shot to wound. However, his actions were foolish, unprovoked, idiotic, and resulted in a death.
Expect him to get somewhere around 12-60 months.
Hence 2nd degree murder. Just because it wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it isn't murder.
He should rot in jail for the rest of his life and every year his family should visit just to remind him what a disgusting cowardly person he is for murdering under the guise of the 'law'
@lunacyde: “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Cop said "I feared for my life". that is a significant threat of death. Look at your own statement. A cop only has to BELIEVE that the person poses a threat. The cop doesn't have to KNOW that the suspect is a threat. He only has to BELIEVE it. That word "Believe" is very tricky.
No, he has to have reason for that belief. In court the standard will be whether a reasonable person would believe that they or others were in significant danger of death or serious bodily injury. Otherwise no police officer could ever be charged with murder, they would just need to say "I feared for my life."
Stewart Mathews, who is representing officer Ray Tensing, who is white, said his client fired at Samuel DuBose because he believed he was going to be dragged under DuBose’s car and did not intend to kill DuBose
@pooty: I don't care if he believed he was a pink elephant. he has to prove that his belief was reasonable in court.
Actually, the prosecution has to prove that his belief was not reasonable in court. The burden of proof falls upon the prosecution to prove that he was not in significant danger. Hopefully with video evidence and maybe if witnesses come foward it will clarify the truth
@pooty: I don't care if he believed he was a pink elephant. he has to prove that his belief was reasonable in court.
Actually, the prosecution has to prove that his belief was not reasonable in court. The burden of proof falls upon the prosecution to prove that he was not in significant danger. Hopefully with video evidence and maybe if witnesses come foward it will clarify the truth
I'm not sure about that honestly. Typically you are right, the defendant is given the presumption of innocence. In a court of law in the United States you typically are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is thusly on the prosecution.
However when a defendant is claiming an affirmative defense such as "Self-Defense" or "Duress" the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant. I am just not sure if this constitutes an affirmative defense, but it certainly seems like it.
This is more manslaughter than murder. I don't think the cop was going out that day thinking to kill someone and probably shot to wound. However, his actions were foolish, unprovoked, idiotic, and resulted in a death.
Expect him to get somewhere around 12-60 months.
Hence 2nd degree murder. Just because it wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it isn't murder.
Murder usually means it was done out of malicious intent, like someone killing someone viciously killing their ex, or a mass shooting, or a drive by. I don't know what his intent was, but it didn't SEEM malicious.
Its not like he just started shooting as soon as he pulled over. He only did so once he started driving off.
I guess it's trendy today to cap people in the head instead of backing away, aiming the gun at the man and defusing the situation. Instead of better training officers, we condemn anyone resisting arrest to death and grant police the ability to be judge, jury and executioner
This is more manslaughter than murder. I don't think the cop was going out that day thinking to kill someone and probably shot to wound. However, his actions were foolish, unprovoked, idiotic, and resulted in a death.
Expect him to get somewhere around 12-60 months.
Hence 2nd degree murder. Just because it wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it isn't murder.
Murder usually means it was done out of malicious intent, like someone killing someone viciously killing their ex, or a mass shooting, or a drive by. I don't know what his intent was, but it didn't SEEM malicious.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
I watched the video he didn't pull out his gun till the driver started the car and attempted to drive away, also it looks like the cop didn't get a good chance to aim he mostly fired as soon as he drew his gun.
None of what you said negates a ruling of second degree murder.
This is more manslaughter than murder. I don't think the cop was going out that day thinking to kill someone and probably shot to wound. However, his actions were foolish, unprovoked, idiotic, and resulted in a death.
Expect him to get somewhere around 12-60 months.
Hence 2nd degree murder. Just because it wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it isn't murder.
Murder usually means it was done out of malicious intent, like someone killing someone viciously killing their ex, or a mass shooting, or a drive by. I don't know what his intent was, but it didn't SEEM malicious.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
The ultimate difference though is did he MEAN to kill him. If he DID, he gets 2nd degree. If he didn't, it's reckless manslaughter.
I watched the video he didn't pull out his gun till the driver started the car and attempted to drive away, also it looks like the cop didn't get a good chance to aim he mostly fired as soon as he drew his gun.
None of what you said negates a ruling of second degree murder.
This is more manslaughter than murder. I don't think the cop was going out that day thinking to kill someone and probably shot to wound. However, his actions were foolish, unprovoked, idiotic, and resulted in a death.
Expect him to get somewhere around 12-60 months.
Hence 2nd degree murder. Just because it wasn't premeditated doesn't mean it isn't murder.
Murder usually means it was done out of malicious intent, like someone killing someone viciously killing their ex, or a mass shooting, or a drive by. I don't know what his intent was, but it didn't SEEM malicious.
second degree murder
n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state.
The ultimate difference though is did he MEAN to kill him. If he DID, he gets 2nd degree. If he didn't, it's reckless manslaughter.
Unless the jury is biased they won't find him guilty on first or second.
Again he only pulled the gun after the car was turned on and fired as the car was moving. Unless the prosecutor proves he is an ace shooter that could have made that shot the jury will find him not guilty.
It doesn't matter whether he could have made the shot or not, his action had a distinct possibility of leading to the death of a man. You don't point a gun at someone and pull the trigger unless you mean to kill them or cause serious harm. This is firearm rule #1. for anyone who has ever been trained with firearms.
"a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility."
Death is a distinct possibility when you are firing a gun pointed in the general direction of someone from mere feet away.
@lunacyde: But it will be impossible for the prosecutor to prove the officer meant to kill.
A good defense lawyer can say the cop just fired the gun as an instinct he wasn't truly aiming, so the victim could have suffered a shoulder injury or no injury at all.
Add the fact that victim was trying to drive away despite the officer saying multiple times to stop.
This will be enough for the Jury to be convinced or at-least have doubts about his innocence.
What possible intent could you have for firing a gun in someone's general direction at near point blank range if it wasn't to kill them or seriously injure them?
"A second category of acts that constitute second degree murder are acts where the perpetrator intends to cause serious bodily harm with the full knowledge that death is a possible result of the act. The killer might not necessarily intend to kill the victim, but knows that death is a likely outcome."
Even if he shot at him with an intent to simply hit him in the shoulder, (which is against all police training I have EVER seen) it was still an act with enough inherent danger of death as a possible result that he could be tried for 2nd Degree Murder. Even if he pulled the trigger on "instinct" the very act of pulling the trigger in that situation carries a very real possibility of death.
I fear ever running into you with a gun. You have a completely messed up view on firearm responsibility.
Log in to comment