Andrew Brown Shooting

[Realville]

4 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

"He wasn't trying to hit them, he was just trying to get away... and even if he DID hit them, that doesn't give him the right to kill him!!!!"

 

Said all of idiots in unison. 

You forgot to add that the police should have tried to shoot him in the foot too. Smh

[nappyroots]

On 4/27/2021 at 1:42 PM, 5GallonBucket said:

Well when your whole life has been drugs and crime and you don’t comply.

Not much I can say.

 

this cop did what he had to do

[CardinalBacker]

10 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

this cop did what he had to do

I agree on the one in Columbus where the victim was trying to stab the other girl... This one here is still up in the air.  I'll be interested to see what the actual evidence ends up pointing out.  

Long story short a group of cops were serving an arrest/search warrant on this guy at his house and he attempted to flee... got hit 5 times (4 in the arm and one in the head). The attorney that intends to sue the city is claiming that it was an execution.  The DA says that the "victim" actually struck at least one cop with his car before they lit him up.  I tend to lose a lot of sympathy when the "victim" is trying to evade detention or resist arrest... especially when policemen or citizens are being endangered because the suspect simply doesn't want to be held responsible for his own criminal actions... and we know that this guy was at a minimum trying to evade/resist arrest.  That's not a reason to shoot the guy, but if he was really endangering others, I just don't feel that bad for the guy.  

But I/we really need to wait for the evidence to all come out. 

[thetragichippy]

So the DA said the car made contact with the police twice......... If he was using the car as a weapon, or they perceived it to be used as a weapon, can they use deadly force??  I would think yes

 

We shall see.......

[5GallonBucket]

I wonder if it would matter if the cops were black.

would this or any other story be a headline.

[BS Wildcats]

2 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I wonder if it would matter if the cops were black.

would this or any other story be a headline.

Absolutely not!!!  The narrative will not work in that case.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

So the DA said the car made contact with the police twice......... If he was using the car as a weapon, or they perceived it to be used as a weapon, can they use deadly force??  I would think yes

 

We shall see.......

Under the law deadly force is probably legal. In today’s political climate, that does not matter. 

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does not matter if there were other less likely lethal options as long as deadly force was one of those lawful options. 

[CardinalBacker]

14 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Under the law deadly force is probably legal. In today’s political climate, that does not matter. 

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does not matter if there were other less likely lethal options as long as deadly force was one of those lawful options. 

What's your thought on the verdict in the Chauvin case?

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

What's your thought on the verdict in the Chauvin case?

It is hard when you don’t see all of the evidence and just the media and forum comments. Probably most people have at least somewhat determined guilty or not guilty before the first witness based on political opinion, race, profession, group affiliation, knowing the law,  etc  

But here goes....

I don’t think he should have been found guilty from what I have read and going by the law. He is caught up in an emotional event and people want retribution.... but is it the law? Understand if I hear all of the evidence I might feel differently however I am not going to watch the trial nor read the transcript.

 I have a problem with the law on “causation”. I read their law and it is similar to Texas. There are two parts of causation (what caused the crime). Causation deals with factors causing the results if two or more actions caused for example, a death.

One part is if your action by itself was clearly sufficient to cause the death. If so you are guilty whether there was another factor or not. An example is that one guy is choking a victim but you shoot him in the chest and he dies. The jury has to determine if shooting the victim in the chest was clearly sufficient to cause death whether or not the other guy choking him might have also caused death or added to your actions. If the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the gunshot would have killed him, you are guilty. You don’t get away with murder because of another person’s actions since your action was in itself enough to cause the death (I would say in this case probably yes). 

The other part of causation is for not guilty. IF your actions were clearly insufficient to cause death even in combination with other factors AND the other person’s actions were clearly sufficient to cause death, you are not guilty.

An example that I usually give is my friend on patrol one night and saw a guy/victim at an all way flashing light at about 3:00am. One drunk ran into the back of the victim and knocked him into the intersection and the victim flew out of the window. A second drunk ran the red light from another direction and ran over the victim as he tried to get out of the road. Both drunk drivers were guilty because the results would not have happened for one of them alone. The first drunk didn’t kill the victim from the impact but knocked him into the path of the second drunk. The second drunk would have not even hit the victim except he was knocked into the road. Running the red light finished him off. Neither drunk alone clearly caused death so the are both responsible.

What does that have to do with Floyd’s death? If Floyd could have died from an overdose without any action from Chauvin AND Chauvin’s actions by itself would not caused death in itself, he should be not guilty. This all has to be proven against Chauvin beyond a reasonable doubt. I think there was plenty of doubt with Floyd’s underlying medical conditions and him ingesting potentially lethal drugs. Floyd could not breathe before Chauvin held him down. So if Floyd “might have died” anyway, there seems to be reasonable doubt. Had this been a local jury between two citizens and not a minority and a police officer, I believe a jury would probably find differently.

From the evidence that I have seen, Floyd very well might have died from his own health and actions. If so (and beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not have happened), not guilty. 

 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

It is hard when you don’t see all of the evidence and just the media and forum comments. Probably most people have at least somewhat determined guilty or not guilty before the first witness based on political opinion, race, profession, group affiliation, knowing the law,  etc  

But here goes....

I don’t think he should have been found guilty from what I have read and going by the law. He is caught up in an emotional event and people want retribution.... but is it the law? Understand if I hear all of the evidence I might feel differently however I am not going to watch the trial nor read the transcript.

 I have a problem with the law on “causation”. I read their law and it is similar to Texas. There are two parts of causation (what caused the crime). Causation deals with factors causing the results if two or more actions caused for example, a death.

One part is if your action by itself was clearly sufficient to cause the death. If so you are guilty whether there was another factor or not. An example is that one guy is choking a victim but you shoot him in the chest and he dies. The jury has to determine if shooting the victim in the chest was clearly sufficient to cause death whether or not the other guy choking him might have also caused death or added to your actions. If the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the gunshot would have killed him, you are guilty. You don’t get away with murder because of another person’s actions since your action was in itself enough to cause the death (I would say in this case probably yes). 

The other part of causation is for not guilty. IF your actions were clearly insufficient to cause death even in combination with other factors AND the other person’s actions were clearly sufficient to cause death, you are not guilty.

An example that I usually give is my friend on patrol one night and saw a guy/victim at an all way flashing light at about 3:00am. One drunk ran into the back of the victim and knocked him into the intersection and the victim flew out of the window. A second drunk ran the red light from another direction and ran over the victim as he tried to get out of the road. Both drunk drivers were guilty because the results would not have happened for one of them alone. The first drunk didn’t kill the victim from the impact but knocked him into the path of the second drunk. The second drunk would have not even hit the victim except he was knocked into the road. Running the red light finished him off. Neither drunk alone clearly caused death so the are both responsible.

What does that have to do with Floyd’s death? If Floyd could have died from an overdose without any action from Chauvin AND Chauvin’s actions by itself would not caused death in itself, he should be not guilty. This all has to be proven against Chauvin beyond a reasonable doubt. I think there was plenty of doubt with Floyd’s underlying medical conditions and him ingesting potentially lethal drugs. Floyd could not breathe before Chauvin held him down. So if Floyd “might have died” anyway, there seems to be reasonable doubt. Had this been a local jury between two citizens and not a minority and a police officer, I believe a jury would probably find differently.

From the evidence that I have seen, Floyd very well might have died from his own health and actions. If so (and beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not have happened), not guilty. 

 

I wasn't convinced on causation, either, but I can understand if jurors were convinced.  I didn't think that the alleged crime fit the bill for all charges, though.  I have a feeling that they would have convicted him for 1st degree murder and bestiality, too, if those charges had been on the table.   

[tvc184]

6 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I wasn't convinced on causation, either, but I can understand if jurors were convinced.  I didn't think that the alleged crime fit the bill for all charges, though.  I have a feeling that they would have convicted him for 1st degree murder and bestiality, too, if those charges had been on the table.   

Yes, I think the deck was stack against him. Law didn’t matter...

[SmashMouth]

15 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Yes, I think the deck was stack against him. Law didn’t matter...

Of course it was. But like you, I am only going on the main points. Without hearing the entire case, it’s mere conjecture for anyone to give a definitive opinion. That being said, after reading their laws for 3rd degree murder & 2nd degree manslaughter, I don’t think a guilty verdict was a reach. The Guilty verdict doesn’t bother me; however, I don’t think the death of Floyd was a result of racism. More like a result of Chauvin’s pride, ignorance,  stupidity and poor policing on his part. 
 

BUT - Had Floyd followed the officers’ instructions from the get go, he would still be alive today, doing drugs and committing crime. That’s not a factor in Chauvin’s guilt though per the Minnesota law. 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Of course it was. But like you, I am only going on the main points. Without hearing the entire case, it’s mere conjecture for anyone to give a definitive opinion. That being said, after reading their laws for 3rd degree murder & 2nd degree manslaughter, I don’t think a guilty verdict was a reach. The Guilty verdict doesn’t bother me; however, I don’t think the death of Floyd was a result of racism. More like a result of Chauvin’s pride, ignorance,  stupidity and poor policing on his part. 
 

BUT - Had Floyd followed the officers’ instructions from the get go, he would still be alive today, doing drugs and committing crime. That’s not a factor in Chauvin’s guilt though per the Minnesota law. 

There is the law but then there is other parts of the law that are attached. It is like self-defense. Technically you murdered a person because you intentionally shot the person and he died. But you cannot simply say that it is murder because there’s another law they says it is not murder if there’s a valid reason. It is a defense to prosecution meaning that if that defense occurs, there is no crime.

It is the same thing with causation. Even if you could believe that the officer might have killed him recklessly, under the law if Floyd might have died anyway or the officers actions alone would not have been sufficient, then just like self-defense it is not guilty. All that is required is any reasonable doubt. From the testimony I heard there should definitely be reasonable doubt.