OpenGambit
Banned
He got new ones. Lied about his finances, got chastised for being a liar by the court, got his bond revoked.
Cop crashes bike into 4 year old girl then shoots and kills her father
- Thread starter Roasted
- Start date
He got new ones. Lied about his finances, got chastised for being a liar by the court, got his bond revoked.
Murder (the charge OpenGambit wants) does not fit this case
There are varying degrees of criminal charges that can be put against you in the event that you kill someone. These different degrees can range from murder in the first degree down to manslaughter. If you are being charged with killing someone, it is important to know the differences between these different levels of killing, and the penalties that accompany them.
The most serious and harshly penalized form of killing another person is murder in the first degree. This is a premeditated killing that involves a state of mind known as malice. Malice is very basically defined as intent to kill.
The necessary aspects of the crime that make it first degree murder are premeditation and the state of mind of the killer. If one of these two things is missing, the crime cannot be considered murder in the first degree. However, it is possible to be charged with first degree murder without killing another person. If there are multiple people committing a felony and one of them dies, the others can be charged with murder in the first degree. This is an exception to the rule aforementioned.
One step below murder in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Second degree murder is the charge put against the killer if the crime was not premeditated. The malicious state of mind, however, is still present in the act of second degree murder.
Murder in the second degree must be proven to be intentional. This means that the killer must have been trying to kill another person. The only thing that separates murder in the first degree from murder in the second degree is the lack of premeditation. An exception to this rule can be found in suicide pacts. If two or more people try to commit suicide by killing each other, it is common for one of those people to survive. This leaves the survivor with a second degree murder charge.
After murder in the second degree comes manslaughter in its many forms. Manslaughter is not premeditated, nor is there generally a state of malice. There are, however, certain circumstances under which the killer was in a state of malice, but is charged with manslaughter instead of murder in the second degree. This is because the circumstances surrounding the killing mitigate the killer's liability.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1559646
There are varying degrees of criminal charges that can be put against you in the event that you kill someone. These different degrees can range from murder in the first degree down to manslaughter. If you are being charged with killing someone, it is important to know the differences between these different levels of killing, and the penalties that accompany them.
The most serious and harshly penalized form of killing another person is murder in the first degree. This is a premeditated killing that involves a state of mind known as malice. Malice is very basically defined as intent to kill.
The necessary aspects of the crime that make it first degree murder are premeditation and the state of mind of the killer. If one of these two things is missing, the crime cannot be considered murder in the first degree. However, it is possible to be charged with first degree murder without killing another person. If there are multiple people committing a felony and one of them dies, the others can be charged with murder in the first degree. This is an exception to the rule aforementioned.
One step below murder in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Second degree murder is the charge put against the killer if the crime was not premeditated. The malicious state of mind, however, is still present in the act of second degree murder.
Murder in the second degree must be proven to be intentional. This means that the killer must have been trying to kill another person. The only thing that separates murder in the first degree from murder in the second degree is the lack of premeditation. An exception to this rule can be found in suicide pacts. If two or more people try to commit suicide by killing each other, it is common for one of those people to survive. This leaves the survivor with a second degree murder charge.
After murder in the second degree comes manslaughter in its many forms. Manslaughter is not premeditated, nor is there generally a state of malice. There are, however, certain circumstances under which the killer was in a state of malice, but is charged with manslaughter instead of murder in the second degree. This is because the circumstances surrounding the killing mitigate the killer's liability.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1559646
OpenGambit
Banned
Maybe if you had a basic understanding of even what matters or what doesn't, this discussion would be worth having, until then, you can continue to rant about Trayvon's suspension ( not relevant ), whether carrying a gun is illegal ( its not, and also not important, because you can still have a valid self defence claim with a illegal gun ), and a bunch of other random **** that really has nothing to do with anything.
The fact of the matter is, its a case that should be tried, its going to get decided by a Jury. guilt or innocence isn't decided by the cops. the end.
But hey you have a great crim law background apparently. lol
I like how you went from - completely justified self defence to oh well its just not murder.
what next I wonder.
Last edited:
I know that the Past of the Kid does not matter and neither does the Race of either party, It was the News media that made those issues. They will or Should have no factor in court (Wish that was true)
I believe it was self defence (May not be the case when ALL the facts are presented)
I also BELIEVE that the charges should have been reresented on the facts gathered at the time, not based on the public opinion after the fact as has been done in this case. If they were going to charge him as I already presented to you should have been manslaughter, not murder. I think they are going to have a hard time making a murder charge go with the facts that are currently presented based on the law. If they use the Stand your ground law as a defence he may be able to prove self defence. I am not the prosecuter in the case, although maybe you should be?
So at what point would i be justified to shoot? When you're 6 feet away? 2 feet? 6 inches? when the knife is in me? or when it cuts an artery?
So when im about to pass out like the cop in this case, would this be a good time to start shooting?
I suspect you have never been in a dangerous situation and live in a world of make believe. When someone is pummeling on your face on the ground it could be seconds before its lights out forever.
You can believe what you want, but im afraid the courts in both usa and canada would disagree with you. Go run at a cop with a knife and see what happens.
Last edited:
Now back on topic, Should the Cop in this case be charged and let the jury and court system decide? Someone is dead what should be done? Was it Murder? Manslaughter? Self Defence, why was he not arrested and charged and let the courts decide?
self defence
OpenGambit
Banned
Dont' try to blame the news media for your wacked out posts. you brought it up, not me. I didn't say anything about either of those issues, because they aren't issues to people who know the law.
Secondly
Stand your ground likely doesn't apply, he will be going with common law self defence. Even his own defence attorneys went that route. But you seem to think you know better than them.
(I agree with you but just asking)
Why? He killed someone, even if he did not intend to. The events that led up to the killing were as much his fault as anyone elses. Loos of control of the bike, etc.
No, I said based on what has been presented I BELIEVE. You are the one who THINKS they know everything.
How about we get back to the killing in this thread?
We don't know what caused the accident, but he stopped and tried to HELP the children. He wasn't running away. If he was at fault for the accident we have courts for that.
The father lost control and started beating on the guy. His cousin came in and helped as well. If there is ever a case for self defence this is one. You're outnumbered by 2 people, on the ground getting your *** kicked and you're about to pass out.
Its a tragic situation but you have to seperate the emotion from the facts, this im afraid a lot of people cannot do. And why i'd never want to be judged by my "peers"
And the chain of events did not start with him losing control of his bike. First and foremost, an unsupervised child ran out into the middle of the road.
Griffin
Well-known member
Should the cop be charged? It depends on what the facts in evidence to the investigators indicates. I have no idea what those might be. I only have a half-assed, slanted and ill-informed news report to judge from. But, from what has so far been reported it would seem to me that the shooting was self-defence and no criminal charges related to the shooting should be laid. Dangerous driving may be on the table (for not knowing how to operate and stop the bike - assuming the article was correct and that he "layed it down" instead of crashed while stopping). Maybe firearms charges depending on how carried and if entitled to carry but from I understand of US law nearly anyone can carry concealed, locked and loaded in an open holster.
But who knows? Once more facts come out it could be that the father had been sleeping with the cop's wife, the cop tried to run the kid down to draw the dad out so that the cop could shoot him. In which case it would be first degree murder, But, seeing as he is a cop, maybe a charge of careless use of a firearm would be considered by the prosecutor, assuming the cop is not the son of the governor in which case the kid maybe gets charged with obstructing a police officer.
Griffin
Well-known member
It's not evident to me from the story that the kid was unsupervised. The kid was with an 18 year old. The fact that dad was in a nearby restaurant doesn't mean the kid was not supervised. But I may have it wrong. So much to read...
OpenGambit
Banned
What I believe is based on 1. the stance of his defence attornys, 2. the stance of the prosecutor, 3. my own criminal law knowledge.
what is yours based on?
OpenGambit
Banned
But who knows? Once more facts come out it could be that the father had been sleeping with the cop's wife, the cop tried to run the kid down to draw the dad out so that the cop could shoot him.
This made me laugh. I like it.
I say unsupervised because she was allowed to run out onto the road. I believe that she was "with" an adult, but maybe a better word is "not adequately supervised".
My point still being though, that it wasn't the cop on the bike who set the chain of events into motion.
I wish this was true and admittedly quite often I pretend that it is.
Oh I'm sorry did they finish the investigation? Were charges already laid and a verdict rendered? I must have missed that, and in BOTH jurisdictions really?
I wish this was true and admittedly quite often I pretend that it is.
Oh I'm sorry did they finish the investigation? Were charges already laid and a verdict rendered? I must have missed that, and in BOTH jurisdictions really?
If there is nothing more to the story and everything happened the way we are then the cop wont be charged. Self defence, simple as that.
