Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[DarkTZeratul]

Also, you can commit multiple, individual crimes during "essentially the same event". Just because you shot someone doesn't mean you also won't be charged for stealing money from people too. Those are two different crimes, even if they were part of the same "event".

Essentially, concurrent sentencing means that even if there are multiple charges, you're effectively serving time for the longest sentence, rather than all of them separately. If shooting someone has a sentence of 10 years, but stealing is only 1 year, you're mainly serving time for the shooting.

Also, appealing, being pardoned, or having the sentence commuted for one crime would mean you're still in prison for the rest of them. If they decide you didn't really steal the money after all, it doesn't shorten your sentence for shooting the guy.

[Trifle]

Then why bother with additional charges? It's the equivalent of telling a middle schooler that cutting class "is going on your permanent record" which uh...ok?

Also, you can commit multiple, individual crimes during "essentially the same event". Just because you shot someone doesn't mean you also won't be charged for stealing money from people too. Those are two different crimes, even if they were part of the same "event".

Presumably either to increase the chances of getting a good conviction in at least one of the cases, or for the principle of it.

I had a look for the details, and it looks like the federal case was actually for 2 different events, one was for the Floyd death and another was for a similar incident where he choked out a teenager and hit him with a flashlight... so there probably was justification for making that consecutive, but it seems like the prosecution asked for it to be concurrent.

I wasn't able to find if there were any guidelines on when one is used vs the other in the US, it seems to be largely up to judicial discretion.

[PhaelixWW]

there probably was justification for making that consecutive, but it seems like the prosecution asked for it to be concurrent.

Well, it was a plea deal, so both sides agreed for it to be concurrent more than the prosecution asking the court for it to be that way.

[Specialka]

Then why bother with additional charges? It's the equivalent of telling a middle schooler that cutting class "is going on your permanent record" which uh...ok?

Also, you can commit multiple, individual crimes during "essentially the same event". Just because you shot someone doesn't mean you also won't be charged for stealing money from people too. Those are two different crimes, even if they were part of the same "event".

In civilized country, you take the longer sentence and call it a day.

[Ghost of Cow]

Then why bother with additional charges?

Who knows, the justice system does this sort of weird thing all the time. Like taking someone who's already been sentenced to life without parole and putting them on trial for more things.

It's usually viewed as a, "Getting justice for..." sort of thing, even though it's functionally purposeless.

[postman1782]

https://www.kswo.com/2022/05/06/form...uadry-sanders/

I am not linking the video from the murder, but just saying that it is in that article. But here we go again. Back December 5th, 2021, 2 cops murdered Quadry Sanders, and they just now released the body cam footage. While he may have a restraining order against him, that doesn't mean they have the right to murder him.

The footage shows the cops shooting him, while the only thing in his hands is a FUCKING HAT. How do you mistake a WHITE HAT, for anything other than a FUCKING HAT. They shoot him 3 or 4 times before he could even get his hands up, and while he is on the fucking ground, they are screaming for him to get his hands up, at that point he goes to put his hands up, and they shoot him more.

The cops were fired for this, but now the DA is only charging them for FUCKING FIRST DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER. This was a straight up execution. He was shot 12 FUCKING TIMES with no weapon, and a FUCKING HAT in his hand.

ACAB.

[PhaelixWW]

The cops were fired for this, but now the DA is only charging them for FUCKING FIRST DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER. This was a straight up execution. He was shot 12 FUCKING TIMES with no weapon, and a FUCKING HAT in his hand.

The charge seems appropriate to me. Keep in mind that charges vary from state to state, so what you think of when you think of "manslaughter" is not always the same thing, legally. I'm willing to bet that Oklahoma's second degree manslaughter is closer to what more people think of when they think of the term.

First degree murder in Oklahoma is a far more serious charge than most places, with a minimum sentence of life. It requires "malice aforethought", or premeditation, which would be very hard to prove here. It's certainly possible that they went there planning to kill him, but proving it in court is another thing entirely.

First degree manslaughter in Oklahoma is used when the crime occurred without premeditation and "in the heat of the moment". The penalty is a minimum of 4 years in prison, up to life. So despite the lesser charge, we can still hope this guy gets sent away forever.

[postman1782]

The charge seems appropriate to me. Keep in mind that charges vary from state to state, so what you think of when you think of "manslaughter" is not always the same thing, legally. I'm willing to bet that Oklahoma's second degree manslaughter is closer to what more people think of when they think of the term.

First degree murder in Oklahoma is a far more serious charge than most places, with a minimum sentence of life. It requires "malice aforethought", or premeditation, which would be very hard to prove here. It's certainly possible that they went there planning to kill him, but proving it in court is another thing entirely.

First degree manslaughter in Oklahoma is used when the crime occurred without premeditation and "in the heat of the moment". The penalty is a minimum of 4 years in prison, up to life. So despite the lesser charge, we can still hope this guy gets sent away forever.

If that is the case, they better be convicted, and get fucking life. There is no evidence that he needed to be gunned down by 12 fucking shots. Especially when he was already down after the first fucking volley.

[PhaelixWW]

If that is the case, they better be convicted, and get fucking life. There is no evidence that he needed to be gunned down by 12 fucking shots. Especially when he was already down after the first fucking volley.

Yeah, it was... tough to watch. Tougher than most, and they're all bad. The cop whose bodycam footage was released deserves to be thrown into a deep pit forever, as far as I'm concerned.

[Endus]

The charge seems appropriate to me. Keep in mind that charges vary from state to state, so what you think of when you think of "manslaughter" is not always the same thing, legally. I'm willing to bet that Oklahoma's second degree manslaughter is closer to what more people think of when they think of the term.

First degree murder in Oklahoma is a far more serious charge than most places, with a minimum sentence of life. It requires "malice aforethought", or premeditation, which would be very hard to prove here. It's certainly possible that they went there planning to kill him, but proving it in court is another thing entirely.

First degree manslaughter in Oklahoma is used when the crime occurred without premeditation and "in the heat of the moment". The penalty is a minimum of 4 years in prison, up to life. So despite the lesser charge, we can still hope this guy gets sent away forever.

https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahom...e%20of%20proof.

First-degree murder in OK doesn't require malice; there's a whole section for when it doesn't include malice aforethought, and that section includes "shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill" as one of the elements that warrants a first-degree murder charge in OK without any malice aforethought.

Second-degree murder covers cases where there's no explicit intent to kill but you're doing crazy shit that's likely to kill someone; https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahom...tion-21-701-8/

And here's manslaughter in the first degree; https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahom...ection-21-711/
It can't apply to circumstances where there was a "design to effect death", which means an intent to potentially kill the target.

Given that the officers shot their victim with lethal force repeatedly, I don't see how that's not a "design to effect death", meaning first-degree manslaughter should be off the table. And given that they shot him with guns, that pretty clearly seems to fall directly under first-degree murder in OK's definition. Charging them with only manslaughter has no basis other than that they're cops and the courts are going unreasonably easy on them. Where the courts should be penalizing offending officers more harshly than the average citizen.

I do get your stance on going by the local law codes. But I did. And the corruption is actually worse than I presumed it would've been. Because that's what this kind of leniency is when cops get treated with kid gloves; it's corruption. This is a corrupt legal system. I actually think the OK law codes are overly harsh on this, but that's an issue to be addressed by the state legislators, not a reason to give cops a pass. Would they give a 20-year-old gang member the same leeway?

[PhaelixWW]

https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahom...e%20of%20proof.

First-degree murder in OK doesn't require malice; there's a whole section for when it doesn't include malice aforethought, and that section includes "shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill" as one of the elements that warrants a first-degree murder charge in OK without any malice aforethought.

No, that section is describing felony murder. And it only is regardless of the malice, not the aforethought. The first part of that section is:

A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of...

...and then it starts listing the various felonies for which OKs felony murder rule applies. Search any OK lawyer's page and you'll get the same explanation.

And here's manslaughter in the first degree; https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahom...ection-21-711/
It can't apply to circumstances where there was a "design to effect death", which means an intent to potentially kill the target.

Given that the officers shot their victim with lethal force repeatedly, I don't see how that's not a "design to effect death", meaning first-degree manslaughter should be off the table.

"I don't see how" doesn't constitute legal proof, though, does it. "I highly suspect" and "I can prove" are two different claims entirely. And the lawyers rightfully feel like a police officer, ostensibly in the legal function of his job, can easily provide enough reasonable doubt of "design to effect death" to prevent a guilty verdict.

So charging him with first-degree murder would almost certainly end in the guy walking.

Besides, the harsh sentencing for first-degree manslaughter also makes it less reasonable to try for the far more unrealistic charge.

I do get your stance on going by the local law codes. But I did. And the corruption is actually worse than I presumed it would've been. Because that's what this kind of leniency is when cops get treated with kid gloves; it's corruption. This is a corrupt legal system. I actually think the OK law codes are overly harsh on this, but that's an issue to be addressed by the state legislators, not a reason to give cops a pass. Would they give a 20-year-old gang member the same leeway?

To be fair, a 20-year-old gang member would not be "ostensibly in the legal function of his job" with regards to a shooting. Carrying around a firearm would also be more easily seen as indicating intent and/or premeditation, where it obviously wouldn't for a cop. So no, they probably would not get the same leeway. That being said, the harshness of OKs laws is actually what helps make this more fair, because the court can still come back with a life sentence, even for Man1.

[Endus]

No, that section is describing felony murder. And it only is regardless of the malice, not the aforethought. The first part of that section is:

...and then it starts listing the various felonies for which OKs felony murder rule applies. Search any OK lawyer's page and you'll get the same explanation.

And shooting someone with a firearm and causing their death is in that list.

"I don't see how" doesn't constitute legal proof, though, does it. "I highly suspect" and "I can prove" are two different claims entirely. And the lawyers rightfully feel like a police officer, ostensibly in the legal function of his job, can easily provide enough reasonable doubt of "design to effect death" to prevent a guilty verdict.

So charging him with first-degree murder would almost certainly end in the guy walking.

Besides, the harsh sentencing for first-degree manslaughter also makes it less reasonable to try for the far more unrealistic charge.

"I don't see how" is an invitation for someone to provide an explanation. And I don't agree that you have, here.

Also, describing that cops are held to different, lesser standards than the average citizen is not an argument that said loose standards are reasonable. I'm suggesting that's the opposite of what should be true; the training and position of officers gives them significantly less protection on such matters, or should.

If an officer's afraid to discharge their weapon because they're not sure the circumstances would be justified, they shouldn't be discharging their weapons. That's not that hard a concept to understand.

On the matter of not charging on first-degree murder; charge them with everything. See what sticks at trial. Forcing prosecutors to pick and choose in situations like this takes the decision out of the hands of the judge and jury, who never even get the option of higher charges even if they'd agree they're warranted. Charge them with every level, and convict on the highest the jury will agree to.

And pre-emptively; no, I do not accept that there's a percentage of innocents that need to get gunned down by police officers in the name of keeping those officers safe on the job.

[PhaelixWW]

And shooting someone with a firearm and causing their death is in that list.

That's not what felony murder is. Try again.

"I don't see how" is an invitation for someone to provide an explanation. And I don't agree that you have, here.

"I was just trying to legally subdue what I thought was a dangerous, armed suspect, and prevent him from returning into the house in which there was a hostage, as required by my job. I had no design to effect his death."

Good luck proving the design without a reasonable doubt. You can certainly argue that they should have known he wasn't armed, because his hands were visible and not holding a weapon. But that still makes it Man1 and not Murder1.

If an officer's afraid to discharge their weapon because they're not sure the circumstances would be justified, they shouldn't be discharging their weapons. That's not that hard a concept to understand.

<looks around>

Who are you arguing with here, exactly?

On the matter of not charging on first-degree murder; charge them with everything. See what sticks at trial. Forcing prosecutors to pick and choose in situations like this takes the decision out of the hands of the judge and jury, who never even get the option of higher charges even if they'd agree they're warranted. Charge them with every level, and convict on the highest the jury will agree to.

Uh... what does it even matter in this case? Man1 still carries up to life in prison. There's no decision being taken out of the hands of the judge and jury when they can still arrive at the same sentence, regardless of the window dressing.

And I'd be very surprised if juries, faced with multiple mutually-exclusive charges for the same act, wouldn't be more inclined to just nix them all. If you have a 2% chance of getting an upcharge (with the same potential max punishment) and a 10% chance of the jury sympathizing more with the suspect for being "harassed" by the DA's office and throwing out all the charges...

I guarantee there's a reason they don't do it.

And pre-emptively; no, I do not accept that there's a percentage of innocents that need to get gunned down by police officers in the name of keeping those officers safe on the job.

Just throwing random strawmen out there, eh? Classy.

[Endus]

That's not what felony murder is. Try again.

It's right there in the law code. Shooting someone with a firearm and killing them, even without malice aforethought, is felony murder, unless you have some other justification.

"I was just trying to legally subdue what I thought was a dangerous, armed suspect, and prevent him from returning into the house in which there was a hostage, as required by my job. I had no design to effect his death."

This is a description of motive, not a defense.

There's no indication the officers had legal cause to subdue this guy.
He wasn't armed nor dangerous.
There wasn't a hostage situation. They were there due to a call about a protective order violation.
And finally; you had "no design to effect his death"? What the fuck did you think shooting him 12 times was gonna do?

[quote]Good luck proving the design without a reasonable doubt. You can certainly argue that they should have known he wasn't armed, because his hands were visible and not holding a weapon. But that still makes it Man1 and not Murder1.

Shooting 12 times pretty strongly argues against manslaughter or the minimum use of force required to subdue an unarmed suspect.

The "design" is just "intent". If you're pointing a gun at someone and pull the trigger to shoot them, that's "intent". If they fired off one shot trying to hit him in the leg, or something, you could argue against that, but 12 shots all aimed with lethal intent? They wanted him dead.

And I'd be very surprised if juries, faced with multiple mutually-exclusive charges for the same act, wouldn't be more inclined to just nix them all.

Murder and manslaughter are in no way "mutually-exclusive", and when you issue multiple charges, as is absolutely standard practice in a whole lotta justice systems, it puts it in the jury's hands as to which they'll convict on. And then sentencing proceeds on the most severe conviction, since lesser charges sentenced concurrently don't set your sentence, really.

Take the Sammy Yatim shooting in Toronto a few years back, where the officer was charged with both 2nd degree murder and attempted murder. And convicted on the latter, but not the former. Standard practice in Canada, leaving the decision up to the jury, rather than pointless gamesmanship with the prosecutor to no useful purpose and certainly no benefit with regards to seeking justice.

If you have a 2% chance of getting an upcharge (with the same potential max punishment) and a 10% chance of the jury sympathizing more with the suspect for being "harassed" by the DA's office and throwing out all the charges...

I can't see how that's even remotely reasonable in any respect whatsoever. Absolutely ridiculous. Any jurist behaving that way is an idiot and should have been excluded in jury selection.

[PhaelixWW]

It's right there in the law code. Shooting someone with a firearm and killing them, even without malice aforethought, is felony murder, unless you have some other justification.

Except... that's not what felony murder is. It's not my fault that you apparently can't read or understand it properly.

Felony murder occurs when someone dies as an unintended result of a different felony action. Malice is not required because it's an unintended side-effect. So in the case of a shooting, it only applies if you kill someone (even without malice) while attempting to kill someone else with malice aforethought.

This is the basis for the felony murder rule everywhere.

For example, there's this definition for Oklahoma:

A person is in the commission of

• [murder of a person other than the deceased]
• [shooting/discharge of a firearm/crossbow with intent to kill a person other than the deceased]

This is a description of motive, not a defense.

No one disputes that the officers killed the guy. The difference that we're talking about between these charges is intent. The person's frame of mind is key to determining intent, and thus his statements about a lack of design to effect death are absolutely a defense.

There's no indication the officers had legal cause to subdue this guy.

Uh... no. There's no indication that the officers had legal cause to subdue the guy with lethal force.

But this wasn't some routine traffic stop; they were responding to a call in which he was in violation of a restraining order against him, and was reportedly armed and not allowing his victim to leave.

They absolutely had the legal cause to subdue and detain him, just not by the use of lethal force, since his hands were in front of him and obviously held no weapon.

There wasn't a hostage situation. They were there due to a call about a protective order violation.

...in which he was reportedly armed and not allowing the person to leave, according to the call.

Yeah, that's a hostage situation, especially if he flees back inside when the cops show up to detain him.

And finally; you had "no design to effect his death"? What the fuck did you think shooting him 12 times was gonna do?

"I didn't go into the confrontation expecting to shoot him 12 times; I was just reacting to his sudden movements."

Again, the prosecutors can easily challenge that his movements were cause for the use of lethal force, but they can't prove that the shooting was premeditated. It's easy to argue that those 12 shots were "in the heat of the moment", rather than by a specific design to effect death.

So Man1 is the appropriate and obtainable charge.

Shooting 12 times pretty strongly argues against manslaughter or the minimum use of force required to subdue an unarmed suspect.

In the court of public opinion, probably. Not in a court of law. Again, "I highly suspect" is not the same as "I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt".

The "design" is just "intent". If you're pointing a gun at someone and pull the trigger to shoot them, that's "intent".

Again, no. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger to shoot them shows intent to wound the victim; it doesn't automatically show an intent to kill the victim if circumstances indicate reasonable doubt. A police officer in the commission of his duty shooting a suspect who has been described as armed and with a hostage conveys such a reasonable doubt of intent to kill, rather than wound, by its circumstance.

If they fired off one shot trying to hit him in the leg, or something, you could argue against that, but 12 shots all aimed with lethal intent? They wanted him dead.

You'd make a shitty lawyer, you know. You're literally using "aimed with lethal intent" as proof that there was... lethal intent.

Aiming center mass does not prove lethal intent when a cop shoots a suspect. The rest of the particulars have to do that.

Murder and manslaughter are in no way "mutually-exclusive"

When they're separately defined as "with malice aforethough" and "without a design to effect death"... yes, they are.

At least in the state of Oklahoma, when talking about Murder1 and Man1.

when you issue multiple charges, as is absolutely standard practice in a whole lotta justice systems, it puts it in the jury's hands as to which they'll convict on. And then sentencing proceeds on the most severe conviction, since lesser charges sentenced concurrently don't set your sentence, really.

And in this case, the sentencing is entirely in the hands of the jury, as the max sentence for both is the same. They literally have more leeway with a Man1 conviction. And if they were disposed to give a light sentence for Man1, then they were also extremely unlikely to have found a Murder1 conviction in the first place, so the prosecution isn't really losing out on potential jail time.

Take the Sammy Yatim shooting in Toronto a few years back, where the officer was charged with both 2nd degree murder and attempted murder.

Yup, this is already an invalid comparison because murder and attempted murder are not mutually exclusive. When you provide jurors with two charges on the same sliding scale, that's understandable. When you provide jurors with charges that cannot possibly both be true, then you're leaving room for the defense to argue that that you can't possibly be convinced about either charge and you're entirely just fishing.

This isn't to say that the prosecution can't try it, but it would harm their case. And in the situation where it doesn't increase the potential sentencing at all, that's just pointless.

At that point, charging him with both would just be:

pointless gamesmanship with the prosecutor to no useful purpose and certainly no benefit with regards to seeking justice.

Yeah, that.

I can't see how that's even remotely reasonable in any respect whatsoever. Absolutely ridiculous. Any jurist behaving that way is an idiot and should have been excluded in jury selection.

What a joke. You think prosecutors are going to shoot themselves in the foot and waste their voir dire peremptory challenges on people who might be more sympathetic to the defendant because the prosecution filed contradictory charges against him?

And for no possible increase in max jail time?

Yeah... you'd make a terrible lawyer.

[Endus]

What a joke. You think prosecutors are going to shoot themselves in the foot and waste their voir dire peremptory challenges on people who might be more sympathetic to the defendant because the prosecution filed contradictory charges against him?

And for no possible increase in max jail time?

Yeah... you'd make a terrible lawyer.

Seriously, there isn't anything "contradictory" about manslaughter and murder charges. I have no idea where you're getting that. Charging both is pretty big standard practice in cases where intent isn't certain.

[PhaelixWW]

Seriously, there isn't anything "contradictory" about manslaughter and murder charges. I have no idea where you're getting that. Charging both is pretty big standard practice in cases where intent isn't certain.

Sure there is. They can't both be true.

And the first thing the prosecution wants to do is signal that they're uncertain about the intent when starting to make their case?

Hardly.

Again, there's no dispute that these cops killed the suspect. The entirety of this case revolves around mens rea, so admitting to prosecutorial uncertainty in that one aspect can only damage their argument.

And it's very telling that no matter how many times I bring up the fact that Man1 still carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, you fail to address it, because you actually care more about the title of the charge than its attendant measure of justice.

[Endus]

Sure there is. They can't both be true.

Same applies to the Yatim case I mentioned; you can't both murder a guy, and attempt to murder him but fail.

And the first thing the prosecution wants to do is signal that they're uncertain about the intent when starting to make their case?

Hardly.

Again, there's no dispute that these cops killed the suspect. The entirety of this case revolves around mens rea, so admitting to prosecutorial uncertainty in that one aspect can only damage their argument.

All this ignores the entire concept of a "trial". Y'know, where the prosecution is expected to make their case and then leave the decision about what charges can be upheld beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury's hands.

Charging multiple levels doesn't signify "uncertainty", it signifies that they think they can make the case for the highest charge, but failing that, there are lesser charges that they can default to instead.

And it's very telling that no matter how many times I bring up the fact that Man1 still carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, you fail to address it, because you actually care more about the title of the charge than its attendant measure of justice.

Because the charges themselves also matter. It isn't just about sentencing. I've been ignoring this point because it's just flatly not relevant to what I've been saying.

[PhaelixWW]

Same applies to the Yatim case I mentioned; you can't both murder a guy, and attempt to murder him but fail.

Failure is not a criterion for attempted murder...

Attempt to commit murder

239 (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence

You can attempt and succeed or attempt and fail. In both cases, you're guilty of this crime.

Charging multiple levels doesn't signify "uncertainty", it signifies that they think they can make the case for the highest charge, but failing that, there are lesser charges that they can default to instead.

Those aren't multiple levels, they're different branches. And it's not like they couldn't try if they wanted to. It would just hurt their case for no reason.

Because the charges themselves also matter. It isn't just about sentencing. I've been ignoring this point because it's just flatly not relevant to what I've been saying.

...because:

...you actually care more about the title of the charge than its attendant measure of justice.

Yeah, you've made that painfully clear.

[Endus]

Those aren't multiple levels, they're different branches. And it's not like they couldn't try if they wanted to. It would just hurt their case for no reason.

And yet, you can't explain how, other than that juries might react in wildly unethical and unreasonable ways that they don't actually act in in practice.

...because:

Yeah, you've made that painfully clear.

And you've yet to explain why that's a problem.