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

[Edge-]

It's a lot harder to prove the police officer had the specific intent to murder, rather than recklessly causing serious bodily injury (for which there is a substantial risk of death). The defending attorney for Brennand has a lot more options at hand to summon a defense for the former, and a jury has a much increased likelihood to let the cop off for the former charge. For the aggravated assault charge, Texas prosecutors get the same level of punishment for a reduced burden on what they must prove.

What do you think his intent was in repeatedly firing at him, even as he was driving away?

[tehdang]

What do you think his intent was in repeatedly firing at him, even as he was driving away?

In a criminal case, the judge doesn't ask the jury members what they think his intent was. It's immaterial. But, y'know, any comment on the actual subject of the post?

[Edge-]

In a criminal case, the judge doesn't ask the jury members what they think his intent was. It's immaterial. But, y'know, any comment on the actual subject of the post?

What do you think the officer thought would happen if he repeatedly fired on a driver at close range? What would any reasonable person think the outcome of such an action would result in?

[tehdang]

What do you think the officer thought would happen if he repeatedly fired on a driver at close range? What would any reasonable person think the outcome of such an action would result in?

This is really the same question and the same response as your previous. The jury isn't asked to fill in their own intent, and when unable, must conclude otherwise. That's not the law.

The second reason you're barking up the wrong tree with your questions is that they also include aggravated assault in positive answers. "What do you think the officer thought would happen" can be firmly answered "The officer shot in a manner that showed he did not care if the victim lived or died," and thus aggravated assault.

Now, would you comment on the actual subject of the post? Twice now you've refrained from doing so, so I'm left wondering if you replied with the specific intention of avoiding the subject and engaging in tangents, or simply had reckless disregard for the subject and only skimmed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, because shooting someone with multiple rounds is definitely not intending to kill! /s

There is no spot on the human body where it is safe to shoot someone. There are arteries all over the place. Bones don't grow back. Stop with this bullshit about how it's hard to determine intent when the cop FIRED MULTIPLE ROUNDS!

Let's look at the law. You want to give the cop up to 20 years where the prosecution is required to prove that the cop acted with the specific intent to end the victim's life, or you want to give the cop up to 20 years where the prosecution is only required to show he recklessly caused serious bodily injury, creating a substantial risk of death (etc)? Same punishment for the cop, one charge with a significantly higher chance that he gets off.

[Endus]

In a criminal case, the judge doesn't ask the jury members what they think his intent was. It's immaterial. But, y'know, any comment on the actual subject of the post?

"Intent" is literally the distinction between certain crimes, like manslaughter and murder, so that's just an obviously false claim there. Mens rea is a major component of prosecution, it's not all actus reus.

[Twdft]

Disgusting.

[postman1782]

It's a lot harder to prove the police officer had the specific intent to murder, rather than recklessly causing serious bodily injury (for which there is a substantial risk of death). The defending attorney for Brennand has a lot more options at hand to summon a defense for the former, and a jury has a much increased likelihood to let the cop off for the former charge. For the aggravated assault charge, Texas prosecutors get the same level of punishment for a reduced burden on what they must prove.

You don't shoot at someone unless you intend to fucking kill. How is it not attempted murder?

[RampageBW1]

You don't shoot at someone unless you intend to fucking kill. How is it not attempted murder?

tehdang probably saw one too many action movies of people getting shot in the leg or the arm and coming out of it just fine.

In real life, unless you are a wizard and know exactly where the arteries are in your intended victim, shooting to "maim" can still fucking kill someone. And even if you did miss all arteries by sheer luck, a gun shot wound can leave the victim disabled depending on location and how bad the wound is.

[Deus Mortis]

For those that seem to be just skimming Tehdang's posts. He has a point. It will easier to get a conviction for the aggravated assault over attempted murder, and both crimes carry up to 20 years in Texas.
https://www.mariomadridlawfirm.com/a...empted-murder/

Attempted murder is a felony punishable by:
A minimum of 2 and a maximum of 20 years

https://texascriminaljustice.com/wha...apon-in-texas/

Aggravated Assault: Both aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury AND aggravated assault with a deadly weapon are Second-Degree Felony charges. If convicted, the mandatory minimum sentence is 2 years in prison, though a judge or jury could order up to 20 years.

Seeing that both seem to carry the same sentence, it would be very stupid not to go for the one that would be easier to nail the person on. So I am actually for this and hope that the jury goes with the maximum. Obviously if the kid dies then you can escalate the charges.

[RampageBW1]

He may have a point, but I still think it's stupid that people could argue that "I didn't intend to attempt to kill someone with this tool which only purpose is to kill/destroy people/things." Especially if that person shoots someone else multiple times. But yes, I concede that tehdawg has a point on this matter, as stupid as I think it is.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's a lot harder to prove the police officer had the specific intent to murder, rather than recklessly causing serious bodily injury (for which there is a substantial risk of death). The defending attorney for Brennand has a lot more options at hand to summon a defense for the former, and a jury has a much increased likelihood to let the cop off for the former charge. For the aggravated assault charge, Texas prosecutors get the same level of punishment for a reduced burden on what they must prove.

I feel that if I were to shoot 10 times at a cop...they wouldn't find it nearly so difficult to charge me with attempted murder

- - - Updated - - -

For those that seem to be just skimming Tehdang's posts. He has a point. It will easier to get a conviction for the aggravated assault over attempted murder, and both crimes carry up to 20 years in Texas.
https://www.mariomadridlawfirm.com/a...empted-murder/

https://texascriminaljustice.com/wha...apon-in-texas/


Seeing that both seem to carry the same sentence, it would be very stupid not to go for the one that would be easier to nail the person on. So I am actually for this and hope that the jury goes with the maximum. Obviously if the kid dies then you can escalate the charges.

They should be charging him with every crlme they would charge anyone without a badge that did the same thing.

There was also a passenger in the car with the guy that was shot...so we should be seeing a whole other set of charges for that person as well.

[s_bushido]

I feel that if I were to shoot 10 times at a cop...they wouldn't find it nearly so difficult to charge me with attempted murder

Ah, but you see, you don't have a nice shiny shield you can pin to your chest to protect you from the law.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

tehdang probably saw one too many action movies of people getting shot in the leg or the arm and coming out of it just fine.

Tehdang would have a different opinion if it were anyone other than a cop that did the shooting. Brown-Nose the Blue.

[tehdang]

For those that seem to be just skimming Tehdang's posts. He has a point. It will easier to get a conviction for the aggravated assault over attempted murder, and both crimes carry up to 20 years in Texas.

Seeing that both seem to carry the same sentence, it would be very stupid not to go for the one that would be easier to nail the person on. So I am actually for this and hope that the jury goes with the maximum. Obviously if the kid dies then you can escalate the charges.

As I said... but in today's politically charged environment, hearing it from someone else helps the people that can't apprehend the argument after identifying the face of the speaker making it. You can't be right about something unless you also are a member of the correct team or believe in the correct political ideology.

But yes, I concede that tehdawg has a point on this matter, as stupid as I think it is.

I did finally conclude that the real argument was not "He should be charged with attempted murder, and you're wrong for saying different" but actually "I have a problem with the Texas law itself that makes not charging him with (what amounts to) attempted murder the absolutely right choice in this matter, and I'm sorry for saying things I didn't mean in the discussion."

Tehdang would have a different opinion if it were anyone other than a cop that did the shooting. Brown-Nose the Blue.

The last retreat. "You're right, but you'd totally be wrong if the circumstances were different than what they actually are."

[RampageBW1]

I did finally conclude that the real argument was not "He should be charged with attempted murder, and you're wrong for saying different" but actually "I have a problem with the Texas law itself that makes not charging him with (what amounts to) attempted murder the absolutely right choice in this matter, and I'm sorry for saying things I didn't mean in the discussion."

Whatever makes you feel better, bub. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The last retreat. "You're right, but you'd totally be wrong if the circumstances were different than what they actually are."

Yeah sure, except the only circumstance that is different is that in this case one of them has a badge. You wouldn't be making the "they should only go with the lesser charge" argument if it were a civilian...you'd be on the "they should charge him with every applicable offense" side.

[tehdang]

Yeah sure, except the only circumstance that is different is that in this case one of them has a badge. You wouldn't be making the "they should only go with the lesser charge" argument if it were a civilian...you'd be on the "they should charge him with every applicable offense" side.

Make sure to highlight this when there's a a trial and charges that match what you're saying. That way it can exist in a real way, apart from telling me what I would do if things weren't like they are here.

Incidentally, you never said what you thought about what prosecutors are charging here. Maybe you'll share what you believe about actual circumstances in this case, before telling everybody my hypothetical views in a hypothetically different situation. Maybe you won't, but I hope you do.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Incidentally, you never said what you thought about what prosecutors are charging here. Maybe you'll share what you believe about actual circumstances in this case, before telling everybody my hypothetical views in a hypothetically different situation. Maybe you won't, but I hope you do.

Incidentally, I did:

They should be charging him with every crlme they would charge anyone without a badge that did the same thing.

There was also a passenger in the car with the guy that was shot...so we should be seeing a whole other set of charges for that person as well.

It's in the same post where I first replied to you.

[tehdang]

Incidentally, I did:



It's in the same post where I first replied to you.

They are charging him with two counts of aggravated assault. The includes the second person in the car. I know you're trying to drag another hypothetical crime and hypothetical perpetrator/victim combo into this, but maybe you have an opinion on this event that doesn't depend on whataboutism. People accuse me of this all the time, I'm aware of it. This could also be your way of telling me you don't have an opinion here, but want to share your opinion on injustice in America instead. If that's true, then I understand you.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

They are charging him with two counts of aggravated assault. The includes the second person in the car. I know you're trying to drag another hypothetical crime and hypothetical perpetrator/victim combo into this, but maybe you have an opinion on this event that doesn't depend on whataboutism. People accuse me of this all the time, I'm aware of it. This could also be your way of telling me you don't have an opinion here, but want to share your opinion on injustice in America instead. If that's true, then I understand you.

I mean, I clearly have an opinion here...I'll say it again he should be charged with every applicable crime here... that includes attempted murder, that includes unlawful discharge of a firearm. That probably includes other crimes as well that while I may not be aware of them... the DA's office should be.

This is not "whataboutism"... this is about how a cop that commits a crime should be treated, at the absolute least, exactly the same as any other person that committted that same crime.