How Does This Happen....

[RyanScott]

So in other words you don't know dick about the real world but you feel fit to judge it.

How many people have you shot in the United States? Curious because you talk with such swagger.

You have all that training and you still trust lawyers?

No, I don’t particularly trust lawyers but I don’t particularly trust police either, and I really don’t trust people to investigate themselves. Although they did a good job when a deputy who stalked a family member went away for an on duty rape the following month. The sheriff shook my hand and apologized for that himself. Good man. He’s the county commissioner now.

 

[308pirate]

How many people have you shot in the United States? Curious because you talk with such swagger

Swagger? No swagger here. I'm calling YOU out as an agent provocateur who is here to stir shit.

You claim you took some criminal justice courses and now that entitles you to pass judgment on confrontations you were neither a party to nor have all the investigative details? Get the fuck out of here.

 

[quietmike]

By reading two months of the WaPo shooting database and multiplying. Near as I can tell 5% of the people the police shoot didn’t need to be shot but it was legal and 5% are criminal shootings.

If a police shooting is legal, that's all that matters.
Contrary to popular belief, the law for police shootings is identical to the one for eveyone else, self defense.
Are you saying there should be a separate justice system for police?

 

[MarinePMI]

Unlocked, sat in, and started a car identical to my own with the keys in my pocket. It wasn't until I went for the shifter that I realized it was a manual column shift.

Hell, I thought I was the only one to do this. LOL! Was driving the wife's car one day and did the exact same thing. What are the odds that two of the same model year blue Camry's, in the same parking lot, would respond to the same key FOB entry/unlock signal? Pretty small. ...But it does happen.

 

[BoilerUP]

Right up there with "Dafuq do people think drugs are somehow involved?", why do people call this a 'police shooting' and think the DPD is going to have financial liability?

Yes, she was employed as a police officer and yes, she was in uniform when she pulled the trigger...but she was off-duty and not acting as a LEO. For all intents and purposes, she was nothing more than a citizen who committed B&E then shot and killed a dwelling's occupant...while believing she was shooting an intruder in her own home that opened her own door, which appears to be legal for any Jane Citizen under the Texas 'stand your ground' law.

She made a deadly mistake, and needs to be accountable for her actions.

It is possible her fellow officers are Blue Line'ing her (the 14 hour shift thing in the story makes me think they are setting up a defense related to occupational fatigue), but the reality is her actions reflect negatively on the entire department AND again, she was 'off the clock'.

I'm not a lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I have trouble seeing how DPD will have liability for this. I've been wrong before, though...

 

[ArmyJerry]

police department gave her the gun, they own it. they are covering up

 

[RyanScott]

Swagger? No swagger here. I'm calling YOU out as an agent provocateur who is here to stir shit.

You claim you took some criminal justice courses and now that entitles you to pass judgment on confrontations you were neither a party to nor have all the investigative details? Get the fuck out of here.

Waiting on your answer still.

And absolutely you can say without the entire file with enough accuracy to identify a problem in this country.

If a police shooting is legal, that's all that matters.
Contrary to popular belief, the law for police shootings is identical to the one for eveyone else, self defense.
Are you saying there should be a separate justice system for police?

There is a separate standard. In fact in my state the statute is explicit in identifying a more stringent standard for police, despite the existence of a second statute that resolves police officers who act in good faith from any criminal liability for using force. Which essentially eliminates manslaughter as a crime police could commit.

And no, the standard needs to be higher than simply “not criminal.” An Officer I’ve personally met shot an unarmed misdemeanant holding his son (the dead guys son) and incurred a $15m civil judgement. The largest part of that jury award comes from the treasury of a city in which I have financial interests. Not criminal is not a high enough standard when you’re going to shoot people and bill me for the mess.

 

[RyanScott]

police department gave her the gun, they own it. they are covering up

Disagree. The Chief was ready for an arrest inside 24 hours.

 

[quietmike]

Waiting on your answer still.

And absolutely you can say without the entire file with enough accuracy to identify a problem in this country.



There is a separate standard. In fact in my state the statute is explicit in identifying a more stringent standard for police, despite the existence of a second statute that resolves police officers who act in good faith from any criminal liability for using force. Which essentially eliminates manslaughter as a crime police could commit.

And no, the standard needs to be higher than simply “not criminal.” An Officer I’ve personally met shot an unarmed misdemeanant holding his son (the dead guys son) and incurred a $15m civil judgement. The largest part of that jury award comes from the treasury of a city in which I have financial interests. Not criminal is not a high enough standard when you’re going to shoot people and bill me for the mess.

Then your jurisdiction needs to enact a law like Tennessee. If there is no criminal charge for a shooting, civil penalties cannot attach.

So, in fact, you do want a separate judicial system. just for police

 

[308pirate]

Waiting on your answer still.

You'll wait forever

I don't answer to shit stirring trolls

 

[RyanScott]

Then your jurisdiction needs to enact a law like Tennessee. If there is no criminal charge for a shooting, civil penalties cannot attach.

So, in fact, you do want a separate judicial system. just for police

No, that’s the last thing we need. Accountability is a good thing and we shouldn’t avoid it.

You'll wait forever

I don't answer to shit stirring trolls

If you’re going to lecture me on the real world you’d better have shot more people than me. But I get it. There are things I would not put in print too.

 

[Mwalex]

No, that’s the last thing we need. Accountability is a good thing and we shouldn’t avoid it.


If you’re going to lecture me on the real world you’d better have shot more people than me. But I get it. There are things I would not put in print too.

So, your position is that if a person is not criminally charged for a shooting they should still be held civilly liable?

 

[Ric O'shay]

Umm...wait a second. You need to shoot people to have a valid perspective or ability to give advice or have an opinion.

 

[RyanScott]

Why should someone be relieved of civil liability if they don’t face criminal charges? I have complaints about tort law, but I wouldn’t throw it out.

If a police officer has a negligent discharge while serving a warrant and kills someone, yet isn’t charged, why shouldn’t he or his employer pay for the decedents lost wages? You must pay the weregild.

 

[oneshot86]

Umm...wait a second. You need to shoot people to have a valid perspective or ability to give advice or have an opinion.

or rather shot MORE PEOPLE

 

[RyanScott]

Umm...wait a second. You need to shoot people to have a valid perspective or ability to give advice or have an opinion.

I don’t believe so, but that’s the insinuation the other poster made. Why tradesmen claim secret knowledge of an entire corner of the law I do not know.

 

[quietmike]

No, that’s the last thing we need. Accountability is a good thing and we shouldn’t avoid it.

A negligent discharge that results in injury or death is criminally actionable.

If you’re going to lecture me on the real world you’d better have shot more people than me. But I get it. There are things I would not put in print too.

Since you're lecturing us on police duties and responsibilities, regale us with your training and experience as a sworn police officer.

 

[RyanScott]

A negligent discharge that results in injury or death is criminally actionable.

It is also actionable as a civil matter and has been for 1200 years. If charges aren’t filed should there be no civil liability?

Since you're lecturing us on police duties and responsibilities, regale us with your training and experience as a sworn police officer.

Police duties and responsibilities? I’ve commented on self defense law and civil liability, neither of which are exclusive to the police. Why you think your trade has exclusive authority to speak to these issues is beyond me. If you were slightly more clever you’d ask where my law degree comes from, but then you’d have to surrender your claim of corporate knowledge.

 

[RyanScott]

A negligent discharge that results in injury or death is criminally actionable.

Follow this link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...da6-b2b8-98dcfc0f299d/?utm_term=.78ac805e977f

Despite meeting the standard for manslaughter no criminal charges were filed in this case. Should no one have civil liability?

 

[Nik H]

If you’re going to lecture me on the real world you’d better have shot more people than me. But I get it. There are things I would not put in print too.

Ahhh

You just kind of indirectly did.

 

[quietmike]

It is also actionable as a civil matter and has been for 1200 years. If charges aren’t filed should there be no civil liability?

If nothing done was legally incorrect, why should they?

Police duties and responsibilities? I’ve commented on self defense law and civil liability, neither of which are exclusive to the police. Why you think your trade has exclusive authority to speak to these issues is beyond me. If you were slightly more clever you’d ask where my law degree comes from, but then you’d have to surrender your claim of corporate knowledge.

Please. Attorneys are the problem.
Suing a company for millions because some klutz dumped hot coffee in her lap?

 

[RyanScott]

Ahhh

You just kind of indirectly did.

I accepted his premise that only personal experience outside of training qualifies one to speak. I’m perfectly happy to communicate with others who don’t make the same claim.

 

[quietmike]

Follow this link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...da6-b2b8-98dcfc0f299d/?utm_term=.78ac805e977f

Despite meeting the standard for manslaughter no criminal charges were filed in this case. Should no one have civil liability?

Your issue should be with the DA, you know, those lawyers, instead of the police.

 

[308pirate]

If you’re going to lecture me on the real world you’d better have shot more people than me.

You're the one lecturing people here.

You're the one making outlandish claims that you can tell a good shoot from an unnecessary one by reviewing some newspaper database.

Come on counselor, don't leave us hanging. Did you subpoena all the records surrounding the shoots you disapprove of?

 

[RyanScott]

If nothing done was legally incorrect, why should they?

Because for good reason we have made a distinction between civil matters where persons have a right to petition the government to make them whole and criminal matters where one risks punishment by the state. I don’t think if you were honest with yourself you’d want the standard for conduct in public to be “not criminal” and you should ponder that for a while.

Please. Attorneys are the problem.
Suing a company for millions because some klutz dumped hot coffee in her lap?

In that case the defendant asked first for several thousand dollars to pay for skin grafts she needed. How reasonable is it to hand people 190* water out a window, knowing that it results in injuries with some regularity?

Your issue should be with the DA, you know, those lawyers, instead of the police.

I certainly have an issue with the DAs Office in this case, but at least they haven’t committed manslaughter.

 

[308pirate]

I accepted his premise that only personal experience outside of training qualifies one to speak.

Facts not in evidence.

 

[308pirate]

Because for good reason we have made a distinction between civil matters where persons have a right to petition the government to make them whole and criminal matters where one risks punishment by the state. I don’t think if you were honest with yourself you’d want the standard for conduct in public to be “not criminal” and you should ponder that for a while.

When it comes to legally justifiable shootings, my state has done just that.

 

[RyanScott]

You're the one lecturing people here.

You're the one making outlandish claims that you can tell a good shoot from an unnecessary one by reviewing some newspaper database.

Come on counselor, don't leave us hanging. Did you subpoena all the records surrounding the shoots you disapprove of?

Subpoena isn’t the word you’re looking for by the way.

And no, not from the abstract but it’s almost like you can read reports online. Once you dismiss the obvious ones (shootings resulting in convictions, shootings of armed felons) and only look into the interesting ones you only have to google about 20 cases and read the statements of the agency and the prosecutors and the complaint in lawsuits. Takes a couple of hours.

 

[quietmike]

Because for good reason we have made a distinction between civil matters where persons have a right to petition the government to make them whole and criminal matters where one risks punishment by the state. I don’t think if you were honest with yourself you’d want the standard for conduct in public to be “not criminal” and you should ponder that for a while.

In the case you linked, it should have been criminal, and civil penalties should have attached.

In that case the defendant asked first for several thousand dollars to pay for skin grafts she needed. How reasonable is it to hand people 190* water out a window, knowing that it results in injuries with some regularity?

In that case, the lady was a repeat customer and knew what she was ordering. The company had no control over her butter fingers. Lawyers are the reason we have warning labels in aluminum ladders not to lean them against high voltage lines. Because idiots are protected from the results of their actions, we now have an overabundance of them.

I certainly have an issue with the DAs Office in this case, but at least they haven’t committed manslaughter.

Neither did the police, legally speaking.

 

[308pirate]

Subpoena isn’t the word you’re looking for by the way.

And no, not from the abstract but it’s almost like you can read reports online. Once you dismiss the obvious ones (shootings resulting in convictions, shootings of armed felons) and only look into the interesting ones you only have to google about 20 cases and read the statements of the agency and the prosecutors and the complaint in lawsuits. Takes a couple of hours.

In other words, you didn't get to see everything that the prosecutor saw when he/she decided to press no charges.

But you know better. Right...….

Back to ignore you go

 

[RyanScott]

When it comes to legally justifiable shootings, my state has done just that.

Post your States statute I’m curious if the standard is justifiable or simply a case where a criminal conviction can’t be obtained. For instance the shooting I posted was unquestionably not justified but some of you believe there still shouldn’t be any civil liability.

 

[Mwalex]

Why should someone be relieved of civil liability if they don’t face criminal charges? I have complaints about tort law, but I wouldn’t throw it out.

If a police officer has a negligent discharge while serving a warrant and kills someone, yet isn’t charged, why shouldn’t he or his employer pay for the decedents lost wages? You must pay the weregild.

If a semblance of intelligence is applied to your statement then I can half way live with it but there is a fallacy in this logic. Let us move the subject matter from strictly police, which was your example, to people as a whole. If anyone negligently discharges a firearm and hits someone there should be some associated charge and should be found guilty of that, or some lesser, charge. In that case there must be some civil responsibility pushed back to the shooter. I do not agree that someone found not guilty should be held civilly liable.

Your example is about a problem with the legal system, in my opinion, and not tort law.

You might have addressed this after my question, but honestly I did not feel like reading all of your posts.

 

[RyanScott]

In the case you linked, it should have been criminal, and civil penalties should have attached.

So widows and orphans should get nothing of the DA declines charges, without appeal? That’s a great deal for the government, they can avoid liability for anything they want and the only way to stop them is getting the DA out of office.

In that case, the lady was a repeat customer and knew what she was ordering. The company had no control over her butter fingers. Lawyers are the reason we have warning labels in aluminum ladders not to lean them against high voltage lines. Because idiots are protected from the results of their actions, we now have an overabundance of them.

Everyone is an individualist until they are the one with the bill.

Neither did the police, legally speaking.

Shit I wish we had pet DAs where I work. Sounds like a huge savings when you don’t have to do anything right.

In other words, you didn't get to see everything that the prosecutor saw when he/she decided to press no charges.

But you know better. Right...….

Back to ignore you go

I don’t mind being on ignore.

But it’s almost like the government holds public events where they explain the choices they made.

 

[quietmike]

So widows and orphans should get nothing of the DA declines charges, without appeal?

There's always direct presentment.

Everyone is an individualist until they are the one with the bill.

Lawyers love to be shit-stirrers when they have nothing on the line.

 

[quietmike]

Shit I wish we had pet DAs where I work. Sounds like a huge savings when you don’t have to do anything right.

What penalties do lawyers face when they screw up?
Oh yeah, their client suffers the consequences.
Nice discussion pot.
Sincerely,
Kettle

 

[RyanScott]

If a semblance of intelligence is applied to your statement then I can half way live with it but there is a fallacy in this logic. Let us move the subject matter from strictly police, which was your example, to people as a whole. If anyone negligently discharges a firearm and hits someone there should be some associated charge and should be found guilty of that, or some lesser, charge. In that case there must be some civil responsibility pushed back to the shooter. I do not agree that someone found not guilty should be held civilly liable.

Your example is about a problem with the legal system, in my opinion, and not tort law.

You might have addressed this after my question, but honestly I did not feel like reading all of your posts.

Hey, if you’re willing to tell the widow and child of someone killed negligently that the DA decided they get to live in poverty now more power to you. It’s a dramatic shift in the law, but whatevs.

 

[RyanScott]

There's always direct presentment.

In some states. I think more ought to have that.

Lawyers love to be shit-stirrers when they have nothing on the line.

I don’t care for lawyers, and I think we need massive tort reforms. Just not these. Personally I think lawyers ought to post a bond when they file, in case their suit is frivolous.

What penalties do lawyers face when they screw up?
Oh yeah, their client suffers the consequences.
Nice discussion pot.
Sincerely,
Kettle

You can sue your lawyer if he fails you. I saw a lawyer eat $250,000 in fees once because of a simple mistake for which the client (us) could have sued him.

 

[hic28]

35 second mark. “I’ve seen this once before as a rookie...”

 

[quietmike]

deleted

 

[quietmike]

delete

 

[Mwalex]

Hey, if you’re willing to tell the widow and child of someone killed negligently that the DA decided they get to live in poverty now more power to you. It’s a dramatic shift in the law, but whatevs.

Great example of taking a logical discussion and trying to use emotion to evade my point. I will state again that any negligent firing of a gun where someone is shot or killed should always be accompanied by a charge and subsequent conviction of some kind. It does not have to be a felony but some kind of conviction. In that case a civil case would then be filed and would be hard to dismiss.

Your position is about a problem with the system that should be fixed.

 

[RyanScott]

Agreed. A "loser pays" rule would eliminate many nonsensical suits.

Provided that there are some exceptions, sure.

While googling for something about this I saw a case where an officer learned from a DNA test he had a small amount of black in his ancestry and sued his employer for racial discrimination. What a loon. His lawyer ought to be disbarred for not laughing him out of the office.

 

[RyanScott]

Great example of taking a logical discussion and trying to use emotion to evade my point. I will state again that any negligent firing of a gun where someone is shot or killed should always be accompanied by a charge and subsequent conviction of some kind. It does not have to be a felony but some kind of conviction. In that case a civil case would then be filed and would be hard to dismiss.

Your position is about a problem with the system that should be fixed.

So...who decides what is negligent?

And if the prosecutor bungles or throws the case can he be sued by the survivors for failing to obtain a conviction and impoverishing them?

The basis of tort law is that if you have been wronged you have a right to be made whole. So why instead of focusing on the definition of wronged are you seeking to avoid making people whole? Plainlybwe are talking about people who have been wronged. Let’s eliminate the middle man.

For that matter what if the officer dies before charges can be brought? Through what process do you hold his agency accountable when you don’t have a conviction?

 

[quietmike]

So...who decides what is negligent?

Pretty sure reasonable man standard still applies.

And if the prosecutor bungles or throws the case can he be sued by the survivors for failing to obtain a conviction and impoverishing them?

No because most legislators are attorneys, and they do nothing if not protect their own.

The basis of tort law is that if you have been wronged you have a right to be made whole. So why instead of focusing on the definition of wronged are you seeking to avoid making people whole? Plainlybwe are talking about people who have been wronged. Let’s eliminate the middle man.

Because "wronged" is a central requirement in able to claim damages.

 

[Mwalex]

So...who decides what is negligent?

And if the prosecutor bungles or throws the case can he be sued by the survivors for failing to obtain a conviction and impoverishing them?

The basis of tort law is that if you have been wronged you have a right to be made whole. So why instead of focusing on the definition of wronged are you seeking to avoid making people whole? Plainlybwe are talking about people who have been wronged. Let’s eliminate the middle man.

For that matter what if the officer dies before charges can be brought? Through what process do you hold his agency accountable when you don’t have a conviction?

I think what is negligent has been well defined by this point, has it not? You are missing the point, again, it should be about who and when is someone actually negligent. An example, you and I are shooting at my home at a range I put together. Let us say that while I am shooting, for some strange reason you walk in front of me, get shot in the head and die. Who in this scenario is negligent?

I really do not care about the definition of tort law as that is the basis for the problem. If someone is found not guilty of a crime then no civil case should be allowed to follow. Now, depending on the outcome of the criminal case, such as a mistrial, the person could/should be tried again. The assumption that people are wronged due to someone else's wrong doing is where tort law goes sideways. In my example you were wronged but because you did something stupid not because I had any intentsions of shooting you, aimed directly at you or asked you to retrieve my target and shot you in the process.

If the officer dies is irrelevant in my outline. An investigation could still find that officer guilty of misconduct and that a crime was committed. In that case civil liability would fall back to his/her agency or estate.

 

[RyanScott]

Pretty sure reasonable man standard still applies.

Mens rea is the concept you’re looking for. But he’s advocating requiring negligent shootings be prosecuted. So who decides what is negligent?

No because most legislators are attorneys, and they do nothing if not protect their own.

A plurality of federal legislators are lawyers, particularly Democrats, but the representation of lawyers in Congress has fallen precipitously in the last 150 years.

Because "wronged" is a central requirement in able to claim damages.

That’s my point. Yet it wouldn’t be realistic to define wronged by the success or failure of criminal charges.

 

[RyanScott]

So the DA ultimately can decide who does or doesn’t have a civil case.

I heard a story from a lawyer once. The facts and elements of the offenses were laid out well in the case against his defendant but the prosecution forgot to ask the witnesses to point at the robber they saw and as soon as the prosecution rested he asked for and received a directed acquittal.

In a similarly incompetent negligent shooting prosecution who makes the decedents family whole?

 

[quietmike]

Mens rea is the concept you’re looking for. But he’s advocating requiring negligent shootings be prosecuted. So who decides what is negligent?

No, it isn't. Mens rea means guilty mind, which covers intentional acts.Negligence is an absence of due care which a reasonable man should have exercised.

A plurality of federal legislators are lawyers, particularly Democrats, but the representation of lawyers in Congress has fallen precipitously in the last 150 years.

While true, completely irrelevant to the point.

That’s my point. Yet it wouldn’t be realistic to define wronged by the success or failure of criminal charges.

Your point was ignoring "wronged".

 

[Mwalex]

In the strictest sense, yes the DA would be the deciding factor. Not perfect but no legal system is and once again, this is a failing in the system.

I love how you are stuck on "making the family whole". There are many times when this will never, or should never be a concern. If someone makes a bad decision and dies then no one but themselves should be responsible for that outcome. You walk into traffic and get killed who will make your family whole? Who was negligent in that case?

At this point I think we should agree to disagree because of a few reasons.

 

[j-huskey]

So the DA ultimately can decide who does or doesn’t have a civil case.

Can we ask for clarification on this ?

 

[RyanScott]

No, it isn't. Mens rea means guilty mind, which covers intentional acts.Negligence is an absence of due care which a reasonable man should have exercised.

And mens rea speaks to negligence and recklessness also.

Your point was ignoring "wronged".

Not at all. I think that “wronged” is to be defined in a civil court rather than a criminal court.

Unless you want to argue that behavior that isn’t demonstrably criminal is acceptable.