Quote:Can gross negligence be moved into manslaughter with certain cases or is it just clean up and cut you can't be charged with gross negligence?
Yes, gross negligence can be a contributing factor to manslaughter, but manslaughter requires that a man be slaughtered.
Quote:You're right, if someone calls the police saying someone has a gun, the officers should walk up to them with their hands by their sides. They should automatically assume they don't have a gun.
As much as you want to paint cops to be the bad guy, they still have a right to keep themselves safe.
This guy screwed up and seems to have admitted it to the guy he shot. He will never be a cop again. Of course you will want to make this into something its not.
If you saw the video you would think these cops had 3 gun men on the otherside. As someone else said, assess the situation. You can be on high alert. After all the time that passed why were they still pointing guns at these two people. Do they not have freaking binoculars to see what the younger gentlemen was holding? Something it's not? It seems incompetent by all 3 police.
Quote:M4.
as far as i know the only difference between a M4 and M16 is barrel size
Quote:Yes, gross negligence can be a contributing factor to manslaughter, but manslaughter requires that a man be slaughtered.
I know the guys still alive just comparing the laws.
Quote:If you saw the video you would think these cops had 3 gun men on the otherside. As someone else said, assess the situation. You can be on high alert. After all the time that passed why were they still pointing guns at these two people. Do they not have freaking binoculars to see what the younger gentlemen was holding? Something it's not? It seems incompetent by all 3 police.
Perhaps because the vantage point of the police officers is different than that of the idiot filming it on his cell phone?
For all who care "The officer has not been identified, but police said he is a 30-year-old Hispanic man who has been with the police department for four years."
http://www.local10.com/news/attorney-of-...ue-quickly
Also "The one officer discharged his firearm trying to strike the individual that they thought was trying to bring harm onto Mr. Kinsey. This is not a case of police brutality," Rivera said. "This is not one of those cases where it's a rogue cop. This is not a case other than an officer who was trying to save the life of Mr. Kinsey and feels horrible that his aim missed and struck Mr. Kinsey."
I kind of feel bad for the cop, that's so embarrassing to admit you can't aim when that's literally a huge part of your job. But he shot a guy he shouldn't have, and the decision to shoot was the wrong one. Accident or not. He shouldn't be on the streets. I don't know if you call this an 'assault with a deadly weapon,' malpractice, negligence, or what, but he deserves some charges.
Quote:You're wrong again. The officer did not shoot the victim 3 times.
I never said that the officer was not unfit for the job. In fact, I pointed out that he screwed up. However, based on what we know, and it's certainly not the whole story the officer should and probably will be fired.
Based on what we know, there is no evidence of criminal intent.
So Manslaughter... I'm good with him serving 5-10 for manslaughter and having a felony under his belt.
Quote:For all who care "The officer has not been identified, but police said he is a 30-year-old Hispanic man who has been with the police department for four years."
http://www.local10.com/news/attorney-of-...ue-quickly
Also "The one officer discharged his firearm trying to strike the individual that they thought was trying to bring harm onto Mr. Kinsey. This is not a case of police brutality," Rivera said. "This is not one of those cases where it's a rogue cop. This is not a case other than an officer who was trying to save the life of Mr. Kinsey and feels horrible that his aim missed and struck Mr. Kinsey."
Bring harm to Mr. Kinsey with a toy truck? And they figured using deadly force while the 2 were so close to eachother was a good idea?
This is indeed a systemic problem then.
Also, this means, if the story is true, that the pig didn't have an automatic weapon but squeezed off 3 rounds... If this story is true, there's no way you use a 3 round burst to take out the perp in a hostage situation. Which is the story that you are telling me.
This terrible joke of a cop thought he was in the middle of a hostage situation, and decided that reeling off a 3 round burst was the best way to save the hostage??? Really?
Not to mention that the mentally ill person had a toy, not a gun. I mean, jeez. Is this not what the protesters are freaking out about? This idea that cops shoot first and ask quesitons later and are never held accountable?
This is the prime example. Thank god nobody died, this time.
Sounds like a cop with terrible judgement to me. We will likely see his resignation and a large settlement to the victim and that will be the end of it.
As far as criminal charges go, I doubt anything significant is likely. At least, not the serious felony some will demand. Two important factors are either missing or very hard to prove here. One, any kind of murder charge would have to prove intent to kill. The officer didn't even intend to shoot him and shot him by missing someone else. Also, police are trained to shoot center mass, not to kill, which may be a fine line to the general public, but its a big deal if you are going to charge someone with murder. And two, the actual result of the gunshot wound will dictate charges. A minor flesh wound, which this sounds like it is, will be judged differently in court that a serious or critical bodily injury. Because there was no intent and just a minor injury, a felony is unlikely. Maybe a prosecutor could go after some lesser felonies like reckless/negligent discharge of a firearm, but that would probably eventually get pled down to a misdemeanor.
In the end, just fire the cop and pay the man.
Quote:Sounds like a cop with terrible judgement to me. We will likely see his resignation and a large settlement to the victim and that will be the end of it.
As far as criminal charges go, I doubt anything significant is likely. At least, not the serious felony some will demand. Two important factors are either missing or very hard to prove here. One, any kind of murder charge would have to prove intent to kill. The officer didn't even intend to shoot him and shot him by missing someone else. Also, police are trained to shoot center mass, not to kill, which may be a fine line to the general public, but its a big deal if you are going to charge someone with murder. And two, the actual result of the gunshot wound will dictate charges. A minor flesh wound, which this sounds like it is, will be judged differently in court that a serious or critical bodily injury. Because there was no intent and just a minor injury, a felony is unlikely. Maybe a prosecutor could go after some lesser felonies like reckless/negligent discharge of a firearm, but that would probably eventually get pled down to a misdemeanor.
In the end, just fire the cop and pay the man.
But doesn't this just perpetuate the broken system that creates pigs? In order to destroy pigs, you must destroy the system that creates them.
To let terrible cops get away, you're just saying that you get a free pass to hunt humans and the state will pay for your brutality.
I'm not cool with that.
Quote:But doesn't this just perpetuate the broken system that creates pigs? In order to destroy pigs, you must destroy the system that creates them.
To let terrible cops get away, you're just saying that you get a free pass to hunt humans and the state will pay for your brutality.
I'm not cool with that.
And if you prosecute every cop who gets something wrong with 20/20 hindsight you are going to put every officer in the country either behind bars or 6 feet deep in the dirt by the end of their careers. Its why cops never have to be right, only reasonable in court.
Quote:as far as i know the only difference between a M4 and M16 is barrel size
The M4 is the chopped down 16A2 or A4 variant that is single or 3 round burst but not capable of full auto. The M4A1 is capable of single, burst or full auto. Both are available to law enforcement.
Quote:Perhaps because the vantage point of the police officers is different than that of the idiot filming it on his cell phone?
Citizens lawfully recording your brethren's misdeeds are "idiots", hmmmm? More evidence of the depravity of the LEO worldview.
Quote:And if you prosecute every cop who gets something wrong with 20/20 hindsight you are going to put every officer in the country either behind bars or 6 feet deep in the dirt by the end of their careers. Its why cops never have to be right, only reasonable in court.
So you think every cop commits police brutality? C'mon man. That's a weak arguement.
Quote:So because CNN reports that "two or three shots" were fired it must be true right?
Let me ask you this. Have you ever fired a rifle? Someone who is trained to fire a rifle is usually pretty proficient, especially at short distances. If the supposed "3 shots were fired" according to CNN and only one shot hit his leg which in the victim's own words "felt like a mosquito bite" doesn't that raise a flag?
Based on what we know right now is it not out of the question that it was only one shot because an officer was jumpy?
I'll tell you right now that a police officer shooting at someone does not intend to shoot them in the leg. The way that I was taught was 3 shots... two to the chest and one to the head. A police officer shoots to "stop the action" not to injure or disable.
A police officer with a rifle in close range isn't going to miss, and isn't going to be off target so much that it hit's the target in the leg. There was clearly no intent.
The problem is that people like you and others are so quick to jump on the racism bandwagon and run with it without knowing the facts.
I still stand by my theory based on what we know right now that it was a jumpy police officer that shouldn't have had his finger on the trigger. I don't think that it was intentional or malicious at all.
His attorney is stating he was shot at 2 or 3 times.
Ive never shot with a rifle but i know marksmanship is important, which leads me to my next point.
The officer was reckless with his aim and could have "accidently" killed the victim if he hit him in a major artery in his leg.
That's another reason why I feel he should face criminal charges.
Quote:So you think every cop commits police brutality? C'mon man. That's a weak arguement.
By the new definition of it, yes. Nowadays, police brutality is defined by this new progressive anarchy movement as when someone is shot dead for stabbing an officer when the officer could have "just shot them in the leg."
You support dead cops if you expect officers to wait until a trigger has been pulled and a bullet is flying in their direction before responding with deadly force.
Quote:His attorney is stating he was shot at 2 or 3 times.
Ive never shot with a rifle but i know marksmanship is important, which leads me to my next point.
The officer was reckless with his aim and could have "accidently" killed the victim if he hit him in a major artery in his leg.
That's another reason why I feel he should face criminal charges.
Slippery slope there. You going to start prosecuting police for criminal damage to property if they mis aim as well?
You are going to have to prove that is should have been obvious that a missed shot would have hit innocent people and that the officer whom fired did not reasonably believe a lethal threat actually existed. From the report, the officer seemed to think he was protecting the victim.