Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Forget for a moment that this cop fired 41 times at an unarmed man sitting in a pickup truck that was stuck between two police cars. Let's consider for a moment the fact that 38 of those shots missed   (opposingviews.com) divider line 313
    More: Scary, Officer Tuter, patrol cars, Dallas County  
•       •       •

12567 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 03:23:20 PM  

PunGent: And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter


I was taught the same thing.  Never reload, and your first words to the cops are "I was in fear for my life".
 
2013-11-13 03:24:57 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: PunGent: And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter

I was taught the same thing.  Never reload, and your first words to the cops are "I was in fear for my life".


Never reload?  Well, time for me to go buy some hi cap magazines.
 
2013-11-13 03:28:50 PM  

AFKobel: Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.

Classic.  Exactly the type of douchiness one would expect.

Also: "Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle."  Do you think the word "police" refers to the one police officer?    It would be shocking to learn that the other police officer is the one who turned this guy in.

You tell people to get their facts straight... and then invent your own.   Well done, champ.


Ah, as opposed to the classy tone you took in your original "as you like to say" rebuttal.

I'm not sure what "facts" regarding proving premeditation I'm supposed to glean from either the collision of vehicles (regardless of who initiated the contact) or the claim by "police" - typically a reference to the organization itself, coming from what was submitted in the report(s) - that contact was initiated by the victim.

Once again, before making asinine claims about who is wrong on legal definitions, it would behoove you to learn what they mean yourself, chump.
 
2013-11-13 03:30:33 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.


You don't know what intent means, do you, champ?

I will say this. When the police officer stopped to reload his firearm, he had the opportunity to stop and at least see what he was doing. His failure to do so was a demonstration of his intent which was to kill the other person. If not his first clip, his second or third reloading would clearly show his intent was not merely to take the suspect into custody.
 
2013-11-13 03:31:39 PM  

PsyLord: Marcus Aurelius: PunGent: And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter

I was taught the same thing.  Never reload, and your first words to the cops are "I was in fear for my life".

Never reload?  Well, time for me to go buy some hi cap magazines.


Try using a real gun instead.  I carry a .357 revolver with a 6" barrel.  You only need one shot.  And the noise alone will cripple most assailants.
 
2013-11-13 03:34:57 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Once again, before making asinine claims about who is wrong on legal definitions, it would behoove you to learn what they mean yourself, chump.


Also pay attention to whom you are speaking, dumbass.
 
2013-11-13 03:41:25 PM  

Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.

You don't know what intent means, do you, champ?

I will say this. When the police officer stopped to reload his firearm, he had the opportunity to stop and at least see what he was doing. His failure to do so was a demonstration of his intent which was to kill the other person. If not his first clip, his second or third reloading would clearly show his intent was not merely to take the suspect into custody.


Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Once again, before making asinine claims about who is wrong on legal definitions, it would behoove you to learn what they mean yourself, chump.

Also pay attention to whom you are speaking, dumbass.


Once again, intent and premeditation (the latter being necessary for a murder charge) are not the same thing. You can have intent without premeditation but cannot have premeditation without intent.

Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.
 
2013-11-13 03:41:51 PM  

Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.


FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?
 
2013-11-13 03:45:35 PM  

hammettman: He's not charged with murder, only manslaughter. Yes, Texas has a hard-on for frying people, but he's not seeing the chair. Even if he's found guilty, I'm betting they're only going to see this as a minor blemish on a fine law enforcement career. He'll be out in 5 years and will get his gun back.


Around 40 years ago, two cops pulled a couple of mexican kids (brothers) out of bed and "questioned" them about $8 stolen from a vending machine.  (As it turns out, these kids were not involved in the vending machine robbery.)  The cops started playing "Russian Roulette" with the kids, putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger, until they killed one of the kids while his brother watched. Google for Santos Rodriguez for more details.

The cop who shot him didn't spend 5 years in prison, and the other one didn't get charged at all.

Another Dallas area cop shot and killed an unarmed man and his excuse was "I meant to turn on my flashlight, but I accidentally shot him instead".  He was never charged, and as far as I know he's still a cop.

This guy might get some time, but I doubt that he will be there for over a year.  It took them over a year just to file charges and arrest him.
 
2013-11-13 03:47:20 PM  

JuggleGeek: This guy might get some time, but I doubt that he will be there for over a year. It took them over a year just to file charges and arrest him.


Put the cop in general population.  The matter will be solved.
 
2013-11-13 03:51:47 PM  
With marksmanship like that, I think he ought to be charged for attempting to murder everyone else in the vicinity.
 
2013-11-13 03:54:05 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: With marksmanship like that, I think he ought to be charged for attempting to murder everyone else in the vicinity.


Send him a bill for the bullets too.
 
2013-11-13 03:54:54 PM  

This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?


Where did I say that I couldn't prove I passed the marksmanship standard?

If you'd read my full post, I noted that they note specifically that the only thing they don't record is the numeric score.  They do record if you passed or failed.

If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.
 
2013-11-13 03:56:42 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?


I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.
 
2013-11-13 03:58:21 PM  

Silverstaff: If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.


Do they preserve a copy of the targets themselves?

Because I strongly suspect I could subpoena my marked and scored test from my various certification tests.
 
2013-11-13 04:02:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Silverstaff: If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.

Do they preserve a copy of the targets themselves?

Because I strongly suspect I could subpoena my marked and scored test from my various certification tests.


I just want you to know, you are the best lawyer ever.  There is absolutely no precedence for subpoenaing a marked/scored test from a police officer.  Medical doctors also take scored tests and make life/death decisions, and there is no precedence for subpoenaing those either.  But you sir, you Mr. Internet Lawyer, STRONGLY SUSPECT.

I bet you are the first lawyer ever to have thought of this.  You're a genius!
 
2013-11-13 04:17:01 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.


Really?

with malice aforethought - originally carried its everyday meaning - a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, champ.
 
2013-11-13 04:18:34 PM  

lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: If you subpoena'ed the records, you would get that Officer Silverstaff, Badge Number XX, passed his annual weapon qualification to the State mandated standard on XX/XX/2013 as supervised by Lt. XXXX XXXX and conducted at the XXXX Police Range.

The only thing left off, which was specifically on advice of legal counsel, was the numeric score between 70 to 100.

Do they preserve a copy of the targets themselves?

Because I strongly suspect I could subpoena my marked and scored test from my various certification tests.

I just want you to know, you are the best lawyer ever.  There is absolutely no precedence for subpoenaing a marked/scored test from a police officer.  Medical doctors also take scored tests and make life/death decisions, and there is no precedence for subpoenaing those either.  But you sir, you Mr. Internet Lawyer, STRONGLY SUSPECT.

I bet you are the first lawyer ever to have thought of this.  You're a genius!


Oh, sure, we can demand radar gun records but not SHOOTING records?

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-11-13 04:27:37 PM  
ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.


Probably because I'm such an idiot and so completely anti-gun that I didn't even understand that a round and a bullet were the same thing, until a couple years ago.

 Seriously.

/right? A round and a bullet are the same thing?
//I should probably just shut up
///but at least we can all agree i'm an idiot
 
2013-11-13 04:29:19 PM  

GanjSmokr: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.


ACTUALLY, clips are synonym for magazines. pretty much everyone on the planet understand that clips are used as a synonym. This of course gets get nuts frothed into a lather, which is a side benefit.

/words can have MORE than one meaning. meanings CHANGE over time. I hate it as much as the next guy, but words like decimate now have to opposite meanings. shudder.
 
2013-11-13 04:32:52 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.

Probably because I'm such an idiot and so completely anti-gun that I didn't even understand that a round and a bullet were the same thing, until a couple years ago.

 Seriously.

/right? A round and a bullet are the same thing?
//I should probably just shut up
///but at least we can all agree i'm an idiot


After your reply, I wouldn't consider you an idiot.  Just someone who isn't completely informed and who sounds like they are open to learning.

I've got way more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong about something than someone who buries their head in the sand and insists they are right no matter what information they are presented.
 
2013-11-13 04:37:53 PM  

GanjSmokr: I've got way more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong about something than someone who buries their head in the sand and insists they are right no matter what information they are presented.


Amen, brother.
 
2013-11-13 04:39:11 PM  

namatad: GanjSmokr: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

I know the time of people using the correct verbiage is long gone, but the correct term was right there in the sentence you quoted... why did you feel you needed to use a different word that doesn't actually mean the same thing?

Yes, yes, I'm just a pedant for pointing out that words actually have (or should I say "had") meaning.  Literally.

ACTUALLY, clips are synonym for magazines. pretty much everyone on the planet understand that clips are used as a synonym. This of course gets get nuts frothed into a lather, which is a side benefit.

/words can have MORE than one meaning. meanings CHANGE over time. I hate it as much as the next guy, but words like decimate now have to opposite meanings. shudder.


I know some people have decided that those 2 words are synonyms but they really aren't.  They still actually mean different things.

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html
 
2013-11-13 04:41:20 PM  

GanjSmokr: I know some people have decided that those 2 words are synonyms but they really aren't.  They still actually mean different things.

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html


NO
clips now has two meanings
1) the old bullet clips which you linked to
2) a magazine

strange, we use so many other words with multiple meanings. I know, I hate it when the language changes, but it is done. Kind of like gay meaning happy and male homosexual. Decimate meaning killing 10% and killing 90%.
 
2013-11-13 04:47:25 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?


The cops may need to reload,  it's reasonable that they have extra loaded magazines available.  It's nice to have several mags at the range, you can then fill them at once and concentrate on shooting.    If a magazine breaks the cop would have spares until the broken magazine was replaced.
 
2013-11-13 04:47:35 PM  

namatad: GanjSmokr: I know some people have decided that those 2 words are synonyms but they really aren't.  They still actually mean different things.

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2008/09/clip-vs-magazine-lesson-in-fi re arm.html

NO
clips now has two meanings
1) the old bullet clips which you linked to
2) a magazine

strange, we use so many other words with multiple meanings. I know, I hate it when the language changes, but it is done. Kind of like gay meaning happy and male homosexual. Decimate meaning killing 10% and killing 90%.


OK.  You win.

Because you said so, we'll all be stupid and lazy and just pretend that the 2 words that are meant for 2 different pieces of hardware that function differently from one another are synonyms.
 
2013-11-13 05:07:35 PM  

ptpark: ryan_n_waggoner: Sweaty Dynamite:  A trigger happy jackass like that was probably carrying these while on duty.

FTFAd:  "extra magazines save loading time at the range and also serve as a backup for those days when you simply cannot remember where you put your primary magazine."

I'm thinking we have a bigger problem: not only are cops massively abusing their power, but they can't even be bothered to remember where they put their clips?

The cops may need to reload,  it's reasonable that they have extra loaded magazines available.  It's nice to have several mags at the range, you can then fill them at once and concentrate on shooting.    If a magazine breaks the cop would have spares until the broken magazine was replaced.


yah
the problem wasnt that this cop had spares, the problem was that this cop is INSANE.
 
2013-11-13 05:14:23 PM  
3 divided by 41 = .0731707317%   Does that meet the qualifying criteria of his police force?
 
2013-11-13 05:30:17 PM  

Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.

Really?

with malice aforethought - originally carried its everyday meaning - a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, champ.


And you'd still be wrong. I find it highly amusing you're unable to comprehend not only the contextual difference between what you're quoting and what you're arguing in regards to the case at hand, but also failing to recognize the applicable part of the above definition (wherever the fark you pulled it from).

For the final time, since you're either intentionally being obtuse or you're just outright ignorant of criminal statutes: the intent to kill someone does not necessarily indicate premeditation. You can keep arguing until you're blue in the face that reloading a gun somehow, miraculously, defying all logic, common sense, and reasonable understanding of the English language, indicates premeditation, and you would still be wrong.

I've bolded for you why that is, and if you don't get it this time, you're about as hopeless as it gets.
 
2013-11-13 05:49:15 PM  

Lost Thought 00: So he stopped to reload 3 times?


Wow. True this ..
 
2013-11-13 05:51:34 PM  

PunGent: And no, your own ricochets don't count towards making the situation life-threatening...


i141.photobucket.com

Disagrees
 
2013-11-13 06:37:21 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


First off, he won't be found guilty of murder because he's not being charged with murder.  Secondly, although I personally think he will (and should) be found guilty of manslaughter, he does have a possible legal defense at his disposal if he can claim severe mental/emotional distress with the situation.  He WAS involved in a lengthy and dangerous chase.  It's entirely possible that at the end of it he did think he got rammed instead of the other way around, and despite being boxed in, if he thought he saw the driver reaching for a weapon, he would start shooting.  The fact that he missed so many times against a close stationary target would actually lend credence to the fact that he was distressed at the time.  Hard to say what might come of it.  It's likely he'll end up plea bargaining and getting a far too short of a sentence out of it.
 
2013-11-13 07:05:01 PM  

ryan_n_waggoner: /right? A round and a bullet are the same thing?
//I should probably just shut up
///but at least we can all agree i'm an idiot


It's better to admit idiocy and work to fix it than demand that "YOU KNEW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT AND IT'S CRAZY GUN NUTS LIKE YOU THAT MURDER BABIES BECAUSE THE REST OF US DON'T LIVE IN YOUR LITTLE PARANOID WORLD."

Seriously though, good job on asking for clarification.  Considering I have guns that take clips, guns that take mags, and some clips to help me refill my mags... using the wrong word to somebody like me is like saying that your ford focus is a ford f350.  Well yes, you pack your shiat in the back of both and sit in the front of both and drive both of them to where you want to go... and they serve the same over all purpose in the same way... But now when you demand restrictions on a "focus" because no civilian should have that much towing capacity in a 4x4 truck, and then say your opinion matters because you are an expert in the world of internal combustion engines...

tldr, I'd rather deal with an uneducated person who actually asks to understand what we're talking about than a knowitall who actually knows very little

/still a chevy guy
 
2013-11-13 07:17:09 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


It's always reassuring to find out that our law enforcement "professionals" don't know the laws they're upholding.

1st degree murder requires premeditation. 2nd degree murder doesn't.

Also, Texas doesn't have 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. Just "murder" and NO required premeditation to be charged with murder.  In Texas the "heat of passion" argument is brought up at sentencing, and if believed, results in a 2nd degree felony instead of a 1st.
 
2013-11-13 07:17:14 PM  

AFKobel: Here's your premeditation:  Stopping to reload the gun.

And then firing at least another 20 shots into an unarmed, trapped, non-responsive person sitting in a stopped car.

At the very least, shot number 41 had 40 shots of preplanning and, arguably, passed the line into criminal intent.

Especially for a police officer.


The Grand Jury apparently disagreed with your argument.
 
2013-11-13 07:25:07 PM  
Wow, a police officer charged for once?
i265.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-13 07:25:42 PM  
Madbassist1:
If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

Not necessarily. Police shootings are routinely very heavily scrutinized by the police and by the DA. Sometimes they have a "shoot team" that investigates police shootings. They would have looked at the video anyhow. It's not fair to assume that the other cop lied. His testimony may have got the guy indicted even without the video.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?

You're changing the scenario. This wasn't a cop coming across you unloading your Glock into a car. It was the culmination of a police pursuit with a uniformed officer firing at the suspect. The other cop may have believed the shooter saw a gun that he didn't see. Nobody expects the other cop to make the assumption that this was a bad shooting in the few seconds that this event took.
 
2013-11-13 07:36:32 PM  
budrojr:
My opinion is that he is getting special treatment due to his status as a police officer (hence the singular manslaughter charge with no additional charges instead of murder and a wagonload of additional ancillary charges).

Although the article doesn't specify any additional charges, he may have been indicted on other charges or they can be added later by the prosecution. News articles don't always go into great detail.

I disagree with you and hold that what he did should be construed as murder.  Look up the law in Texas where that's concerned.  He knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another person (he fired 41 shots, it's not like he didn't know what would happen), and/or intended to cause serious bodily injury while committing an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.  Manslaughter only requires that his actions were reckless and caused a death.  What he did went beyond reckless and was way o ...

Whether you or I disagree is irrelevant. The Grand Jury indicted him for manslaughter based upon the facts and their interpretation of the law.  Maybe they gave the guy a break because he was a cop. I don't know and either do you, but I'm not willing to make that assumption.

I will, however, add this: It's very difficult to get a conviction on a cop involved in a duty-related shooting. Jurors tend to give every benefit of the doubt to cops involved in these incidents. Whether right or wrong, it's a fact that prosecutors and police have to live with. I wouldn't be surprised to see this guy walk.
 
2013-11-13 07:42:09 PM  

Shaddup: It's always reassuring to find out that our law enforcement "professionals" don't know the laws they're upholding.

1st degree murder requires premeditation. 2nd degree murder doesn't.

Also, Texas doesn't have 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. Just "murder" and NO required premeditation to be charged with murder.  In Texas the "heat of passion" argument is brought up at sentencing, and if believed, results in a 2nd degree felony instead of a 1st.


I'm not a cop in Texas so excuse me. The point is, the Grand Jury, whose job it is to determine if the facts fit the law, decided to indict for manslaughter. Your argument is with them, not the police.
 
2013-11-13 07:57:26 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Shaddup: It's always reassuring to find out that our law enforcement "professionals" don't know the laws they're upholding.

1st degree murder requires premeditation. 2nd degree murder doesn't.

Also, Texas doesn't have 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. Just "murder" and NO required premeditation to be charged with murder.  In Texas the "heat of passion" argument is brought up at sentencing, and if believed, results in a 2nd degree felony instead of a 1st.

I'm not a cop in Texas so excuse me. The point is, the Grand Jury, whose job it is to determine if the facts fit the law, decided to indict for manslaughter. Your argument is with them, not the police.



Way to address my first point. Where exactly are you a cop, considering you think 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder BOTH require premeditation? This would be 2nd degree murder anywhere else.

Considering the lack of information, can you say for sure that the grand jury had the option to indict for murder? I'm guessing they didn't because the prosecutor took it easy on him. FFS, the prosecutor asked for farkin $10,000 bail. I had a higher bail for a farkin bar fight.
 
2013-11-13 08:20:31 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226.


City of Dallas issues the Sig P226

City of Garland, which this officer was working for, issues the Glock 22.
 
2013-11-13 09:17:59 PM  

Shaddup: Way to address my first point. Where exactly are you a cop, considering you think 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder BOTH require premeditation? This would be 2nd degree murder anywhere else.


But you just pointed out that Texas doesn't have a 2nd degree murder statute. Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe you don't have one except to try to make me look uninformed about the law. That, again, would be pointless because the Grand Jury indicted for manslaughter, not murder. The only meaningful interpretation of the law in this case was that of the Grand Jury.

Considering the lack of information, can you say for sure that the grand jury had the option to indict for murder? I'm guessing they didn't because the prosecutor took it easy on him. FFS, the prosecutor asked for farkin $10,000 bail. I had a higher bail for a farkin bar fight.

It's possible the Grand Jury wasn't given that option. As I said earlier, the prosecutor has an uphill battle trying to convict this guy since he was an on-duty cop at the time of the killing. Right or wrong, juries don't like to convict cops for job-related incidents. Maybe the prosecution knew they'd never get a conviction (or an indictment for that matter) for murder and asked only for a manslaughter indictment.
 
2013-11-13 10:19:10 PM  

trappedspirit: PunGent: And no, your own ricochets don't count towards making the situation life-threatening...

[i141.photobucket.com image 288x216]

Disagrees


IT WAS AN ICICLE!
 
2013-11-13 10:23:09 PM  
CruiserTwelve [TotalFark]

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene?
You believe that one officer drove both squad cars?

I thought police claimed to be trained observers.

That's some totalfark level idiocy you have there.
 
2013-11-13 10:48:07 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Madbassist1:
If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

Not necessarily. Police shootings are routinely very heavily scrutinized by the police and by the DA. Sometimes they have a "shoot team" that investigates police shootings. They would have looked at the video anyhow. It's not fair to assume that the other cop lied. His testimony may have got the guy indicted even without the video.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?

You're changing the scenario. This wasn't a cop coming across you unloading your Glock into a car. It was the culmination of a police pursuit with a uniformed officer firing at the suspect. The other cop may have believed the shooter saw a gun that he didn't see. Nobody expects the other cop to make the assumption that this was a bad shooting in the few seconds that this event took.


CruiserTwelve: Madbassist1:
If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

Not necessarily. Police shootings are routinely very heavily scrutinized by the police and by the DA. Sometimes they have a "shoot team" that investigates police shootings. They would have looked at the video anyhow. It's not fair to assume that the other cop lied. His testimony may have got the guy indicted even without the video.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?

You're changing the scenario. This wasn't a cop coming across you unloading your Glock into a car. It was the culmination of a police pursuit with a uniformed officer firing at the suspect. The other cop may have believed the shooter saw a gun that he didn't see. Nobody expects the other cop to make the assumption that this was a bad shooting in the few seconds that this event took.


FTA  "Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle. But dashboard cam video showed that the reverse was actually the case."

The cops here lied about who rammed who, so, no reason to think they're telling the truth about the pursuit, either.
 
2013-11-13 11:03:27 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Shaddup: Way to address my first point. Where exactly are you a cop, considering you think 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder BOTH require premeditation? This would be 2nd degree murder anywhere else.

But you just pointed out that Texas doesn't have a 2nd degree murder statute. Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe you don't have one except to try to make me look uninformed about the law. That, again, would be pointless because the Grand Jury indicted for manslaughter, not murder. The only meaningful interpretation of the law in this case was that of the Grand Jury.

Considering the lack of information, can you say for sure that the grand jury had the option to indict for murder? I'm guessing they didn't because the prosecutor took it easy on him. FFS, the prosecutor asked for farkin $10,000 bail. I had a higher bail for a farkin bar fight.

It's possible the Grand Jury wasn't given that option. As I said earlier, the prosecutor has an uphill battle trying to convict this guy since he was an on-duty cop at the time of the killing. Right or wrong, juries don't like to convict cops for job-related incidents. Maybe the prosecution knew they'd never get a conviction (or an indictment for that matter) for murder and asked only for a manslaughter indictment.


I'm not trying to make you look uninformed. You're doing a bang-up job of that by yourself.

Answer a simple question, one that I asked in my original post. Does it take premeditation to qualify for murder? Not in Texas, but where you're supposedly a cop. Here's a hint, it doesn't, never has, never will. YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter. You're farking wrong. WAY WRONG.

Aside from your law-breaking bretheren, you're the main reason the general public distrusts your ilk. We know the law and our rights better than those trusted to uphold/defend them. But then again, most of us have to have more than a GED to have our jobs.
 
2013-11-13 11:06:30 PM  
EVERY time a cop says "he rammed me" or "he tried to run me over" it's because the person was trying to escape and the officer placed himself or his car in the way and/or deliberately caused the incident. Their cars are huge and they do not pay for them. It's the oldest trick to arrange the situation to accuse said person of "attacking a police officer" which bears extraordinary punishment and excuses any reaction.
 
2013-11-13 11:42:14 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Whether you or I disagree is irrelevant. The Grand Jury indicted him for manslaughter based upon the facts and their interpretation of the law.  Maybe they gave the guy a break because he was a cop. I don't know and either do you, but I'm not willing to make that assumption.

I will, however, add this: It's very difficult to get a conviction on a cop involved in a duty-related shooting. Jurors tend to give every benefit of the doubt to cops involved in these incidents. Whether right or wrong, it's a fact that prosecutors and police have to live with. I wouldn't be surprised to see this guy walk.


The grand jury indicted him for manslaughter based upon the charges that were set before them, not because they had a choice as to whether it be murder or manslaughter.  The facts and interpretation of the law would have allowed for an indictment for murder, but the grand jury was brought manslaughter, so they indicted for manslaughter.  Regardless of whose fault it is, the guy is not being charged with what he should be charged with.  I'm not saying maybe, I'm saying he was definitely cut a break, and the reason is that he was a cop.  Nobody else would have fired 41 rounds at someone for ANY reason and started their defense at manslaughter.

I'll agree that it's going to be difficult to get a conviction on him.  Not because of juries that are sympathetic to police, but rather because evidence will end up missing, or the prosecutor will do a very bad job of prosecuting.  There are lots of ways for the system to work in favor of the cop while still giving the public the illusion that they actually give a crap about what the guy did.
 
2013-11-14 12:39:11 AM  

OnlyM3: CruiserTwelve [TotalFark]

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene?

You believe that one officer drove both squad cars?

I thought police claimed to be trained observers.

That's some totalfark level idiocy you have there.


Read my post again.
 
2013-11-14 12:42:51 AM  

budrojr: I'll agree that it's going to be difficult to get a conviction on him.  Not because of juries that are sympathetic to police, but rather because evidence will end up missing, or the prosecutor will do a very bad job of prosecuting.  There are lots of ways for the system to work in favor of the cop while still giving the public the illusion that they actually give a crap about what the guy did.


What's the point of discussing this issue if you already know the outcome?
 
Displayed 50 of 313 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report