Another killing at the hands of the Police (6 Viewers)

[MikeIke]

Baltimore police: Freddie Gray died from a tragic injury to his spinal cord

This #### has got to stop. Seriously - Congress needs to do something asap before people lose all faith in the police force. And when that happens, we are all ####ed. Mandate that every armed law enforcement officer in the country is required to wear a body camera. Mandatory Federal reporting of all fatalities. Both cost practically nothing. Do it now before this #### spirals out of control.

I agree, people need to stop running from the police.

Freddie Gray died Sunday, a week after Baltimore city police arrested him. A charging document obtained Monday by the Baltimore Sun said Gray fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence.

The incident unfolded about 8:30 a.m. April 12, when three Baltimore police officers approached Gray, and he ran away, according to the Baltimore Polices timeline of events, given to the media on Monday afternoon. Officers caught him about two blocks from the scene.

Rodriguez, the deputy commissioner, said the officers suspected Gray was immediately involved or had been recently involved in criminal activity. He had been convicted on drug charges in the past and was due in court next month on a drug charge from arrest last year, the Associated Press reported.

Why couldn't he run away from them? He wasn't under arrest. He didn't threaten them. They had no reason to believe he was armed. What basis did they have to detain him in the 1st place? This is 'Murica. We generally get to come and go as we please.

Only if you're white.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Baltimore police: Freddie Gray died from a tragic injury to his spinal cord

This #### has got to stop. Seriously - Congress needs to do something asap before people lose all faith in the police force. And when that happens, we are all ####ed. Mandate that every armed law enforcement officer in the country is required to wear a body camera. Mandatory Federal reporting of all fatalities. Both cost practically nothing. Do it now before this #### spirals out of control.

I agree, people need to stop running from the police.

Freddie Gray died Sunday, a week after Baltimore city police arrested him. A charging document obtained Monday by the Baltimore Sun said Gray fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence.

The incident unfolded about 8:30 a.m. April 12, when three Baltimore police officers approached Gray, and he ran away, according to the Baltimore Polices timeline of events, given to the media on Monday afternoon. Officers caught him about two blocks from the scene.

Rodriguez, the deputy commissioner, said the officers suspected Gray was immediately involved or had been recently involved in criminal activity. He had been convicted on drug charges in the past and was due in court next month on a drug charge from arrest last year, the Associated Press reported.

Why couldn't he run away from them? He wasn't under arrest. He didn't threaten them. They had no reason to believe he was armed. What basis did they have to detain him in the 1st place? This is 'Murica. We generally get to come and go as we please.

Only if you're white.

I should have said "theoretically".

 

[PinkydaPimp]

LAPD officer charged with assault in videotaped beating

 

[njherdfan]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

 

[Sweet J]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

Well they were being noisy.

 

[urbanhack]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

Well they were being noisy.

It's just an isolated case...nothing to see here.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Are the police still only killing black people?

 

[njherdfan]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

well the prosecution wasnt very happy with the ruling

 

[Sweet J]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

The judge seemed disgusted with his ruling. Did you watch the video? So strange. I mean, I don't really feel appropriate in condemning the judge here without knowing, you know, the actual facts. But this does seem incredibly strange. What facts must have been presented that the judge would rule as a matter of law and not even let it get to jury? Unless (and I don't think this was the case) the judge was acting as a factfinder here and ruling in place of the jury. That would make more sense, I guess. But still. . . . something is just too weird here.

 

[Yenrub]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

In March 2012, 22-year-old Rekia Boyd was walking to a store with three friends near Douglas Park. Prosecutors said that Servin, who was off-duty, was upset over the noise and told the group to quiet down. After exchanging words, Servin fired five shots over his shoulder while sitting in his car. Boyd was hit in the head from behind and killed, her boyfriend, Antonio Cross, was hit in the thumb. The group of four had their backs turned to Servin in an alley. Servin was charged with reckless conduct and reckless discharge of a firearm.

Servin's defense said he feared for his life, and claimed to see Cross pull a gun from his waistband and point it at him, he then fired in self-defense. A gun was never recovered.

Holy ####! This guy doubled down on the bull#### ("I feared for my life" and "I saw a weapon") and got away with murder

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

In March 2012, 22-year-old Rekia Boyd was walking to a store with three friends near Douglas Park. Prosecutors said that Servin, who was off-duty, was upset over the noise and told the group to quiet down. After exchanging words, Servin fired five shots over his shoulder while sitting in his car. Boyd was hit in the head from behind and killed, her boyfriend, Antonio Cross, was hit in the thumb. The group of four had their backs turned to Servin in an alley. Servin was charged with reckless conduct and reckless discharge of a firearm.

Servin's defense said he feared for his life, and claimed to see Cross pull a gun from his waistband and point it at him, he then fired in self-defense. A gun was never recovered.

Holy ####! This guy doubled down on the bull#### ("I feared for my life" and "I saw a weapon") and got away with murder

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

This dovetails back into my point much earlier, there is a predisposition to assume that police officers (even off duty) are telling the truth, whereas any other accused isn't. I mean, if a black civilian said he fired 4 rounds at 4 people because he thought one of them had a gun, and there wasn't a gun in reality, and the surviving 3 people all testified differently is there any chance in hell it wouldn't go to the jury?

 

[MikeIke]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted “recklessly” when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

“The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder,” wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.

Quote via Salon

 

[Sweet J]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted “recklessly” when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

“The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder,” wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.

Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

 

[cstu]

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

The final witness Monday was Shurecca Baymon, a patient care coordinator with Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Baymon testified that she spoke with Boyd's close friend Ikca Beamon the night of the shooting, as Boyd was on life support.

Baymon claims Beamon told her that Cross pretended his phone was a gun and whipped it out "just to spook [servin]."

Beamon said she blamed Cross and his friend for arguing with Servin, and didn't think it was fair that Boyd had been shot in her head, while Cross was only hit in his hand, according to Baymon.

 

[mcintyre1]

I guess it was about that time for someone to blame the victims.

 

[Clifford]

Ohio Cop Refuses to Resort to Deadly Force: 'I Wanted to Be Absolutely Sure'

Rookie could have been killed trying to be absolutely sure.

Does advocating killing and devaluing human life make you feel more manly or something?

 

[bigbottom]

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

The final witness Monday was Shurecca Baymon, a patient care coordinator with Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Baymon testified that she spoke with Boyd's close friend Ikca Beamon the night of the shooting, as Boyd was on life support.

Baymon claims Beamon told her that Cross pretended his phone was a gun and whipped it out "just to spook [servin]."

Beamon said she blamed Cross and his friend for arguing with Servin, and didn't think it was fair that Boyd had been shot in her head, while Cross was only hit in his hand, according to Baymon.

Would be curious to know how that comes into evidence.

 

[Clifford]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted “recklessly” when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

“The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder,” wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.

Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

Our Justice system is completely, 100% broken. It is a ####### joke. It's so ####### contorted it allows a man who fires a gun at people and kills them for no reason to go free. Meanwhile, parking tickets and refusal to pay them will land you in jail. Letting your kids walk around your neighborhood gets them taken from you. ####### JOKE.

In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, the whole "feared for my life" crap has made prosecuting violent crimes impossible in this country. We have let an edge case (someone holding an unloaded gun) legalize murder in this ####ed up, gun-crazed, violent culture we call the United states. There is no defense for this kind of crap. Every single law allowing you to kill someone because you "feared for your life" needs to come off the books immediately. Forensics should be the only thing that matters.

God I ####### hate this country. I have never seen a place that has it so incredibly good work so hard to #### things up for no reason at all. Well I guess they do sell a ####load of guns here. This place is ####### tragic beyond belief.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted recklessly when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder, wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

Our Justice system is completely, 100% broken. It is a ####### joke. It's so ####### contorted it allows a man who fires a gun at people and kills them for no reason to go free. Meanwhile, parking tickets and refusal to pay them will land you in jail. Letting your kids walk around your neighborhood gets them taken from you. ####### JOKE.In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, the whole "feared for my life" crap has made prosecuting violent crimes impossible in this country. We have let an edge case (someone holding an unloaded gun) legalize murder in this ####ed up, gun-crazed, violent culture we call the United states. There is no defense for this kind of crap. Every single law allowing you to kill someone because you "feared for your life" needs to come off the books immediately. Forensics should be the only thing that matters.

God I ####### hate this country. I have never seen a place that has it so incredibly good work so hard to #### things up for no reason at all. Well I guess they do sell a ####load of guns here. This place is ####### tragic beyond belief.

Feel free to leave whenever you like, and take Jack White fan with you.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted recklessly when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder, wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

Our Justice system is completely, 100% broken. It is a ####### joke. It's so ####### contorted it allows a man who fires a gun at people and kills them for no reason to go free. Meanwhile, parking tickets and refusal to pay them will land you in jail. Letting your kids walk around your neighborhood gets them taken from you. ####### JOKE.In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, the whole "feared for my life" crap has made prosecuting violent crimes impossible in this country. We have let an edge case (someone holding an unloaded gun) legalize murder in this ####ed up, gun-crazed, violent culture we call the United states. There is no defense for this kind of crap. Every single law allowing you to kill someone because you "feared for your life" needs to come off the books immediately. Forensics should be the only thing that matters.

God I ####### hate this country. I have never seen a place that has it so incredibly good work so hard to #### things up for no reason at all. Well I guess they do sell a ####load of guns here. This place is ####### tragic beyond belief.

Feel free to leave whenever you like, and take Jack White fan with you.

Can we fit some of the Kardashians in that van too?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted recklessly when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder, wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

Our Justice system is completely, 100% broken. It is a ####### joke. It's so ####### contorted it allows a man who fires a gun at people and kills them for no reason to go free. Meanwhile, parking tickets and refusal to pay them will land you in jail. Letting your kids walk around your neighborhood gets them taken from you. ####### JOKE.In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, the whole "feared for my life" crap has made prosecuting violent crimes impossible in this country. We have let an edge case (someone holding an unloaded gun) legalize murder in this ####ed up, gun-crazed, violent culture we call the United states. There is no defense for this kind of crap. Every single law allowing you to kill someone because you "feared for your life" needs to come off the books immediately. Forensics should be the only thing that matters.

God I ####### hate this country. I have never seen a place that has it so incredibly good work so hard to #### things up for no reason at all. Well I guess they do sell a ####load of guns here. This place is ####### tragic beyond belief.

Feel free to leave whenever you like, and take Jack White fan with you.

Can we fit some of the Kardashians in that van too?

If so, I'll order the Uber.

 

[Road Warriors]

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

The final witness Monday was Shurecca Baymon, a patient care coordinator with Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Baymon testified that she spoke with Boyd's close friend Ikca Beamon the night of the shooting, as Boyd was on life support.

Baymon claims Beamon told her that Cross pretended his phone was a gun and whipped it out "just to spook [servin]."

Beamon said she blamed Cross and his friend for arguing with Servin, and didn't think it was fair that Boyd had been shot in her head, while Cross was only hit in his hand, according to Baymon.

Would be curious to know how that comes into evidence.

Sounds like hearsay, no?

 

[mcintyre1]

Illinois legal experts baffled by judge's ruling

Porter asserts that a defendant who does something intentionally could not have also been reckless, and thus should not be convicted of anything at all. But this distinction between recklessness and intent “really doesn’t make any sense at all,” University of Illinois law professor Marareth Etienne told ThinkProgress. At least under the national criminal law standard known as the Model Penal Code that all first-year law students are taught in Criminal Law 101, a higher state of mind such as intent “always proves a lower level,” in this case, recklessness.

Recklessness “just means that you were aware of a risk and you didn’t take the proper precaution. So clearly if you shoot at somebody and you shot in a crowd you’re aware of a risk that they’re gonna die,” Etienne said.

“This is incredible!” University of Illinois Director of Trial Advocacy J. Steven Beckett said. “It appears to me that a lesser included offense was ignored because the proof of the greater offense was obvious. This put prosecutorial decision-making under scrutiny beyond anything imaginable.” In other words, the prosecutors were punished for not having charged Servin with a more severe crime. Even more remarkable, Porter came to this decision in what is known as a “directed verdict” before he even heard the defense’s arguments.

“When a motion for directed verdict is made by the defense, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Beckett points out. “What the judge did here appears to be just the opposite!”

Etienne points out several adverse consequences that would result if Porter’s understanding of the law prevailed. A defendant charged with involuntary manslaughter could get on the stand and make the very argument Porter now makes: I am not guilty of a crime of recklessness because I did this on purpose. “And by the way my trial has started so double jeopardy. You can’t go back and charge me with an intentional killing.”

...

[SIZE=14.960000038147px]Timothy P. O’Neill, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, questions Porter for another, different reason.[/SIZE]

“I respect Judge Porter, but at the same time I think he maybe made the case a little bit more difficult than it had to be,” O’Neill said. Even if Servin intended to fire the gun, he seemingly didn’t intend to hit Boyd. He instead intended to hit the man whom he believed was pulling a gun out of his waistband.

“You can do intentional acts and still be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on results,” O’Neill said.

Both O’Neill and Etienne agreed that Servin could have, and perhaps should have, been charged this time around with murder — a crime that requires intent.

“But that does NOT mean that it is legally impossible to also find it could have been involuntary manslaughter: the defendant committed voluntary acts that recklessly killed an unintended victim,” O’Neill said. “That is involuntary manslaughter.”

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Protests in Baltimore and crowd seems to be chanting, "block that kick." I'm assuming they mean from the police.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Illinois legal experts baffled by judge's ruling

Porter asserts that a defendant who does something intentionally could not have also been reckless, and thus should not be convicted of anything at all. But this distinction between recklessness and intent “really doesn’t make any sense at all,” University of Illinois law professor Marareth Etienne told ThinkProgress. At least under the national criminal law standard known as the Model Penal Code that all first-year law students are taught in Criminal Law 101, a higher state of mind such as intent “always proves a lower level,” in this case, recklessness.

Recklessness “just means that you were aware of a risk and you didn’t take the proper precaution. So clearly if you shoot at somebody and you shot in a crowd you’re aware of a risk that they’re gonna die,” Etienne said.

“This is incredible!” University of Illinois Director of Trial Advocacy J. Steven Beckett said. “It appears to me that a lesser included offense was ignored because the proof of the greater offense was obvious. This put prosecutorial decision-making under scrutiny beyond anything imaginable.” In other words, the prosecutors were punished for not having charged Servin with a more severe crime. Even more remarkable, Porter came to this decision in what is known as a “directed verdict” before he even heard the defense’s arguments.

“When a motion for directed verdict is made by the defense, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Beckett points out. “What the judge did here appears to be just the opposite!”

Etienne points out several adverse consequences that would result if Porter’s understanding of the law prevailed. A defendant charged with involuntary manslaughter could get on the stand and make the very argument Porter now makes: I am not guilty of a crime of recklessness because I did this on purpose. “And by the way my trial has started so double jeopardy. You can’t go back and charge me with an intentional killing.”

...

[SIZE=14.960000038147px]Timothy P. O’Neill, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, questions Porter for another, different reason.[/SIZE]

“I respect Judge Porter, but at the same time I think he maybe made the case a little bit more difficult than it had to be,” O’Neill said. Even if Servin intended to fire the gun, he seemingly didn’t intend to hit Boyd. He instead intended to hit the man whom he believed was pulling a gun out of his waistband.

“You can do intentional acts and still be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on results,” O’Neill said.

Both O’Neill and Etienne agreed that Servin could have, and perhaps should have, been charged this time around with murder — a crime that requires intent.

“But that does NOT mean that it is legally impossible to also find it could have been involuntary manslaughter: the defendant committed voluntary acts that recklessly killed an unintended victim,” O’Neill said. “That is involuntary manslaughter.”

a clear case of the law getting in its own way

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Illinois legal experts baffled by judge's ruling

Porter asserts that a defendant who does something intentionally could not have also been reckless, and thus should not be convicted of anything at all. But this distinction between recklessness and intent “really doesn’t make any sense at all,” University of Illinois law professor Marareth Etienne told ThinkProgress. At least under the national criminal law standard known as the Model Penal Code that all first-year law students are taught in Criminal Law 101, a higher state of mind such as intent “always proves a lower level,” in this case, recklessness.

Recklessness “just means that you were aware of a risk and you didn’t take the proper precaution. So clearly if you shoot at somebody and you shot in a crowd you’re aware of a risk that they’re gonna die,” Etienne said.

“This is incredible!” University of Illinois Director of Trial Advocacy J. Steven Beckett said. “It appears to me that a lesser included offense was ignored because the proof of the greater offense was obvious. This put prosecutorial decision-making under scrutiny beyond anything imaginable.” In other words, the prosecutors were punished for not having charged Servin with a more severe crime. Even more remarkable, Porter came to this decision in what is known as a “directed verdict” before he even heard the defense’s arguments.

“When a motion for directed verdict is made by the defense, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Beckett points out. “What the judge did here appears to be just the opposite!”

Etienne points out several adverse consequences that would result if Porter’s understanding of the law prevailed. A defendant charged with involuntary manslaughter could get on the stand and make the very argument Porter now makes: I am not guilty of a crime of recklessness because I did this on purpose. “And by the way my trial has started so double jeopardy. You can’t go back and charge me with an intentional killing.”

...

[SIZE=14.960000038147px]Timothy P. O’Neill, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, questions Porter for another, different reason.[/SIZE]

“I respect Judge Porter, but at the same time I think he maybe made the case a little bit more difficult than it had to be,” O’Neill said. Even if Servin intended to fire the gun, he seemingly didn’t intend to hit Boyd. He instead intended to hit the man whom he believed was pulling a gun out of his waistband.

“You can do intentional acts and still be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on results,” O’Neill said.

Both O’Neill and Etienne agreed that Servin could have, and perhaps should have, been charged this time around with murder — a crime that requires intent.

“But that does NOT mean that it is legally impossible to also find it could have been involuntary manslaughter: the defendant committed voluntary acts that recklessly killed an unintended victim,” O’Neill said. “That is involuntary manslaughter.”

a clear case of the law getting in its own way

Nah, just a clueless judge making a bad ruling that can't be appealed.

 

[bigbottom]

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

The final witness Monday was Shurecca Baymon, a patient care coordinator with Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Baymon testified that she spoke with Boyd's close friend Ikca Beamon the night of the shooting, as Boyd was on life support.

Baymon claims Beamon told her that Cross pretended his phone was a gun and whipped it out "just to spook [servin]."

Beamon said she blamed Cross and his friend for arguing with Servin, and didn't think it was fair that Boyd had been shot in her head, while Cross was only hit in his hand, according to Baymon.

Would be curious to know how that comes into evidence.

Sounds like hearsay, no?

Yes. And none of the hearsay exceptions or non-hearsay examples jump immediately to mind. It's not a statement against interest or an admission by a party-opponent because she's implicating someone else. It occured later at the hospital, so I don't think an excited utterance or present sense impression exception would apply either.

 

[timschochet]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted “recklessly” when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

“The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder,” wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.

Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

Our Justice system is completely, 100% broken. It is a ####### joke. It's so ####### contorted it allows a man who fires a gun at people and kills them for no reason to go free. Meanwhile, parking tickets and refusal to pay them will land you in jail. Letting your kids walk around your neighborhood gets them taken from you. ####### JOKE.

In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, the whole "feared for my life" crap has made prosecuting violent crimes impossible in this country. We have let an edge case (someone holding an unloaded gun) legalize murder in this ####ed up, gun-crazed, violent culture we call the United states. There is no defense for this kind of crap. Every single law allowing you to kill someone because you "feared for your life" needs to come off the books immediately. Forensics should be the only thing that matters.

God I ####### hate this country. I have never seen a place that has it so incredibly good work so hard to #### things up for no reason at all. Well I guess they do sell a ####load of guns here. This place is ####### tragic beyond belief.

If you're serious about the bolded then get the #### out of here. Plenty of people willing to take your place.

 

[njherdfan]

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

The final witness Monday was Shurecca Baymon, a patient care coordinator with Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Baymon testified that she spoke with Boyd's close friend Ikca Beamon the night of the shooting, as Boyd was on life support.

Baymon claims Beamon told her that Cross pretended his phone was a gun and whipped it out "just to spook [servin]."

Beamon said she blamed Cross and his friend for arguing with Servin, and didn't think it was fair that Boyd had been shot in her head, while Cross was only hit in his hand, according to Baymon.

Would be curious to know how that comes into evidence.

Yeah. I don't remember much of evidence but isn't the dying declaration exception only available for homicide cases, which this isn't? And I don't think it's covered as a dying declaration anyway

 

[cstu]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

 

[cstu]

Would be curious to know how that comes into evidence.

Don't they allow exceptions to hearsay all the time? I don't know how they decide what's hearsay and what's not.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

 

[cstu]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

 

[Yenrub]

Aren’t these professionals trained to know what a gun looks like?

Do cell phones really look like guns? (None of the cell phones in my house look like they gun we own)

Did this guy really pull the cell phone from his waistband? The article says he was talking on the phone with someone at the time of the shooting. Are we to believe that this guy was on the phone, hung up, put the phone in his waistband, then pull the phone out of his waistband and point it like a gun at the plain clothed officer?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

 

[bigbottom]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

Yeah, this guy was off duty and initiated the confrontation.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

Beat me to it. Sure, some police officers are good guys who want the day to go as smoothly as possible. Some are hyper-aggressive guys who became police officers because they get to carry a gun and a badge and boss people around.

 

[Sweet J]

This is so maddening. More like saddening. Jesus. We have to be approaching a breaking point.

As I've mentioned before: How can we have gone from a national rending of our garments because a drunk and high Rodney King got beat up, but have a collective "oh well" when a 14 year old with a bb gun gets shot dead? I just don't understand.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

This is so maddening. More like saddening. Jesus. We have to be approaching a breaking point.

As I've mentioned before: How can we have gone from a national rending of our garments because a drunk and high Rodney King got beat up, but have a collective "oh well" when a 14 year old with a bb gun gets shot dead? I just don't understand.

''War is Hell''

 

[T Bell]

ya he saw a gun while sitting in his car facing the other way (firing over his shoulder) in a dark ally ...and god forbid he just drive away if he felt threatened ...this is worse than most of the cases we argue about on here ...totally 100 % murder

The final witness Monday was Shurecca Baymon, a patient care coordinator with Mt. Sinai Hospital.

Baymon testified that she spoke with Boyd's close friend Ikca Beamon the night of the shooting, as Boyd was on life support.

Baymon claims Beamon told her that Cross pretended his phone was a gun and whipped it out "just to spook [servin]."

Beamon said she blamed Cross and his friend for arguing with Servin, and didn't think it was fair that Boyd had been shot in her head, while Cross was only hit in his hand, according to Baymon.

Would be curious to know how that comes into evidence.

Sounds like hearsay, no?

Yes. And none of the hearsay exceptions or non-hearsay examples jump immediately to mind. It's not a statement against interest or an admission by a party-opponent because she's implicating someone else. It occured later at the hospital, so I don't think an excited utterance or present sense impression exception would apply either.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe it was offered to impeach her for a contradictory statement she made from the stand or possibly in an earlier statement, but yeah, that's an odd ruling too without knowing more.

 

[T Bell]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

There's a mix of personalities in every profession, but there are identifiable trends, and you have an unfortunately strain of law enforcement that love being "rule imposers" and have zero chill. That plus a sidearm and the confidence that you'll hold ever conceivable advantage in the event of a shooting incident leads to a lot of reckless behavior.

 

[Clifford]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

You missed one

Don't walk down the street

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/madison_police_fire_and_arrest.html

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

There's a mix of personalities in every profession, but there are identifiable trends, and you have an unfortunately strain of law enforcement that love being "rule imposers" and have zero chill. That plus a sidearm and the confidence that you'll hold ever conceivable advantage in the event of a shooting incident leads to a lot of reckless behavior.

That's no kind of excuse, we are talking about the profession that gets to walk around with guns in public and are given a greater sense authority... made ever worse by the continual cover-ups.

 

[Clifford]

Today's the first I've heard of this case:

Off duty cop acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed black woman in the back of the head from his car.

Claims he "feared for his life" as the group walked away from his vehicle down an alley.

Wow. That's insane.

WTF??

I'm very confused by this story. It seems like the judge made this decision as a matter of law and didn't even let the case go to the jury, because he was only charged with involuntary manslaughter. Basically the judge is saying that because the cop shot the woman on purpose, then there was no recklessness? That can't be right.

Correct, he said the charge should have been murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

The judge found that prosecutors failed to prove that Servin acted “recklessly” when he fired at Boyd and three friends. The judge suggested in his ruling that prosecutors should have brought a murder charge, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.

“The act of intentionally firing a gun at some person or persons on the street is an act that is so dangerous it is beyond reckless; it is intentional, and the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder,” wrote Cook County Associate Judge Dennis Porter.

And now because of double jeopardy rules, the cop can't be charged with murder. It's a complete joke.

Quote via Salon

What the mother ####?????

Our Justice system is completely, 100% broken. It is a ####### joke. It's so ####### contorted it allows a man who fires a gun at people and kills them for no reason to go free. Meanwhile, parking tickets and refusal to pay them will land you in jail. Letting your kids walk around your neighborhood gets them taken from you. ####### JOKE.

In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, the whole "feared for my life" crap has made prosecuting violent crimes impossible in this country. We have let an edge case (someone holding an unloaded gun) legalize murder in this ####ed up, gun-crazed, violent culture we call the United states. There is no defense for this kind of crap. Every single law allowing you to kill someone because you "feared for your life" needs to come off the books immediately. Forensics should be the only thing that matters.

God I ####### hate this country. I have never seen a place that has it so incredibly good work so hard to #### things up for no reason at all. Well I guess they do sell a ####load of guns here. This place is ####### tragic beyond belief.

If you're serious about the bolded then get the #### out of here. Plenty of people willing to take your place.

I've lived here my whole life. I pay ####### taxes and I can damn well hate what this country has become if I feel like it. It's sickening. Reading about this #### makes me want to puke.

All "love it or leave it" does is make people blind to the massive problems we have here. It's a stupid response steeped in the myth of American exceptionalism.

 

[T Bell]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

There's a mix of personalities in every profession, but there are identifiable trends, and you have an unfortunately strain of law enforcement that love being "rule imposers" and have zero chill. That plus a sidearm and the confidence that you'll hold ever conceivable advantage in the event of a shooting incident leads to a lot of reckless behavior.

That's no kind of excuse, we are talking about the profession that gets to walk around with guns in public and are given a greater sense authority... made ever worse by the continual cover-ups.

What excuse?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Besides my advice of not running from police or trying to take their gun/taser, I would like to add two more:

- don't pretend your cell phone is a gun and point it at people

- don't associate yourself without people who would do any of the above

and then keep walking away in the other direction probably laughing and pissing off the off duty cop who just had his pride butt hurt ,who in turn decides to open fire into a crowd of people ...got it...thanks

Do what you're told and cower before The Man and you'll minimize the odds of getting shot.

There is no such thing as "The Man" - they're are only cops who want their day to go as smoothly as possible so they can get back to their families at the end of the day.

That's a sack of shit. Plenty of cops want/crave altercations. I deal with cops on a semi-rather regular basis. These people become cops (and soldiers) for reasons that are often not altruistic.

There's a mix of personalities in every profession, but there are identifiable trends, and you have an unfortunately strain of law enforcement that love being "rule imposers" and have zero chill. That plus a sidearm and the confidence that you'll hold ever conceivable advantage in the event of a shooting incident leads to a lot of reckless behavior.

That's no kind of excuse, we are talking about the profession that gets to walk around with guns in public and are given a greater sense authority... made ever worse by the continual cover-ups.

What excuse?

The "everyone has 'em" crap.

They have more power, they have more authority.... they should be held to a higher standard, more oversight and harder penalties then anyone else. Yet it's just the opposite.