Tasers should be removed from the police force. They've done nothing but encourage abuse, laziness, and thoughtlessness on the part of law enforcement officials. At least before tasers, officers would have to think and assess the risks and circumstances before pulling a trigger. Since the taser is a presumably non-lethal weapon and they can seem to get away with firing it whenever they want because of this, it's used in everything from getting a person already on the floor and pinned down to stop screaming to unnecessarily shocking harmless and defenseless people into submission. Yes, there are plenty of ways to subdue a person high on crack concaine and yes, unfortunately they do require a bit more thought and patience than pulling a taser out of its holster and shocking them. Police need to start treating a taser like a gun in that it should be a last resort, not a first, which it has so often become.
If tasers are kept on the police force (and I assume they will be since they love them so much), their use should be controlled far more than they are now with strict punishments of abuse. The simple fact is that despite the presumption, tasers are not necessarily safe or non-lethal. They are weapons that, like rubber bullets, have the potential to cause real damage to a person. Perhaps if they were actually treated as such by police officers rather than toys, then this incident could have been avoided entirely. It's pretty clear that a taser in this instance was a completely unnecessary and inappropriate use of force. If this officer wasn't so quick to pull out his taser and use it, we wouldn't be here talking about this today and a human being would be alive rather than dead. This is, of course, all assuming that this was indeed an accident and that the officer in question did somehow mistake his firearm for his taser (which is a completely unacceptable error for a trained officer anyway).
Just on another note, yes, police officers do provide a valuable service to our communities as do firefighters and even soldiers. However, I would like to emphasize that this service does not, by default, entitle them to our respect or trust. Of course police will always complain about how hard their job is and how they're underappreciated and such, but that's not an excuse for poor judgement or behavior and it's certainly not an excuse for errors on the job. Yes, people do make mistakes and they do get tired. However, this doesn't diminish the seriousness of those mistakes nor should they play a part in in the consequences they should face for those mistakes. If you can't handle being a professional in your field of work, go do something else for a living. There are plenty of officers out there who are completely deserving of respect and handle their duties with the utmost professionalism and care despite facing all the same hardships. But because of these bad apples, they are being given a bad name and their ability to do their work is being compromised by the mistrust that naturally develops in our communities whenever we see these incidents.
I hope this officer receives a sentence that accurately reflects his crime and serves as a reminder to other police that they are being held accountable for their actions just like the rest of us.
It may or may not be an accident. We won't know for sure. But you gotta ask:
- Is 4 years of jail time worth another man's life? - If he wasn't a cop would there be stricter penalty? - If so, does the police officer deserve a lenient penalty because he was 'doing his job'?
My personal thoughts:
- No - Yes - No; regardless of racial discrimination, regardless of intent, regardless of whatever, a fucking man was shot by an authority figure. As a layman, I would argue for a stricter sentence.
At one point, my father was wrongfully convicted for doing insurance fraud / arson. Him being a first generation immigrant in Philadelphia, there was this obscure rule that forced him to be deported, but if the deportation law didn't exist, he would have had three years for his "conviction". To this day I am convinced that the system has major flaws BUT I try to defend it when it needs to be defended. Why am I saying this? Well the thing is, a man accidentally (debatable to some) kills another man and gets 2-4 years. My father didn't even do what he was convicted for, but even then, assuming he did, he got 3 years for arson and money issues, as well as deportation (and leaving poor old me a bastard child in the United States )
Is it just me or is there something INCREDIBLY flawed in this system? It seems sometimes, issues dealing with property and money have more or almost equal weight as with accidental murder. Then again, who am I to say that this amount of time is wrong? Who gets to determine that?
jinmaekul has obviously never fought someone high on rack and cocaine and lsd at the samd time.
I've seen a few people high on tthe stuff fight off seven fully grown men and still keep going. You cant possibly comprehend how strong people are under excited delirium.
So don't play side line coach when you don't actually have any clue at all.
On July 09 2010 16:20 Jayme wrote: jinmaekul has obviously never fought someone high on rack and cocaine and lsd at the samd time.
I've seen a few people high on tthe stuff fight off seven fully grown men and still keep going. You cant possibly comprehend how strong people are under excited delirium.
So don't play side line coach when you don't actually have any clue at all.
Dude are you seriously trying to troll right now? Crack and Cocaine ARE THE SAME THING! Crack is just Cocaine converted into a smoke-able form. Cocaine is a stimulant that gives a boost in physical prowess. I could see it giving you increased powers in a fight against ONE PERSON. After that it's just too insignificant of an advantage. LSD on the other gives no boosted physical powers as you are insinuating - on the flip side i see no way it could ever make a person fight anyone, as they would be completely confused as to the purpose of striking another human being. Even if they were only on a low dose, LSD would be at best a neutral factor in their ability to fight, and probably would just hamper their fighting immensely. Even if it did somehow happen, it's rediculous to say ANYONE fought off seven people at once while under the influence of a powerful stimulant like crack or even normal cocaine. The stress would cause them to hyperventilate, and and there is no advantage in the world that can make you able to fight off seven people at once. Basically it's obvious that you just made that up off of the top of your head for some inane purpose i completely don't even understand.
I think the significant flaw in the prosecution was the inclusion of the murder charge (an intentional act with conscious disregard for human life). It forced the jurors to deeply consider the state of mind of the officer at the time of the killing.
Forcing the jury to consider murder also affects the other two charges. A juror might make an argument (such as an accidental discharge) to save the officer from murder, but at the same time also clear the officer of a voluntary manslaughter charge. If the officer had not been charged with murder, I am sure a voluntary manslaughter charge would have been reached and the officer would be looking at up to 21 years.
Below are the jury instructions in California for vol. and invol. manslaughter:
Involuntary: [1] A human being was killed; and [2] the killing was unlawful.
Voluntary: [1] The defendant was provoked; [2] as a result of the provocation, the defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning or judgment; and [3] the provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from judgment.
On July 09 2010 15:18 kaisen wrote: cops aren't that stupid (depends). In this situation, they wouldn't flamboyantly shoot a suspect who is on the ground with witnesses around them.
This is most likely an accident.
it's very clearly an accident if you have seen the video. unfortunate that someone died as a result of human error, but having to live the rest of your life with that on your conscience would really take a toll.
In basic hand gun training/ licensing in California its drilled into you over and over not to point your firearm at another human being unless its self defense. No trained intelligent person would under those circumstances point a loaded weapon at a man that is clearly down and in cuffs (no immediate danger). That violates all sensible training for normal human beings that own/use a firearm.
Looking at what the officer said and basic training on firearms it makes some sense that he mistakenly drew his weapon instead of a taser. It doesn't make sense to murder a subdued person in cold blood in front of many many witnesses. Since there was no motive that is probably why the sentence was reduced to manslaughter.
On July 09 2010 15:35 ThePurist wrote: It may or may not be an accident. We won't know for sure. But you gotta ask:
- Is 4 years of jail time worth another man's life? - If he wasn't a cop would there be stricter penalty? - If so, does the police officer deserve a lenient penalty because he was 'doing his job'?
My personal thoughts:
- No - Yes - No; regardless of racial discrimination, regardless of intent, regardless of whatever, a fucking man was shot by an authority figure. As a layman, I would argue for a stricter sentence.
he hasn't been sentenced, hes only been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, with a weapon enhancement.
Means a minimum of 5 years of jail time with a max of 14 years, ofc in a small change the judge can appoint a probation period which could involve a jail time arrangement but that's unlikely. What is likely is as he was a police officer he will get the max or near max as althoguh officers tend not to found guilty of crimes committed while on duty, when they are they are often given a much harsher sentencing vs someone committing the same or similar crime.
He's been found guilty of a crime, the judge has the sentencing to do.
Which likely means little as this will be likely contested in federal court because weapon enchantment conflicts with involuntary manslaughter meaning the jury maybe made a bargain with each other to not get a hung jury.
On July 09 2010 17:32 Persev wrote: In basic hand gun training/ licensing in California its drilled into you over and over not to point your firearm at another human being unless its self defense. No trained intelligent person would under those circumstances point a loaded weapon at a man that is clearly down and in cuffs (no immediate danger). That violates all sensible training for normal human beings that own/use a firearm.
Looking at what the officer said and basic training on firearms it makes some sense that he mistakenly drew his weapon instead of a taser. It doesn't make sense to murder a subdued person in cold blood in front of many many witnesses. Since there was no motive that is probably why the sentence was reduced to manslaughter.
I think motive during the trail was pinned as racism by the prosecution, mainly because his mentor officer who helped train mehserle was pinned as an outspoken racist. The jury didn't believe it so trying to prove intent to kill is much harder.
Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot.
Keep your weapon on safe until you're ready to fire.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
These are the 4 basic firearm safety rules you learn. If the police officer shot a man, then all of these rules must have been true. He was treating his weapon as loaded, he was ready to fire, and he intended to shoot him. This fits the description of second-degree murder.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
On July 09 2010 16:20 Jayme wrote: jinmaekul has obviously never fought someone high on rack and cocaine and lsd at the samd time.
I've seen a few people high on tthe stuff fight off seven fully grown men and still keep going. You cant possibly comprehend how strong people are under excited delirium.
So don't play side line coach when you don't actually have any clue at all.
Dude are you seriously trying to troll right now? Crack and Cocaine ARE THE SAME THING! Crack is just Cocaine converted into a smoke-able form. Cocaine is a stimulant that gives a boost in physical prowess. I could see it giving you increased powers in a fight against ONE PERSON. After that it's just too insignificant of an advantage. LSD on the other gives no boosted physical powers as you are insinuating - on the flip side i see no way it could ever make a person fight anyone, as they would be completely confused as to the purpose of striking another human being. Even if they were only on a low dose, LSD would be at best a neutral factor in their ability to fight, and probably would just hamper their fighting immensely. Even if it did somehow happen, it's rediculous to say ANYONE fought off seven people at once while under the influence of a powerful stimulant like crack or even normal cocaine. The stress would cause them to hyperventilate, and and there is no advantage in the world that can make you able to fight off seven people at once. Basically it's obvious that you just made that up off of the top of your head for some inane purpose i completely don't even understand.
[/quote]
look it up. It's called excited delirium and it generally kills the person after the effects wear off. However, it sure as hell enables someone to fight off six to seven grown men. Again you can't comprehend it without seeing it. The human body can do absolutely freskish things when you feel no pain and are absolutely flooded witth adrenaline. You know those woemen that lift cars to save their children? Same fucking principle just a shit ton more focued...the semantics about crack cocaine aside I didn't make shit up.
Just because you apparently know nothimg about it doesn't mean it isn't there. Neither of those drugs on their own do much but when you start combining things it gets stupid...somebody as arrogant as your entire pos sounded should know this.
On July 03 2010 17:19 Number41 wrote: Tasers should not be standard issue. They are very dangerous weapons, often a subject of abuse, and a crutch for lazy police.
If they are used they should be kept on the opposite side of the belt from the gun.
I agree. This summer I've been threatened by one, with the officer saying "i'll light you up, boy". I wasn't doing shit other than having drank a little wine. I had had maybe 3 glasses, and wasn't driving. I was just riding with my girlfriend.
Just about a week ago, I was listening to a cop talk to a boy. He said "i've been in this game a long time, son, how old are you, 18? I'm 38. I've got 10 years on you."
I could tell my girlfriend was about to laugh, so i told her to shut up before she did. Police have huge e-peens when it comes to being made fun of. This guy definitely deserves to be made fun of for that, though, so it's bullshit. I should have told him that it's 20 years you fucking idiot, but I didn't feel like getting put on the ground and shot in the back like that dude on the subway.
On July 09 2010 18:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot.
Keep your weapon on safe until you're ready to fire.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
These are the 4 basic firearm safety rules you learn. If the police officer shot a man, then all of these rules must have been true. He was treating his weapon as loaded, he was ready to fire, and he intended to shoot him. This fits the description of second-degree murder.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
They probably aren't as strict about taser safety as gun safety for the obvious reason that guns are more dangerous. The fact that he intended to shoot him if he was aware that he had a gun is irrelevant to his defense that he thought he was holding a taser.
On July 09 2010 15:35 ThePurist wrote: It may or may not be an accident. We won't know for sure. But you gotta ask:
- Is 4 years of jail time worth another man's life? - If he wasn't a cop would there be stricter penalty? - If so, does the police officer deserve a lenient penalty because he was 'doing his job'?
My personal thoughts:
- No - Yes - No; regardless of racial discrimination, regardless of intent, regardless of whatever, a fucking man was shot by an authority figure. As a layman, I would argue for a stricter sentence.
Why should it be a stricter sentence?
20 to life for her if she shot the guy? As a layman you should be appreciative of the fact that you won't spend your life in prison if you make a mistake on the job.
On July 09 2010 15:35 ThePurist wrote: It may or may not be an accident. We won't know for sure. But you gotta ask:
- Is 4 years of jail time worth another man's life? - If he wasn't a cop would there be stricter penalty? - If so, does the police officer deserve a lenient penalty because he was 'doing his job'?
My personal thoughts:
- No - Yes - No; regardless of racial discrimination, regardless of intent, regardless of whatever, a fucking man was shot by an authority figure. As a layman, I would argue for a stricter sentence.
20 to life for her if she shot the guy? As a layman you should be appreciative of the fact that you won't spend your life in prison if you make a mistake on the job.
She clearly was incompetent and wasn't following the guidelines of gun safety as described earlier in this thread... not relevant to a defense that he thought he was holding his taser :/
EPT
)
