Unless the perp is accused of failing to pay for some pancakes, right?
well, to be fair and all, they were IHOP pancakes, valued at $26.00 That’s not chump change you know.
Awww…boo, hiss. Couldn’t ya’ leave it in the other thread?
I think its perfectly germane to this thread. It highlights marty’s hypocracy.
Well, without the film and eyewitnesses, it’s a “he said/he said” situation. A prosecutor’s got to have evidence.
I’m with you on that one. What the heck is that supposed to mean? I smell a civil lawsuit followup after the criminal case is over.
eeeyyyyup.
From what I’ve read, sorry if I’ve missed something by not watching the video. The airman had just been in a crash and was “cowering” beside the car with the deputy standing “over” him. I would assume ballistics would be able to prove some of this and physical evidence would support the deputys’ claim of fearing for his safety. I’d think the airmans position on the ground and the direction the bullets came from as well as any witnesses would give a fair indication of who was telling the truth. Making the video very nice to have but not crucial. This is more or less what I’m trying to get at, why is this the only piece of evidence that supports the deputy being charged? I know there certainly are instances in which video evidence would be the only likely evidence which would support a conviction, IMHO I don’t think this is one of those instances. Let me put it this way if the “amateur photographer” who film this didn’t have his camera with him, he would only be refered to as an eye witness, would this have meant the officer wouldn’t have been charged?
There is, apparently, a witness, whose voice is recorded as saying, “You told him to get up!”
That might help. You never know.
Well, GawnFishin’, I’m only guessing at the prosecutor’s motives here, so I could be way off base. No mention of ballistics evidence was mentioned, so I’m guessing it was inconclusive. No mention of the eyewitnesses was made, so I’m guessing that the prosecutor deemed that their testimony alone was not enough to make a case. From what I’ve heard, that seems damned unlikely, but who knows the motives of the prosecutor?
According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, Webb is going to be charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter, wrongful use of a firearm and inflicting great bodily injury.
I wonder what I’d be charged with if I shot a man 3 times after I told him to get up. Think a jury would buy “I was in fear for my safety”?
CMC fnord
Part the first: A DA often tends to make the decision to prosecute based on an expectation of being able to obtain a conviction. While Snowboarder Bo’s prediction may be based on a jaundiced view of the justice system wrt obtaining (or seeking) criminal convictions against police officers accused of wrongful shootings of civilians, it is not an opinion born in a vacuum. DA’s do take into account the likelihood of a conviction before they commit resources to a prosecution, and juries, being composed largely of civilians with a vested interest in having confidence in the folks sworn to protect their safety, do have a track record that tends to reflect a stronger benefit of the doubt in favor of a cop than that in favor of, say, some guy who gets into a confrontation while he happens to have a gun in his hand.
Part the second: Understanding this apparent pardox requires an understanding of what lawyers mean when they use the words “reasonable” and “unreasonable.” Deputy Webb’s fear for his safety may well have been real and patent. His fear was not justified by any factors that a reasonable person could be expected to look for in concluding that his safety, health, well-being, or life were in real danger. For this reason, Deputy Webb’s actions were not those of a responsible, professional law enforcement officer engaged in protecting the safety of the public, but of a jumpy loose cannon with an authoritarian attitude, a deadly weapon, and an itchy trigger finger. That, presumably, is what the DA’s office has determined to its own satisfaction to be the case, and is prepared to convince a jury of. Obviously Deputy Webb’s defense attorney will attempt to convince the jury that the prosecution has failed to present a compelling argument that it is.
Whoops. This section:
should look like this:
My apologies for the screwed-up coding.
Actually, it does nothing of the sort. The pancake thieves were thieves, and the Airman in question is innocent of any crime. Big difference. (Not that I think $26 worth of pancakes is worth getting shot over, but it’s a clearly a different situation. As a point of fact, the $26 pancake thing is an obvious strawman, the boy question was shot because his car tried to run down a cop. Weather or not that was the actual circumstance is in question, but claiming he was shot over “$26 worth of pancakes” is the worst kind of deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.)
Four times according to the story. Apparently he missed once.
Isn’t there still some question regarding whether or not those teens actually walked out on the check?
Actually, I believe that Martin’s position was that, wether or not the teens had been trying to run down the cop, the kid still deserved to be shot because he was a thief.
Did you see the quote from Martin that
THAT’S the hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter that the two situations are different; it matters that he claims to wait on information. Like you, though, he has no problem calling a dead kid a thief even though there was no arrest and no trial.
That makes sense.
There is that question. I have one of my own, while we’re at it.
What the FUCK happened to “let’s wait until we know all the facts”? Or does that only work for one side???
This Webb is guilty, the videotape proves it. End of fucking story.