This seems pretty silly – it’s easy to come up with scenarios in which one’s “state of mind” might have been justifiably in fear for one’s life, but in which one would still be responsible for killing someone. For example, someone with a concealed weapon, late at night, accidentally enters the wrong apartment (with an identical floor plan) – he sees someone in what he thinks is his child’s bedroom. He raises his gun and shouts “who are you!?!” and the guy wakes up, reaches for his own weapon in his night table, and the first man and shoots him dead. His state of mind was legitimate fear for his life (or his child’s life) – but because he negligently entered the wrong apartment, and shot someone without verifying that he was in his own apartment, I think he would likely be convicted of manslaughter at the very least.
Because if the cops behaved negligently in the lead up to the shooting, and this negligent behavior directly led to the shooting, then they should be held culpable for the shooting. And they may have behaved negligently – further investigation, hopefully, will reveal whether they did.
I acknowledge looking at the link. Without any specific statement from you regarding what you believe or how the information at the link is relevant to the Clevland PD, I have no comment on the link. If you are asserting anything, feel free to clarify. It sounds like Just Asking Questions. You introduced the link - at least make an effort to demonstrate why it’s relevant.
If it’s an accident rather than negligence - it would help if you clarify which you meant - then normal self defence rules would apply. That is, the danger needs to be imminent, so if the guy (who’s apartment it actually was) threatened them, defence would be appropriate, as it was entirely reasonable for the killer to be in fear for his life.
Basically, if a reasonable person could have felt he was in his own apartment in the shooter’s circumstances, no crime was committed. And the burden of proof should be on those who claim it was not reasonable.
Well, yes, in the specific hypothetical that their negligence lead directly to the shooting. But, again, that’s irrelevant to this case, as there’s no evidence the police acted negligently, and no evidence that anything other than Rice reaching for his waistband lead to the shooting.
It’s all very well coming up with hypotheticals like this, and it may even be useful for those who are investigating and looking for evidence, but they tell us nothing about what actually happened, or about what should happen now.
Oh, and as an add-on to the first hypothetical, if the actual homeowner had shot and killed the accidental intruder, he would certainly have been justified. Justification for self defence is not necessarily exclusive, sometimes both parties can have it.
You’re saying that (in my hypothetical) guy A, who entered guy B’s apartment and shot guy B, was not behaving negligently? That seems ridiculous to me.
In my scenario, I don’t believe this passes the “reasonable person” test. Occasionally, reasonable people do something unreasonable due to negligence.
If they violated procedure and (for example) drove much too close to Rice, then that may have been negligent.
This is all just discussion about what may have happened and what should happen, considering various possible scenarios that fit the facts. Negligent behavior fits the facts – it’s also possible that no negligence fits the facts as well. These are reasonable things to discuss.
What reason did he have to believe it was not his own apartment? Your hypothetical states that he believed that. If he walked into the bedroom and found someone asleep, and shot them without checking, you could argue negligence, but if someone immediately threatened him on entering, and there was no time to check, then he would be justified.
So, you don’t believe someone can accidentally enter the wrong apartment, only negligently? Then why use the word “accidentally” in your hypothetical?
Negligent in what way? Specifically, in what way that could have predictably put Rice in danger.
Many people here are not doing that, they are speculating that the police may have done something wrong, without much evidence, and from that going on to rant about police misconduct. That is not reasonable. Frankly, attaching unsupported hypotheticals to any particular case is at best misleading in my opinion.
I don’t believe “accidentally” and “negligently” are mutually exclusive. Going into the wrong apartment late at night with a gun and shooting someone who lives there, and who did nothing wrong, is negligent, in my view. If he didn’t shoot someone, it might still be negligent, but luckily the negligence would not have lead to anyone’s death.
If (for example) they stopped the car much closer than procedure calls for, then the number of actions that Rice could take without being shot are vastly reduced. If they were further away, reaching for a waistband (assuming Rice even did this) would offer much less of an imminent threat then if they are very close.
Considering that you admit that the police may have acted improperly, such speculation, that the police may have acted in a way that constitutes misconduct, seems reasonable. Certainty would be unreasonable, but I don’t think speculation and discussion is unreasonable.
So you are judging their actions solely on what the police procedures are, no matter what those procedures are? As long as they can find some way to justify their actions by pointing at the rulebook, it doesn’t matter to you how much they fuck up?
BTW, I don’t think outright lying is excused in any police procedures handbook you can find. From The Daily Kos, referencing an MSNBC story, reports :
And what about Timothy Loehman? Information just released from the Independence Police Department paints a rather sad picture of the officer. They said he was “distracted and weepy” during firearms training, “He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal.” “I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies”, concludes Deputy Chief Jim Polak of the Independence Police. So what does Officer Loehman decide to do, career-wise? Well, in an interview, his father said he decided on his own to leave Independence to pursue a job with the Cleveland police because he wanted “more action”.
They’re not exactly exclusive, but in this particular context I think it helps to differentiate between different things. I’d suggest using “accident” to mean “a mistake that any person could have made in that circumstance”, “negligence” to mean “a mistake that could only be made by someone paying less attention than reasonable”, and “recklessness” to mean “a mistake made by someone taking intentional actions that a reasonable person would consider would lead to said mistake”.
If you disagree with my choice of words, fair enough, but the first to circumstances are sufficiently distinct that I’m not sure which one you’re talking about. In general, I don’t believe the law should penalise anyone for genuine accidents, that anyone could have made.
I somewhat disagree, to be honest. Do you think they would have shot him if he’d frozen, or raised his hands? Or anything other than moved his hands to where the police reasonably believed he had a gun?
I mean, yes, the reduced time does obviously reduce the amount of actions he could have taken, but not in my opinion to an impossibly low level, such that there was nothing Rice could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the police and not get shot.
It’s a long way from misconduct to manslaughter or murder, though. Is it reasonable to predict that driving up to a suspect and shouting “hands up” will cause them to act as though they are trying to draw a gun? If not, as I believe, then even if it’s negligent, it’s not relevant to the discussion.
Do let’s try to keep our stories straight: According to the police report, there was no shouting “Hands up!” out the window. The officer told the child three times to “Put your hands up!”, and after this happened the child ignored the request, “then reached into his waistband and pulled out the gun”, at which time said officer shot him.
Then that pesky video surveillance tape was released, showing that it just couldn’t have happened that way, because neither the officer that shot the 12 year old child, nor the 12 year old child himself, was secretly The Flash. The Officer had no time to say that phrase in the 1 and 1/2 to 2 seconds(Police estimation of time from vehicle stop to shooting), and the 12 year old child didn’t have enough time to pull any weapon out…which doesn’t matter, because there is no video of him holding a weapon after the car pulls up.
I think we agree on most of what you wrote here – I just don’t think anyone could have made such a mistake as walking into the wrong apartment and shooting someone inside who did nothing wrong.
They might have been less likely to, but we can’t know for sure. I don’t think this is relevant to whether or not their actions may or may not have been negligent.
In my view, this doesn’t matter, if it’s determined that their actions significantly lowered the “options” of safe actions that Rice had (as I believe they may have), for no reason whatsoever. That may (or may not) qualify as negligence.
When someone ends up dead, I’m not sure if it is a long way from misconduct to manslaughter, at least.
I’m really worried how much mindset is becoming an iron-clad defense. Stand Your Ground laws have only exacerbated the situation.
Want to commit murder, and get clean away with it? Get a concealed carry permit. Figure some way to get the prospective victim really pissed, pissed enough to move on you. Kill him. Self-defense. “I was in reasonable fear for my life, or severe bodily injury…” And only you can testify to your mindset.
Works even better if you are a cop. Don’t have to prove diddly, just announce that you were afraid, a reasonable fear for your life. Given the tendency of American juries to sympathize with cops, you’re gonna walk. Your victim is a minority? With a history of petty crime or drug charges? They’ll carry you out on their shoulders and buy you drinks.
