Which is, I thought obviously, how it should be. Self defence isn’t a justification for murder, or a defence against a murder charge, it’s justified, legal killing. I really can’t see how anyone could think it’s acceptable that someone should have to prove they didn’t commit a crime…
Wait - didn’t those two immediately start with the first aid?
If they did it - what was stopping the other cops?
To make things a little easier to digest, here’s a fairly uncomplicated summary about affirmative defenses (which, again, rather obviously, are not mandatory and there’s no “must” about it):
And if one is disinclined to click through, a fairly well drafted excerpt that won’t confound a layperson:
"The word ‘affirmative’ in the term refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense [emphasis mine, as opposed to “innocence” as asserted in comments above], as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.
An affirmative defense operates to prevent conviction even when the prosecutor has proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the crime. For example, consider again the elements that the state must prove when charging murder (that a human died, killed by another human, who intended to do so). Now imagine a claim of self-defense—the defendant says that he shot the victim only after the victim attacked him. There is no doubt that a human died, killed by another human who intended to do so. But if the jury believes the defendant’s claim, he will escape conviction."
All the more reason for not attempting to weight the process against the defendant.
It’s quite clear, judging by the tone of the comments here, that people aren’t interested in a just decision about this case based on the evidence, but vengeance because a twelve year old was killed, and they’ve decided that that’s not acceptable, law, evidence or justice be damned. The point of a justice system is to protect defendants against those attitudes, to ensure that only those proven to have broken the law are punished. That is a Good Thing, and not a thing that people should try to subvert, whether or not they like the outcome in a particular case.
It’s not that easy. Mr. Prosecutor is free to represent the facts as he sees fit to fit his version of the crime. He not required to know whether he’s representing what actually happened, as long as his version fits the facts. And of course, he’s assuming the worst possible crime when he comes up with his version. Now, the defendant has the task of attempting to prove that what the prosecutor’s alleging is incorrect . Example, cases that are clearly manslaughter are often charged and argues as if they were murder.
Provide proof of this assertion please.
Unless you’re just being a hypocrite and just assuming people are guilty, which I’ve noticed you have a tendency to do.
And kind of weird, considering most of the discussion seems to be debate over interpretation of evidence, and over proper tactics, not the evidence itself.
(Bolding added.)
Per the bolded section, are you proposing that this justification should just be assumed by law? Or do you agree there must be some sort of evidence that the killing was, in fact, done in self defense?
Because in all such cases, there is both a dead body and someone who admits they made that body dead. Killing someone, you see, is normally a crime, and is punishable by the state except in very specific circumstances such as self defense. This is why, when someone has admitted to killing someone else, they are made to present that justification so that the state can determine that yes, the circumstance of the killing matches one of the very specific circumstances, or no, it does not and therefor the perpetrator faces judicial consequences.
Because the killer has already admitted to an act that is normally criminally punishable. He or she is not having to “prove innocence” because they’re admittedly not innocent of the act. They are having to prove an extenuating circumstance.
Clear?
Yes, they have to introduce some assertion of self-defense. In a lot of states, subsequent to that, the state has to disprove the self-defense argument beyond reasonable doubt, in order to convict the accused.
Not in Connecticut, for example
When, as in this case, evidence of (self-defense / the defense of others) is introduced at trial, the state must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged to obtain a conviction, but must also disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in (self-defense / the defense of others). If the state fails to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in (self-defense / the defense of others), you must find the defendant not guilty despite the fact that you have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever with respect to this defense.
What’s wrong with you?
Of course these killer cops deserve a trial. Who the fucking fuck argued against a fucking trial?
I’m just saying that just because a lying cop claims he saw a kid pull out a gun before he killed the kid, that doesn’t make it true. In fact, his statement is an obvious lie. And I don’t have to wait until the cop goes on trial to assert that my opinion is that the lying cop is lying out of his asshole.
I do not believe, however, that my opinion about the lying killer cop’s killing of an unarmed 12 year old boy means that, hey, let’s do away with due process and put the lying killer cop in prison without a trial.
Due process is what we Americans require before we allow the state to take away someone’s freedom or property. We do not require a trial with due process to form an opinion about facts.
If all you want to assert is that the cops should have a trial before they get thrown in prison, well then, you’re a goddam hero for asserting the bloody obvious. However, if you want to argue that we should shut our fucking mouths until after the trial, well, I don’t notice you shutting your mouth either.
So either limit your comments to “wait until the trial”, or stop whining that we’ve drawn conclusions about the appropriateness of the killer cop’s actions. We’re not just arguing about whether the killer’s actions were such that he’s not likely to be convicted of a crime, or charged with a crime. We’re also arguing about whether he’s dangerous person whose decisions directly lead to a kid lying on the ground bleeding to death, and whether, if he hadn’t made such stupid decisions, that kid would be alive today.
Arguing that the cop’s actions were justifiable means, what? That we shrug our shoulders and move the fuck on, because dead kids are just part of the cost of doing business in this best of all possible worlds?
Or how about, even IF this cop’s actions were technically just this side of legal, we can also agree that maybe, just maybe, he could AND SHOULD have done something different. And not ending up behind bars for murder is a damn sight different than “this cop did everything he should have done, let’s move along”.
I’m proposing that the standard that applies in, for example, Florida (see the many Zimmerman threads for cites) whereby if someone claims they killed in self defence, and provides any amount of evidence - no matter how small, it then becomes an element of the crime that must be proven that the killing was not justified self defence.
Killing someone in self defence is not a crime, and someone who does so should not be treated as a criminal. It is wrong to expect someone to prove they didn’t commit a crime, the burden of proof should always and solely fall on the accuser.
Yes.
Of course, it’s far from settled yet that there won’t be a trial, but should the investigation not turn up sufficient evidence to warrant one then yes, absolutely, we move on.
People die, even kids. Not every death is someone’s fault, not every killing is a crime. If it turns out that this one isn’t - which the balance of evidence available so far suggests, then what else should we do apart from accept it and move on?
Do you really want a show trial when there’s not enough evidence to demonstrate guilt? DO you really think that’s a good precedent?
99.9% of murders don’t have the level of evidence that this one does.
What evidence is there that it was anything other than a tragic mistake?
I think a normal, moral person would want to take actions to prevent more dead kids. Maybe better training for police officers. Maybe not hiring police officers who had been fired from other police departments. Maybe better psychological testing for police officers. Maybe a memo saying “don’t shoot unarmed black kids.”
Unless more dead black kids is a preferred outcome for you, which, based on your comments, might be the case.
Still haven’t watched the video, huh?
Or read the initial police report that contradicted the video.
Or read the testimony of the eyewitness that said the officers lied about warning the 12 year old boy.
The fuck?
So the only alternatives are–the cop is a murderer and goes to prison, or he’s a hero and we move on?
Bullshit.
Even if we can’t convict the killer cop of murder, there are lots of things we can do. How about police forces try harder not to hire trigger-happy killers? Because obviously the decision to kill the victim was made long before the cops jumped out of the car. Shooting him was the plan. I’m saying that shouldn’t have been the plan. Hire a better class of cops, and fire the ones who do their jobs so poorly that innocent kids end up bleeding to death on the ground while they sit and watch and try to figure out their story.
Train the cops on how to deal with dangerous situations without shooting first and asking questions later. Maybe the cops were trained that this was the best way to deal with active shooters, and were just following their training. Well, the training sucks. Not every situation is Columbine, you can’t train cops to treat every call of a person with a gun as if it were Columbine.
Stop allowing cops to act as if they’re an occupying army in the middle of a war zone. They exist to serve us, and the “us” includes black kids too. Violent crime way down across the boards, but cops still act as if we’re on the verge of total social collapse. No, cops and citizens are safer than they’re ever been, the pants-wetting terror that cops seem to feel of the citizenry is completely unjustified.
Put cameras on the cops. It turns out just putting cameras on the cops–the cops believing that their actions are recorded–leads to them not being such fucking assholes. Knowing that in the case of a complaint by a citizen it won’t just be his word vs the cop’s word makes them watch what they say. Of course just being on camera doesn’t stop cops from shooting, beating, choking, robbing or threatening people, and lots of cops escape criminal prosecution even with video evidence. But at least they’ll get fired instead of being treated like a hero.
Put an end to funding police departments by fines and forfeitures. 80% of the resentment in Ferguson is not due to a cop killing one black kid, but the fact that the Ferguson police force gets almost all it’s funding from trying to find violations that lead to fines. In other words, every time a cop interacts with someone, their salary is paid by finding some way to charge that person with violation. And then they wonder why the people who live their don’t trust them. They aren’t part of the community, they’re a mafia of shake-down artists who exploit the community.
And on and on. This kid is dead because the cops royally fucked up. Whether we’ll be able to put them in prison over this incident hasn’t been determined yet. But please consider there’s a whole range of outcomes between “hero” and “convicted murderer”.
My 1st arrest was at 18 when they burst in the door of my dorm room. I already knew not to resist or move suddenly or do anything in any way to intimidate them. I was arrested another night in what was actually a case of mistaken identity. The cop had me lie facedown in the mud, put a knee in my back and a 9mm pistol against the back of my head, then explained to me if I even wiggled a finger before his buddies got there he was going to blow my motherfucking brains out. A few years ago me and a Mexican I worked with were pulled over and a highway patrolman searched my pickup. There was no cause, it was 8am we were sober and obviously just 2 idiots on the way to work, but he was so afraid of us his hands were shaking. I obviously don’t like cops and I detest all governmental authority but at the same time I stand behind a cop’s absolute right to go home at the end of his shift unhurt. Hey, a Dallas cop shot unarmed 12 year old Santos Rodriguez in the parking lot behind my house in 1973 and was never punished. It’s a hard world out there but that’s our America so don’t be effing around with the police, they have a license to kill. And don’t mess with Texas, because under our Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws the average Joe Citizen can blow you away for next to nothing, too. And we got open carry coming! You go, Gov. Stangelove!
You and Texas deserve each other.