Just more fodder for the busybodies who claim that video games lead to violence.
Shooting and killing another person is homicide by definition. The question then becomes whether the killing was accidentable or justifiable. There is no indication that the shooting in this case was accidental, so the only defense left would be that it was justifiable (i.e. self-defense), in which case the burden is on the defendant
Another cite
Would you really think the law would be otherwise?
Interesting. Thanks, DtC. This also applies to the NYC shooting. I hope they have a much tougher time explaining 50 shots, including 31 by one officer.
Agreed
Agreed
(Bolding mine) This is where you go off the rails. What happened to the presumption of innocence? Oh - here it is:
Oh -hmm. I do not think it means what you think it means. I am presuming no crime has been committed. Sure, the burden of proof is on them. Is it wrong that I’m willing to see what they have to offer?
Wrong again. That six paragraph news-bite tells me very little. Re-write it to say “DtC broke into RandomMadeUpGuys house & shot him”, and I’d afford you the same presumption.
Yeah, but you were trying to equate ‘homicide’ with ‘murder’. They are not one-and-the-same. Your own cite explicitly says “Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime”
That said, I haven’t seen any updates since this morning, I’ll check around to see if there are any further developments.
Correction. The only question that matters is whether the officers thought he posed a threat to them. I could threaten the officers with a ham and cheese sandwich (you know, the kind with the cheese interwoven into the ham) and not pose a threat. But if my ham and cheese sandwich looks like a handgun, and even though it actually poses no threat of bodily harm to anyone, the officers would certainly be justified in killing me. I’ll bet that alledged controller looked more like a handgun than a ham and cheese sandwich. Any debate on this is moot, anyway, until the officers account for their actions. The victims standing of guilt or innocence of the charged crime is also irrelevant. Certainly the officers had proper cause to be there, in that someone had just accused them of a violent felony.
Actually, yes, the state does have to prove you were not justified. If the case is prima facie, then the burden shifts. Leastwise that’s how it’s designed to work in American justice.
There is also nothing in any of the stories which gives an account of the officers’ state of mind. So, without their testimony, nobody not in that house at that time knows if justification exists or not.
How do you know on what the Sherrif based his characterization. I’ll bet it was actually the officers’ testimony, if anything.
Any intentional taking of life is a prima facie homicide. If no other evidence is introduced, it’s a crime. It’s up to the cops to prove they had justification. Don’t worr “I thought he had a gun” always works with the public. It’s almost impossible for a cop to get in any real trouble as long as he says the magic words.
He said that’s what his characterization was based on, as I’ve already pointed out.
An intentional taking of life IS a prima facie homicide.
Which is why the magic words always work, unfortunately.
The police were just a teensy bit edgy because they saw photo of one the suspects (Ryan Mills–not Peyton Strickland, the one who got shot) posing with a bunch of guns, and they knew he sometimes carries a gun. Strickland’s roommate said he probably was holding a wireless game controller (I think the wireless bit is important). The police were expecting the suspects to be armed, and if they saw something that looked like a gun, it’s not unreasonable for them to defend themselves. I couldn’t find the photo online, but the News & Observer ran it in the paper today.
The kid who was killed had been charged with assault for breaking a guy’s jaw a few months ago, so he’s not the innocent, sweet kid his family is trying to make him seem to be.
Sure, but who determines the taking of life was “intentional”?
I haven’t seen any claim that the killing in this case was accidental, have you?
Thing is, though, my understanding of this sort of case is that the officers can’t simply claim to have thought the guy posed a threat, and that’s it.
I was under the impression that, for the officers to be justified, they have to demonstrate a “reasonable belief” (or something similar) that they guy was a threat to them. That is, they have to convince whoever is making the evaluation (a jury, etc.) that, given all the circumstances, it was reasonable for them to believe that the guy posed a threat.*
If he was, indeed, standing there with nothing but a ham and cheese sandwich, it will (or, at least, should) be difficult to argue that two armed police officers should have felt threatened by him.
- Obviously, the exact wording varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; it would be interesting to hear a lawyer’s take on this issue.
That is not 100% accurate. Any review of a use of force must take into consideration everything known to the officer at the time. Knowledge that a suspect may be violent or armed is obviously relevant to the question of justification. Even if the basis of that belief is later found to be incorrect, how could you expect an officer to disregard information like that?
Diogenes, I respect you a great deal. I agree that sometimes police officers can get away too easily with using force (anything up to and including deadly force) and we need to be closely watched.
However, I believe it is vanishingly rare that cops intentionally kill people then make up reasons to justifiy it. I know a lot of cops, and none of them ever want to be forced to kill. I know that I pray I will never be in that situation. I know a couple of officers who have had to do so, and it takes a terrible toll on them.
I don’t think you can imagine what it is like to charge into a room after someone you know might be armed and willing to kill you to keep from going to jail. If that person turns towards you with a dark object in his hand, would you wait to see if it fires before you protect yourself? I would like to believe that I would always wait until I was absolutely sure that he was holding a deadly weapon. But when you’re life is on the line, you may react too quickly. It’s always a tragedy, but it is almost never a crime.
As others have said, we should wait for more details about this incident before making any judgements.
On reflection, I think deliberate, wanton murder is far less likely than excited overreaction, panic and possibly poor training. The shooting was more likely to have been reckless and/or incompetent than intentionally criminal, so calling the “murderers until proven otherwise” was over the top on my part. Still, I’ll have a hard time buying any argument that the shooting was necessary.
In a profession where it is possible to get shot from someone attempting to avoid, say, a mere drunk driving arrest, and given the rapid death-causing nature of firearms, it’s not very surprising some officers don’t hesitate to use their firearm. But I’d also wager that many more law enforcement officers than not, at their own peril, use much more caution than is due.
I’m just curious: how many officers, do you think, shoot to kill a suspect without believing the suspect had a dangerous weapon which represented an immediate threat of bodily harm?
No. I haven’t seen any claim either way. But I’m laying a huge wager that the officers will claim it was, not accidental, of course, but justified.
I don’t necessarily agree. I believe there is a minimal standard. If a cop states that he thought a suspect had a gun, and investigation reveals that the suspect actually had a banana, I don’t think the officer would have any legal standing.
In the instant case, the suspect/victim had a violent history, appeared in at least one photograph wielding sophisticated weaponry and likely had a small black object in his hand when the officers confronted him.
However, I do find the shooting at least a little dubious. Unless the suspect had the object in his hand in a rasied position (which would be very illogical), the officers certainly should have given him a command to drop the object and time to comply.
Article from New York Daily News
This is very suspect to me. Did the officers ring the doorbell first? “Please come outside Mr. alleged viloent criminal.” Their protocol for apprehending a viloent suspect includes prior notification? Why “bash the door in” if you’re going to knock first? Why was the suspect/victim going to the door if the officers didn’t knock?
Of course much is still unknown and unanswered; and I soundly reserve my judgement. But for the reason laid out above, I at least am willing to consider the officers may have been justified in shooting the suspect.
**emphasis added
The same question came up in the thread about the 90 year old lady being shot by the cops.
I havn’t even glanced at that thread; but I will. That is another one that perplexes me. Did they really need to charge a 90-year-old woman’s domicile to apprehend her?
Lost in this PS3 tragedy is this most disturbing aspect: