# Time To Change Law, Re: Police Shootings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2015, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822 "2015-05-25T21:02:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/121 "2015-05-27T19:05:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > i.Intent to kill, > ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, > iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”), or > iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the “felony murder” doctrine). …so you _agree_ with my statement that murder requires intent, then? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/122 "2015-05-27T19:16:49Z")
Murder requires the intent to kill. It does not require any specific kind of motive. There’s nothing about this intent requirement that makes police killings substantively different from any other kind of killings. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/123 "2015-05-27T19:41:41Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Murder requires the intent to kill. It does not require any specific kind of motive. There’s nothing about this intent requirement that makes police killings substantively different from any other kind of killings. Intent to kill is motive. And yes, there is- Police officers quite often have to kill as part of their duties (this is rare in any one officers career, of course). Thus the DA has to show “WHY” this is\* not\* a legal police shooting, as in showing motive. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/124 "2015-05-27T19:49:44Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Bullhonkey. Murder is specifically the unlawful killing of a human being _with malice aforethought_. Murder, much like a mortal sin, requires intent. If one unlawfully kills another in a non-malicious manner, the crime is manslaughter, not murder. You said “bullhonkey” and then didn’t say anything about motive. If you think motive is the same as intent, see above. [QUOTE=DrDeth] It is when the possibility that the defendant had a perfectly legal reason to shoot is there, such as nearly all police shootings. " intent to kill" is part of most murder laws. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Intent to kill is motive. And yes, there is- Police officers quite often have to kill as part of their duties (this is rare in any one officers career, of course). Thus the DA has to show “WHY” this is not a legal police shooting, as in showing motive. When the cause of death is repeated bullets to the everything, the only question about intent to kill is whether the gun malfunctioned. You point a gun and pull the trigger, you intend to kill the thing on the round end of the gun; even I know that’s gun safety 101. This has nothing to do with motive. You’re mistaken about this. The “possibility that the defendant had a perfectly legal reason to shoot” is _always_ there. The fact that self-defense is an available affirmative defense doesn’t mean that the state has any obligation to prove a motive in order to prove murder, though. It means that if the defendant proves that he was acting in self-defense, the shooting wasn’t unlawful. There’s a huge difference between the defendant being allowed to prove that his reason for shooting was something that gets him off the hook and the state being _required_ to prove that his reason for shooting was a particular bad motive. No reason is good enough. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/125 "2015-05-27T20:06:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Intent to kill is motive. And yes, there is- Police officers quite often have to kill as part of their duties (this is rare in any one officers career, of course). Thus the DA has to show “WHY” this is\* not\* a legal police shooting, as in showing motive. Under the law, intent is one of the types of mens rea and there are several types of intent that fall under the mens rea category of malice aforethought. Motive is something completely different and it is not an element of proving murder. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/126 "2015-05-27T20:08:36Z")
Well, that’s your theory but it fall apart in light of repeated Police officers being found not guilty and Grand juries not finding even enough evidence to indict. > **[Cleveland officer acquitted in killing of unarmed pair amid barrage of gunfire](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/cleveland-police-officer-found-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting-of-two-people/2015/05/23/280844f0-f028-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html)** > > Michael Brelo fired repeatedly on Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams after their car’s backfire was mistaken for gunshots in 2012. In the wake of the ruling, the Justice Department said it would review the case. \*The officers acted reasonably based upon radio traffic that police were being shot at, he said. “It is Brelo’s perception of a threat that matters,” O’Donnell said. “Brelo was acting in conditions difficult for even experienced police officers to imagine.”\* [http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2015/04/20/former-pasadena-officer-involved-in-2011-shooting-found-not-guilty/26072515/](http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2015/04/20/former-pasadena-officer-involved-in-2011-shooting-found-not-guilty/26072515/) “Well, in these kinds of cases it’s very difficult for the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt,” Prosecutor Julian Ramirez said. > **[Grand jury: No charges for Texas officer who shot Mexican immigrant | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/18/us/texas-police-shooting-immigrant-killed/)** > > The Grapevine, Texas, police officer who killed Rubén García Villalpando won’t face criminal charges in the shooting, a grand jury decided Monday. “Officer Clark’s actions on that night complied with Texas law concerning the use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer,” The issue is- was the use of force justified? Did the Police Officer have a Motive for the killing? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/127 "2015-05-27T20:16:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, that’s your theory but it fall apart in light of repeated Police officers being found not guilty and Grand juries not finding even enough evidence to indict. This is a circular argument. These two are questions are not the same thing. You’ve basically set forth a non sequitur: > [@](#): > > [1] …was the use of force justified? > > [2] Did the Police Officer have a Motive for the killing? “Means, motive, and opportunity” is not a standard found in the law. They are not the legal elements of any crime, let alone murder. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/128 "2015-05-27T20:26:29Z")
**DrDeth** , I’m not taking sides in this debate, but I really think you are mixing up “intent” and “motive.” > **[Motive (law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_%28law%29)** > > A motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. In criminal law, motive in itself is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. However, a motive is not required to reach a verdict. Motives are also used in other aspects of a specific case, for instance, when police are initially invest The l... > [@](#): > > Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused’s reasons for committing a crime… The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. “Intent” in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated. “Motive” describes instead the reasons in the accused’s background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime. If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat, one can infer from my action that I had the “intent” to cause great bodily harm to you. My “motive” however would be the underlying reason why I acted out my intent to cause you great bodily harm – perhaps you slept with my sister and never called her back, or you used legal terms incorrectly in the presence of a pedantic extremist. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/129 "2015-05-27T20:32:02Z")
All we need to do is imagine the scenario where there’s literally no reason at all. If a police officer, or any regular human being, is walking down the street in Ohio and pulls out a gun and shoots another person walking down the street, totally out of the blue, and that goes to trial, does the state need to prove why they did it? Of course not. It’s also not a theory, and not even really all that nitpicky. The standard for murder isn’t “prove they woke up that morning planning on killing a brown person.” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/130 "2015-05-27T20:38:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **DrDeth** , I’m not taking sides in this debate, but I really think you are mixing up “intent” and “motive.” > > [ True, the two have separate legal definitions. :smack: In any case, motive is a critical part of any murder trial, even if it is not actually technically required. The jury _will_ want to know “why”, I know as I have sat on one. Most non-police shootings are \*not \*justified. Most police shootings _are_ justified. As a DA, you will need to show this police shooting was not justified or the jury will not turn in a guilty verdict. You need to show some motive or at least be able to imply it- racism is a good one, and has been used successfully. I realize that “self-defense” is raised by the Defense, but even tho technically it’s something the Defense usually has to show, in police shootings it’s the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/131 "2015-05-27T20:42:56Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Y > > The “possibility that the defendant had a perfectly legal reason to shoot” is _always_ there. The fact that self-defense is an available affirmative defense doesn’t mean that the state has any obligation to prove a motive in order to prove murder, though. It means that if the defendant proves that he was acting in self-defense, the shooting wasn’t unlawful. There’s a huge difference between the defendant being allowed to prove that his reason for shooting was something that gets him off the hook and the state being _required_ to prove that his reason for shooting was a particular bad motive. Except that _the jury_ assumes that the Police officer “had a perfectly legal reason to shoot” and _in effect_ the prosecution must show otherwise. Like it or not, that’s the way juries think. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/132 "2015-05-27T22:55:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that _the jury_ assumes that the Police officer “had a perfectly legal reason to shoot” and _in effect_ the prosecution must show otherwise. Like it or not, that’s the way juries think. Then those juries have been improperly instructed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/133 "2015-05-28T00:25:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that _the jury_ assumes that the Police officer “had a perfectly legal reason to shoot” and _in effect_ the prosecution must show otherwise. Like it or not, that’s the way juries think. > [@Acsenray](#): > > Then those juries have been improperly instructed. I’m not sure I agree with you, **Acsenray**. The jury should start with a presumption of innocence. As they sit down, before they hear any evidence, they must believe that the accused is not guilty. Now, if the accused admits to the shooting, that presumption of innocence compels the jury to believe that the accused had a perfectly legal reason to shoot. And that’s generally consistent with the rule that the prosecution must disprove self-defense. The problem with this entire discussion is that it’s grounded on the idea that the jury is considering an element of fact that’s not an element of the crime. As a general rule, juries do like to hear motives, and it’s for precisely the reason mentioned above: it’s part of the whole story, and can make a implausible act plausible. But everyone gets to start with a presumption that they acted legally, and it’s always the prosecution’s job to disprove that presumption. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/134 "2015-05-28T00:29:02Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > …so you _agree_ with my statement that murder requires intent, then? You specified “malice aforethought”, and you were wrong. If you’re admitting that that was incorrect, and now you think it’s intent (which has a different meaning in legal terminology), then fine. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/135 "2015-05-28T14:25:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that _the jury_ assumes that the Police officer “had a perfectly legal reason to shoot” and _in effect_ the prosecution must show otherwise. Like it or not, that’s the way juries think. That’s all well and good, but it’s different from what you’ve been arguing. The difference here is between saying, on the one hand, “this doesn’t meet the definition of self-defense,” and saying, on the other, “this is why, in the privacy of his own mind, the cop wanted to shoot a [black] person.” If a case like this goes to trial, like you say, in effect, the state has the obligation to disprove that it was a shooting in self-defense. But that is not at all the same thing as saying they have to prove what his motive was. He may not have had a “reasonable motive,” the way you’ve been talking about. “He is bad at his job and not qualified to be making life-or-death decisions and thinks he’s entitled to make them anyway and he shot the gun because of it” isn’t a motive, but it’s also not self defense. An officer can intentionally - purposely, by design, with malice aforethought, etc. - kill a person without an interesting narrative motive (like greed or love or hate) and without it being a justified killing. The reason that’s important, and the reason I keep saying it, is that it’s also what most of these cases seem to come down to. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/136 "2015-05-28T14:35:01Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > …so you _agree_ with my statement that murder requires intent, then? I agree with you. Malice aforethought requires intent. \*Malice Aforethought A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse. A malicious design to injure. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but malice aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought. (See: malice, murder, first degree murder) Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.\* > **[malice aforethought](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Malice+aforethought)** > > Definition of malice aforethought in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/137 "2015-05-28T14:36:12Z")
Everyone here agrees that murder requires intent. But we’re talking about somebody taking a gun and shooting bullets out of the gun and blowing someone’s body apart. We all agree this is an act of intent. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/138 "2015-05-28T15:49:08Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > That’s all well and good, but it’s different from what you’ve been arguing. > > The difference here is between saying, on the one hand, “this doesn’t meet the definition of self-defense,” and saying, on the other, “this is why, in the privacy of his own mind, the cop wanted to shoot a [black] person.” > > If a case like this goes to trial, like you say, in effect, the state has the obligation to disprove that it was a shooting in self-defense. But that is not at all the same thing as saying they have to prove what his motive was. He may not have had a “reasonable motive,” the way you’ve been talking about. “He is bad at his job and not qualified to be making life-or-death decisions and thinks he’s entitled to make them anyway and he shot the gun because of it” isn’t a motive, but it’s also not self defense. An officer can intentionally - purposely, by design, with malice aforethought, etc. - kill a person without an interesting narrative motive (like greed or love or hate) and without it being a justified killing. The reason that’s important, and the reason I keep saying it, is that it’s also what most of these cases seem to come down to. If I understand the distinction you are making, should it matter? That is to say, suppose a cop shoots a black guy and claims self-defense. At trial, the jury assumes that it **was** self-defense until the prosecutor proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. So the prosecutor shows that the cop is unqualified or racist. However, the prosecutor does not disprove that it was done in self-defense. That is, the cop is a member in good standing of the local White Power Racist party, has been cited for stupidity twice in the last three years, and is generally an asshole. However, there are no witnesses, the cop says the guy reached into his waistband suddenly, and a loaded .45 was recovered from the scene with the guy’s fingerprints on the magazine. AFAICT the prosecution has not disproven self-defense, and the cop walks. Is that what you are talking about? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/139 "2015-05-28T16:56:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Cite that the military is required to put themselves in danger to protect someone? Can you first state whether or not you agree with the statement, if true, before you try to argue around it? > [@doorhinge](#): > > A soldier is a soldier, and a cop is a cop. Federal troops are prevented, through posse comitatus, from any direct policing actions unless martial law is declared. > > And > > The courts have decided that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm. In other words, you can successfully sue the police for failing to take a bullet meant for you. You meant “can’t successfully sue”, right? But I think your objection is unwarranted. We’re talking about changing the law, not what the law states. Yes, a soldier is a soldier _for now_, and a cop is a cop\* for now\*. I see no contradiction to state that we should change the rules so that cops are forced to protect citizens in addition to whatever else they do ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822/140 "2015-05-28T17:14:30Z")
Might be something to think about. In the wake of the FG riots and indictments there has been a big increase in non-police shootings, as police are thought to have backed off in response. [http://www.startribune.com/baltimore-residents-fearful-amid-homicide-spike/305286391/](http://www.startribune.com/baltimore-residents-fearful-amid-homicide-spike/305286391/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-law-re-police-shootings/720822.md?page=8)