Bart Officer arrested for Murder

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

If you can show me how it'd be great considering I never came around to his way of thinking. Furthermore, he didn't even answer the very last question I posed. Perhaps it hit too close to home?

You mean the one about the mescaline-laced pistachios?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

If you can show me how it'd be great considering I never came around to his way of thinking. Furthermore, he didn't even answer the very last question I posed. Perhaps it hit too close to home?

You mean the one about the mescaline-laced pistachios?

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Everything is debatable. You're a lawyer so you should know. If a serial murderer, raper of children and other low-lives came to you for your service and denied the charges, I'm sure you'd have no problem taking their money and defending them.

Am I a chickenhawk? No. Like I said before, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

There's a difference between defending someone on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to convict and defending them on the basis that their conduct is not criminal, even if the elements are met. Mitigating circumstances are normally an issue for sentencing, not findings.

What does it matter to you so long as your client says "I'm innocent"?

This one.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: D1gger
Thanks for the entertaining thread Don Vito and Dari.

In my unbiased opinion, Dari, you have been owned.

Corrected for accuracy ---In my unbiased opinion, Dari, you have been Pwned!!

You'll get these threads occassionaly with Dari. Everyone on the forum sees it but him.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt I guess.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

If you can show me how it'd be great considering I never came around to his way of thinking. Furthermore, he didn't even answer the very last question I posed. Perhaps it hit too close to home?

You mean the one about the mescaline-laced pistachios?

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Everything is debatable. You're a lawyer so you should know. If a serial murderer, raper of children and other low-lives came to you for your service and denied the charges, I'm sure you'd have no problem taking their money and defending them.

Am I a chickenhawk? No. Like I said before, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

There's a difference between defending someone on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to convict and defending them on the basis that their conduct is not criminal, even if the elements are met. Mitigating circumstances are normally an issue for sentencing, not findings.

What does it matter to you so long as your client says "I'm innocent"?

This one.

I didn't bother to answer that question because it seemed too banal to merit further discussion.

As I have said before, if I am in court defending a client against criminal charges, my job is to show that the prosecutor hasn't met his burden in showing that my client committed the offense. I can't, and wouldn't want to, argue that the offense itself is not a crime - most jurisdictions hold that this kind of clear appeal for jury nullification is unethical, and it can subject the arguing attorney to bar sanctions.

By way of example, if my client beat the crap out of Reginald Denny for being white during the LA riots, I can't argue that my client's actions were justified because a jury acquitted Rodney King's arresting officers. I can, however, argue that the prosecution hasn't shown that my client attacked Mr. Denny, and/or that his actions don't meet the elements of the offenses with which he is charged. This why OJ's attorneys were able to argue that he was framed, but could not ethically argue that the jury should acquit him because of the LAPD's history of maltreatment of black suspects.

Anything else?

 

[novasatori]

if the cop was black there'd be riots if he was charged with murder cause it was an accident

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Impossible, Don Vito said it wouldn't be murder.

I never said he wouldn't be charged with murder - in fact I said he probably would be. I betcha he pleads to involuntary manslaughter and gets maybe 3 years in prison, which I think is the right outcome.

3 years is ridiculous for killing someone.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

If you can show me how it'd be great considering I never came around to his way of thinking. Furthermore, he didn't even answer the very last question I posed. Perhaps it hit too close to home?

You mean the one about the mescaline-laced pistachios?

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Everything is debatable. You're a lawyer so you should know. If a serial murderer, raper of children and other low-lives came to you for your service and denied the charges, I'm sure you'd have no problem taking their money and defending them.

Am I a chickenhawk? No. Like I said before, I know when and where to fight my own battles.

There's a difference between defending someone on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to convict and defending them on the basis that their conduct is not criminal, even if the elements are met. Mitigating circumstances are normally an issue for sentencing, not findings.

What does it matter to you so long as your client says "I'm innocent"?

This one.

I didn't bother to answer that question because the answer is so obvious that it seemed too banal to merit further discussion.

As I have said before, if I am in court defending a client against criminal charges, my job is to show that the prosecutor hasn't met his burden in showing that my client committed the offense. I can't, and wouldn't want to, argue that the offense itself is not a crime - most jurisdictions hold that this kind of clear appeal for jury nullification is unethical, and it can subject the arguing attorney to bar sanctions.

By way of example, if my client beat the crap out of Reginald Denny for being white during the LA riots, I can't argue that my client's actions were justified because a jury acquitted Rodney King's arresting officers. I can, however, argue that the prosecution hasn't shown that my client attacked Mr. Denny, and/or that his actions don't meet the elements of the offenses with which he is charged. This why OJ's attorneys were able to argue that he was framed, but could not ethically argue that the jury should acquit him because of the LAPD's history of maltreatment of black suspects.

Anything else?

Like I said, everything is debatable...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

Like I said, everything is debatable...

No, as I said, it is NOT debatable, at least not in court, whether assault, battery and destruction of private property are crimes by virtue of the fact they are committed by rioters.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Dari

Like I said, everything is debatable...

No, as I said, it is NOT debatable, at least not in court, whether assault, battery and destruction of private property are crimes by virtue of the fact they are committed by rioters.

Whatever. There was a case in NYC in the 1990s where a black man killed a white police officer. His lawyer argued "black rage" and the guy was found not guilty. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here considering I can be a police officer, beat the shit out of an innocent motorist and still be found not guilty in Malibu. I can be a has-been actor who killed his wife, admits to killing her, and still get a hung jury. There are more egregious examples (I'm sure) but you telling me things you read in a law book doesn't mean that people will be found guilty of them if they're accused of doing them (or even admit to it). This is the beauty of a jury system. Again, everything is debatable. You can debate reality:laugh:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: JS80

Is it possible they don't let him plea? I feel like the animals of Oakland will demand murder charge.

Certainly possible, but IMO the cost-benefit doesn't make that a smart move.

Assuming (and I am fully aware this is an assumption based on evidence which doesn't yet exist) he claims he intended to use his taser and this was a complete mistake on his part, I don't see how any fair jury could find him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on what they see on the video. I'd argue the same will hold true even if he doesn't testify, based on the video. Ergo, the City would be encumbered with the expense of a trial and the prospect that he will probably only be convicted of manslaughter anyway. If they're foolish enough not to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter, he will walk 9 times out of 10, and imagine the riots that will result then.

I suppose there's some chance that there is other evidence that this was an intentional shooting that might tend to obviate what we see in the video. In that case, I guess it's possible, albeit very unlikely (I'd set the odds at 5% or less) that he will simply plead to murder or voluntary manslaughter. I would find that VERY surprising, but criminal law is like that sometimes.

I still say that at the end of the day, whether he pleads guilty or not, he ends of convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

So you're saying it's a catch-22. Bc there will be a riot either way.

I'm starting to hope you get caught up in the middle of it (should it happen).

Fuck you too.

Calling residents "animals" is a sure-fire way of inviting Karma into your life, buddy.

Anyone willing to kill/loot/commit arson over a court decision is an animal, and should be shot/arrested.

some might call them patriots.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

some might call them patriots.

Some might call the morons who kill abortion doctors messengers of God. Others call Klansmen brave American heroes.

Anyone who destroys the homes and businesses of innocent people and loots as a means of protest is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Legitimate civil disobedience is one thing, but rioting is indefensible and benefits nobody (other than looters, who get the short-term benefit of enjoying the property they've stolen).

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Impossible, Don Vito said it wouldn't be murder.

I never said he wouldn't be charged with murder - in fact I said he probably would be. I betcha he pleads to involuntary manslaughter and gets maybe 3 years in prison, which I think is the right outcome.

3 years is ridiculous for killing someone.

Perhaps, but the videos do seem to indicate to me that it was accidental. That makes it about typical it seems. The only thing that would change it is the fact the he is SUPPOSED to be a highly trained professional (ok, yes, police training is often a complete joke). Even if he was not well trained it is still his responsibility to make sure he is adequately trained. So it my mind that makes it complete negligence instead of accidental.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: novasatori
if the cop was black there'd be riots if he was charged with murder cause it was an accident

Bull.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Impossible, Don Vito said it wouldn't be murder.

I never said he wouldn't be charged with murder - in fact I said he probably would be. I betcha he pleads to involuntary manslaughter and gets maybe 3 years in prison, which I think is the right outcome.

3 years is ridiculous for killing someone.

Perhaps, but the videos do seem to indicate to me that it was accidental. That makes it about typical it seems. The only thing that would change it is the fact the he is SUPPOSED to be a highly trained professional (ok, yes, police training is often a complete joke). Even if he was not well trained it is still his responsibility to make sure he is adequately trained. So it my mind that makes it complete negligence instead of accidental.

isn't part of prison terms to act as a deterrent? I think I'd kill some people here if I only got 3 years for it.