Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Police Brutality Video
Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard, do you honestly think they will get a felony charge? Best case scenario, it will be a minor offense.........
I was/am under the impression that if I attack and beat someone with say a baseball bat (or deadly weapon, assault with), I would get a felony charge and I would serve [some] jail time, even if it's my first offense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Police Brutality Video
Originally posted by Robtard
I was/am under the impression that if I attack and beat someone with say a baseball bat (or deadly weapon, assault with), I would get a felony charge and I would serve [some] jail time, even if it's my first offense.
Maybe. But, criminality has to be proven. We can speculate on what the police' justifications will be. In fact, that's where the this discussion should be going to.
If no criminality can be proven (the most probable outcome), there is still a case of civil action.
Now were are going from criminal to tort.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
you would get a felony charge.
Maybe in another sceanrio, yes. But, the scenario I suggested was putting us in the same situation but removing our "officer" title.
Put us in the same situation, and we would still get a minor offense charge which would result in community service and or a fine, as for as the criminal justice side of things are concerned.
This assumes, of course, that you have a clean record.
If you don't, you MIGHT get jail time. Worst case scenario, you MIGHT get an aggravated battery charge, get jail time, and/or get fined.
Only if you got mouthy/uppity with the judge, or acted shady, could I see a good citizen getting slapped with the felony charge on this. My lawyer does criminal defense cases (as well as divorce and adoptions) and many times, his clients get off of aggravated battery felony charges and it gets downgraded to something minor (with fines). That's usually the case for first time offenders, BTW, unless you were trying to kill them with a car, knife or something. (Then, you get an attempted murder charge!) I hear that "anger management" is something being thrown out there, these days.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
attacking someone with almost any type of object is considered assault with a deadly object.
Assault with a deadly weapn is charged when the object used could be, reasonbly, used to kill someone. No contact actually has to occur for the charge to be given. In criminal court, mens reus has to be "proven" by the prosecutor along with actus reus. (In other words, you have to be indicted, first (reasonable proof of actus reus), then the criminal trial can seek to further solidfy a mens rea and actus reus. Both are required to convict of a felony, if it will go that far.
On top of this, it is the interpretation of the events that will decide if the felony charge will be brought up. Not all situations are equal. Aggravated assault may be desired, but the actus reus does not always constitute the charge.
In the video, the young man is scene skipping along right at the police officers. It could easily be argued that he was threatening them and had words and the police interpretted it as such. At that point, then only fault of the police would be taking it too far with the beat down but just a few seconds. They'd be written up, keep their jobs, and pay. bla bla bla, the end. Instead, they had to be idiots, file false police reports, and exasterbate the situation for themselves. Now, they are really looking at losing their jobs.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, so we all agree first ddm made a mistake then Ms. Marvel made a mistake...good stuff.
No. I never made a mistake in what I was doing. Robtard asked a question which would be out of context with the situation being discussed, I brought it back in by stating reality: it will still end up as a minor offense. No back pedaling on my part required.
Edit - Lulz it's spelled "reus" not rea.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe. But, criminality has to be proven. We can speculate on what the police' justifications will be. In fact, that's where the this discussion should be going to.If no criminality can be proven (the most probable outcome), there is still a case of civil action.
Now were are going from criminal to tort.
Maybe in another sceanrio, yes. But, the scenario I suggested was putting us in the same situation but removing our "officer" title.
Put us in the same situation, and we would still get a minor offense charge which would result in community service and or a fine, as for as the criminal justice side of things are concerned.
This assumes, of course, that you have a clean record.
If you don't, you MIGHT get jail time. Worst case scenario, you MIGHT get an aggravated battery charge, get jail time, and/or get fined.
Only if you got mouthy/uppity with the judge, or acted shady, could I see a good citizen getting slapped with the felony charge on this. My lawyer does criminal defense cases (as well as divorce and adoptions) and many times, his clients get off of aggravated battery felony charges and it gets downgraded to something minor (with fines). That's usually the case for first time offenders, BTW, unless you were trying to kill them with a car, knife or something. (Then, you get an attempted murder charge!) I hear that "anger management" is something being thrown out there, these days.
Assault with a deadly weapn is charged when the object used could be, reasonbly, used to kill someone. No contact actually has to occur for the charge to be given. In criminal court, mens rea has to be "proven" by the prosecutor along with actus rea. (In other words, you have to be indicted, first (reasonable proof of actus rea), then the criminal trial can seek to further solidfy a mens rea and actus rea. Both are required to convict of a felony, if it will go that far.
On top of this, it is the interpretation of the events that will decide if the felony charge will be brought up. Not all situations are equal. Aggravated assault may be desired, but the actus rea does not always constitute the charge.
In the video, the young man is scene skipping along right at the police officers. It could easily be argued that he was threatening them and had words and the police interpretted it as such. At that point, then only fault of the police would be taking it too far with the beat down but just a few seconds. They'd be written up, keep their jobs, and pay. bla bla bla, the end. Instead, they had to be idiots, file false police reports, and exasterbate the situation for themselves. Now, they are really looking at losing their jobs.
No. I never made a mistake in what I was doing. Robtard asked a question which would be out of context with the situation being discussed, I brought it back in by stating reality: it will still end up as a minor offense. No back pedaling on my part required.
my posts in this thread really have nothing to do with the actual scenario that involves the police. it only has to do with the actual definition and implications of assault with a deadly weapon. the police possibly getting charged, or not, is inconsequential to my point. if the police are convicted of assault with a deadly weapon then it will count as a felony and depending on the state they might go to jail, because conviction of assault is a felony, not a minor offense, and in certain states there is a mimum jail sentence for being convicted of it. thats it.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
my posts in this thread really have nothing to do with the actual scenario that involves the police. it only has to do with the actual definition and implications of assault with a deadly weapon. the police possibly getting charged, or not, is inconsequential to my point. if the police are convicted of assault with a deadly weapon then it will count as a felony and depending on the state they might go to jail, because conviction of assault is a felony, not a minor offense.
So you took some posts out of context and off topic. No problem. I do that all the time. I apologize if my responses back were too harsh.
And, if you want to take it down that path, even IF they get a felony charge conviction of Aggravted Battery and Assault with a Deadly Weapon, they will probably still only get fines and/or community service.
Originally posted by inimalist
nitpicking latin spelling?
LOL, yup. I misspelled, not anyone else. I was nitpicking myself ... and actually laughing at how stupid it was that I made that mistake.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Police Brutality Video
Originally posted by dadudemonNo. I never made a mistake in what I was doing. Robtard asked a question which would be out of context with the situation being discussed, I brought it back in by stating reality: it will still end up as a minor offense. No back pedaling on my part required.
Yeah, no. What I said.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Police Brutality Video
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, no. What I said.
No, what I said. Go back and reread my "multiple quoted posts."
You can also read elsewhere in the thread where I DO mention the felony portion, well before Ms. Marvel made the replies today.
In this instance, Ms. Marvel is correct that context needs to be considered to understand where the other is coming from.
Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL, yup. I misspelled, not anyone else. I was nitpicking myself ... and actually laughing at how stupid it was that I made that mistake.
pfft, you think I can be bothered to go all the way back and read that one post to see if I was being accurate in my critical comment
HA!
this is the internet baby!
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Police look out for their own. I haven't watched the vid (doesn't play, meh, anyone got a youtube link?), I don't know the details, but when a cop is in a situation like this, whether or not they are in the wrong, their superiors will do almost anything to make it look like they are NOT in the wrong.
its human nature to circle the wagon, unfortunatly
in the end, it probably hurts the reputation of the good cops more than it helps the police to keep the info quiet, and it certainly looks like they have little interest in accountability
Originally posted by inimalist
pfft, you think I can be bothered to go all the way back and read that one post to see if I was being accurate in my critical commentHA!
this is the internet baby!
Indeed. I wouldn't expect anyone to read that dry, boring, post, except for Robtard and Ms. Marvel, if they were interested.
But, yeah, nitpicking spelling is lame.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I said. Go back and reread my "multiple quoted posts."You can also read elsewhere in the thread where I DO mention the felony portion, well before Ms. Marvel made the replies today.
In this instance, Ms. Marvel is correct that context needs to be considered to understand where the other is coming from.
Nah, you both made the same mistake by not specifying the context change you made from the post you were quoting. Ms. Marvel made the mistake of using unclear language, on the other hand though she was under the impression that the topic was clear on account of you replying directly to what Robtard said.