Riots in California..

Molon Labe · 07-09-10, 10:03 AM

Time for the lawyer to bitch.

The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways.

Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one.

No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference.

Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening.

07-09-10, 10:03 AM	#4
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Time for the lawyer to bitch. The conviction is for involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for that crime is recklessness. Recklessness means the defendant didn't intend to cause the result, but was consciously aware of the risk (in this case, the risk of killing a person) and proceeded anyways. Can anyone seriously believe that the officer did not intend to kill the victim, but was aware of the risk that he might and drew and fired his weapon regardless? The only way that could make sense is if he knew he had no idea where his gun/taser was and just guessed and didn't bother to look to make sure he had the right one. No. He either intended to fire a bullet into that guys back, or he intended to fire a taser into his back and made a horrible mistake. There was no conscious disregarding of any risk, no recklessness. The jury had to make a choice, it was either murder or it was negligence (either an acquittal or maybe a lesser charge like criminally negligent homicide, if it exists in CA). And the jury was too chicken**** to make a decision, so it split the difference. Verdicts are supposed to be about truth, not compromise. This is sickening. __________________