StL County Cops Shoot Teen

[Fedor]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

[CNS]

When was deadly force necessary?  Hire a better lawyer, imo.

[star seed 7]

When was deadly force necessary?  Hire a better lawyer, imo.

Yeah, outside of possibly during a physical altercation, the threat was already done

[Rage Against the McKee]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

If they are trained that way, they shouldn't be.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Really, everything that has come out of this story has told me that a lot (possibly all) of the St Louis County Police force, chief included, should be on some sort of federal "no guns" list that prevents them from carrying firearms.

[ednksu]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

If they are trained that way, they shouldn't be.

[ednksu]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

[Trim]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

He could.

Remember that we're discussing these charges based on the premise that seems to be generally accepted - that at some point cop had living Mike Brown on his knees with his hands up and shot him 4 or so times until he was dead.  That still has to get proven up with evidence and testimony.  The local cops - one of whom would be the criminal defendant here - have a lot of the evidence and testimony.

A guy choosing to shoot dead another defenseless guy should be 1st degree murder.  I'm skeptical that there'll be a trial here that gets that basic point to the jury.

[Trim]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

Well, I guess the readers here can read what you wrote and read what I wrote and think whatever they want.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It doesn't help that all of the potential jurors capable of drawing a conclusion like that are sure to get peremptories blown at them.

[ednksu]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

Well, I guess the readers here can read what you wrote and read what I wrote and think whatever they want.

You keep pushing this execution story with ZERO facts.  We've already had a sea change because of the new information.  Its totally daft to ignore it and push this one dimensional line of cop + gun = dead black kid. 

[Trim]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

Well, I guess the readers here can read what you wrote and read what I wrote and think whatever they want.

You keep pushing this execution story with ZERO facts.  We've already had a sea change because of the new information.  Its totally daft to ignore it and push this one dimensional line of cop + gun = dead black kid. 

eff, I could've saved a lot of typing by just posting "cop + gun = dead black kid" this whole time.  T-Y.

[michigancat]

by only firing half the rounds in his magazine the officer showed admirable restraint IMO

[Trim]

by only firing half the rounds in his magazine* the officer showed admirable restraint IMO

*probably**

**fact

[ednksu]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

Well, I guess the readers here can read what you wrote and read what I wrote and think whatever they want.

You keep pushing this execution story with ZERO facts.  We've already had a sea change because of the new information.  Its totally daft to ignore it and push this one dimensional line of cop + gun = dead black kid. 

eff, I could've saved a lot of typing by just posting "cop + gun = dead black kid" this whole time.  T-Y.

Don't be obtuse.  This isn't the same shooting today that it was Saturday.

[Trim]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

Well, I guess the readers here can read what you wrote and read what I wrote and think whatever they want.

You keep pushing this execution story with ZERO facts.  We've already had a sea change because of the new information.  Its totally daft to ignore it and push this one dimensional line of cop + gun = dead black kid. 

eff, I could've saved a lot of typing by just posting "cop + gun = dead black kid" this whole time.  T-Y.

Don't be obtuse.  This isn't the same shooting today that it was Saturday.

You get the Trim you deserve.

[ednksu]

Not sure why Trim is tossing out tangential cases when people should be looking at the different interpretations of Tenn V. Garner. 

And yes, if there was an altercation it could be reasonable for a cop to assume this guy was a threat to the public and other officers.  Obviously we don't know the details yet on how far away the shooting occurred and how many hits were made. 

Also 8 shots is absolutely a heart beat of time and it means the cop only fired half of what was in his gun (probably).

Well, I guess the readers here can read what you wrote and read what I wrote and think whatever they want.

You keep pushing this execution story with ZERO facts.  We've already had a sea change because of the new information.  Its totally daft to ignore it and push this one dimensional line of cop + gun = dead black kid. 

eff, I could've saved a lot of typing by just posting "cop + gun = dead black kid" this whole time.  T-Y.

Don't be obtuse.  This isn't the same shooting today that it was Saturday.

You get the Trim you deserve.

Great point, I'll take that as a tap out.

[star seed 7]

you are a gigantic moron edna

[ednksu]

you are a gigantic moron edna

yeah because ignoring information which radically changes the situation and being an obtuse condescending jackass is okay.

[Fedor]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

He could.

Remember that we're discussing these charges based on the premise that seems to be generally accepted - that at some point cop had living Mike Brown on his knees with his hands up and shot him 4 or so times until he was dead.  That still has to get proven up with evidence and testimony.  The local cops - one of whom would be the criminal defendant here - have a lot of the evidence and testimony.

A guy choosing to shoot dead another defenseless guy should be 1st degree murder.  I'm skeptical that there'll be a trial here that gets that basic point to the jury.

I don't think anyone has accepted your premise other than you.

[Fedor]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

If they are trained that way, they shouldn't be.

Get out of here idiot.

[ednksu]

I enjoy it when Trim explains laws so succinctly. My trust is complete.

Real story here. The relationship between the black community, especially majority black communities and cops needs to get turned around pronto. Requiring police, sheriff, etc. to wear cameras, have dash cams is a good start. It will take more from both sides to really solve the problem.

He didn't explain anything, though. He said "deliberation" doesn't mean what it does on a tv movie and gave no explanation whatsoever as to what it does mean in the eyes of the law.

The dictionary definition of "deliberation" is "long and careful consideration or discussion."

 

What I got from Trim is that somewhere between the altercation, first shot, and subsequent 8 or so shots, there was a point that the cop deliberated whether to stop pumping this dude full of lead or continue. He obviously chose the latter.

How long does it take to squeeze a trigger 8 times, though? I can see why a prosecutor would want to pursue first degree murder, just not why any reasonable person would look at the law and come to the conclusion that it was. It just seems more like a killing in a fit of rage to me than something the officer really thought about before going through with it.

Maybe the statute defines "deliberation" differently than the dictionary, and that would certainly be worth noting, but if it doesn't, first degree murder seems like a big reach to me.

I already know this is a waste of time, but here:

In State v Miller, Justice Robert Ulrich of the Missouri Court of Appeals provided a summary of the criminal law as regards first degree murder and the necessary element of deliberation:

"A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter. Deliberation required for conviction for murder in the first degree is defined as cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief. The deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first-degree murder need only be momentary; it is only necessary that the evidence show that the defendant considered taking another's life in a deliberate state of mind. A deliberate act is a free act of the will done in furtherance of a formed design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish some other unlawful purpose and while not under the influence of violent passion suddenly aroused by some provocation. Deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the murder."

I obviously can't give you details, but the stabbing example is real, and upheld on appeal.  hatingfrancis' wife can vouch for me.

Couldn't the cop or cop's attorney argue that once deadly force is deemed necessary, he is trained to fire until the threat is ended, ie the subject is down?

He could.

Remember that we're discussing these charges based on the premise that seems to be generally accepted - that at some point cop had living Mike Brown on his knees with his hands up and shot him 4 or so times until he was dead.  That still has to get proven up with evidence and testimony.  The local cops - one of whom would be the criminal defendant here - have a lot of the evidence and testimony.

A guy choosing to shoot dead another defenseless guy should be 1st degree murder.  I'm skeptical that there'll be a trial here that gets that basic point to the jury.

I don't think anyone has accepted your premise other than you.

Bingo.  (which is why I asked multiple times for info before being snarky)

[star seed 7]

If you're too dumb to understand what trim is saying, then I'm not sure that's trim's fault.  at a certain point you can't dumb down information even further

[ednksu]

If you're too dumb to understand what trim is saying, then I'm not sure that's trim's fault.  at a certain point you can't dumb down information even further

No I understand exactly what he is saying and it was a valid issue 24 hours ago.  Today we find out dramatically new information which radically changes the case law which applies in this case. Trim doesn't want to acknowledge how the paradigm of the case has radically shifted.

[Trim]

If you're too dumb to understand what trim is saying, then I'm not sure that's trim's fault.  at a certain point you can't dumb down information even further

No I understand exactly what he is saying and it was a valid issue 24 hours ago.  Today we find out dramatically new information which radically changes the case law which applies in this case. Trim doesn't want to acknowledge how the paradigm of the case has radically shifted.

I didn't watch the news past 3 or so.  What changed?