Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"simply firing a gun at somebody . . . is not attempted murder."

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I was trained to fire at center mass, just as you were......but do you shoot to kill or do you fire at center mass to end the threat? If you choose option two, your intent is not to kill and proving Attempted Murder would be impossible. In the Sean bell trial....there is no charge of Attempted Murder even though all those rounds were let loose......because that would be impossible to prove.....as much as the DA would have liked to present that charge.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tony.o View Post
      If Obama becomes President, she'll probably be considered for a Supreme Court Nomination.
      There is a reason your eyes are brown right now and it has nothing to do with genetics.
      -I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.

      --ArkansasRed24

      Comment


      • #33
        Can one of you idiots whining about liberalism please point out how LIBERALISM has anything to do with this judges bogus ruling? It's like blaming conservatism for people not knowing the difference between a primary election or a general election. Or blaming conservatism for the ridiculous treatment of that woman at that Texas airport. It's irrelevant! People who are dumb are just that...DUMB.
        -I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.

        --ArkansasRed24

        Comment


        • #34
          At least we all agree that the Judge is a wack job. Maybe she thought he would make a good bailiff.

          I will say that it shouldn't be difficult to prove this "Fine Upstanding Citizen's" intent. Sounds to me that the intent is clear. He intended to rob the officer and knowing that the police are armed... he chose a firearm. That shows the intent to use deadly force if he needed to. And when the officer slammed the door, this made the dip-s*** angry, now the intent is to kill to get what he wants... Be that the property or to escape. (My 2 cents)
          "You have the right to remain silent....so shut the **** UP!!!!"

          "Is that Walter? He scares me....He's got gas!" The Dead Terrorist/ Jeff Dunham

          Comment


          • #35
            High bail reinstated in shooting of Philly cop

            By Julie Shaw
            The Philadelphia Daily News
            Read the P1 News Report: Ruling in cop shooting sparks outrage

            PHILADELPHIA — A judge Thursday set new bail terms for a 17-year-old youth accused of seriously wounding a Philadelphia Housing Authority police officer with an assault rifle in Germantown last month.

            The ruling satisfied the officer, Craig Kelley, 49, who was outraged earlier this week by a different judge's decision.

            Kelley was shot in his left torso about 10:15 p.m. Feb. 17 in a security booth in the Queen Lane Apartments high-rise on Queen Lane near Pulaski Avenue.

            On Thursday, Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner set bail at $750,000 for Zahir Boddy-Johnson, of Diamond Street near 23rd, North Philadelphia, with the condition that if he posts the required 10 percent, he will only be released if he is placed under electronically monitored house arrest.

            Kelley was outraged Monday after Municipal Judge Deborah Shelton Griffin dismissed an attempted-murder charge against Boddy-Johnson at his preliminary hearing, then reduced his bail from $5 million to $75,000.

            Griffin found that Boddy-Johnson had intended to rob the officer, but did not intend to kill him. She reasoned that he shot Kelley in reaction to Kelley's closing the booth's door and not staying still as ordered.

            Shortly after Griffin's decision, the District Attorney's Office refiled the attempted-murder charge and filed a petition to reinstate the original bail.

            Lerner will consider the commonwealth's motion to rearrest Boddy-Johnson on the attempted-murder charge on April 14.

            In court yesterday, Assistant District Attorney Erica Wilson asked Lerner to hold Boddy-Johnson without bail. She told Lerner that after Boddy-Johnson shot Kelley, he fired "two more times as if trying to finish Officer Kelley."

            Defense attorney Michael Coard argued for a more reasonable bail in line with the charges on which his client has been held for trial - aggravated assault and weapons offenses. He added that his client is not a flight risk.

            PHA Police Chief Richard Zappile, who attended the hearing, said outside court that he believes Boddy-Johnson has relatives who live in the Queen Lane Apartments and may have been visiting them at the time.

            Homicide Lt. Philip Riehl said yesterday that "if it wasn't for his [Kelley's] vest, we don't know whether or not he would have survived."

            The rifle bullet, Riehl said, went through the vest, spun and tumbled, then entered Kelley's lower left torso.

            Boddy-Johnson allegedly confessed to the shooting in a police statement, read in court Monday. He said he used an SKS rifle, which he bought on the street.
            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #36
              Wow, I find that judge to be full of crap. How can shooting at someone with the intention of killing not be attempted murder, and claimed "accidental". What if the guy actually killed the cop, would it be an "accidental death"?
              "It's not how they die, but how they live that makes them a hero."

              Originally posted by George Carlin
              You are not a loser, you are the last winner.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                I was trained to fire at center mass, just as you were......but do you shoot to kill or do you fire at center mass to end the threat? If you choose option two, your intent is not to kill and proving Attempted Murder would be impossible. In the Sean bell trial....there is no charge of Attempted Murder even though all those rounds were let loose......because that would be impossible to prove.....as much as the DA would have liked to present that charge.
                You are right, we are trained to shoot center mass in order to stop the threat. But you have to look at the reason for that. We shoot center mass in order to stop the threat because it gives us the best chance to hit a vital organ which will cause death (and thereby stop the threat). Death does not always occur in a shooting, but it is without doubt use of deadly physical force.

                If headshots had the same probability for hits as center mass we would absolutely be trained to shoot for the head as there is a higher probability of causing death, and thereby stopping the threat.

                I have no problem whatsoever explaining this to a jury in an OIS. I have no problem saying directly to them that "Yes, I was indeed attempting to stop the threat by causing his death as he was shooting at me. If I had hit him and not killed him but the threat was removed I would have ceased fire (once my body caught up to my brains adrenaline reaction) but until the threat was stopped I was more than willing to cause his death to save my life."

                As for Sean Bell, well, which Prosecutors will seek which charge varies so much by location and other factors that it ain't even funny. I think the factors of that case are very different as Police Officers are saying they were in fear of deadly physical force - as opposed to someone just blasting away at an innocent. I think the DA's position is probably that they should not have believed they were in imminent danger of DPF even though they only had a split second to make the call (and so, no attempted murder charge). I really can't say though. I don't know what the DA is actually basing it on, but I CAN tell you that I think it's a ton of BS if the circumstances were what I have heard. No way they should even be on trial, but then again, politics, high-profile, celebrity... these things tend to disuade common sense.

                - V

                Hoped this helps.

                - V
                Last edited by vvincelli; 03-29-2008, 05:55 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by tony.o
                  If Obama becomes President, she'll probably be considered for a Supreme Court Nomination.

                  There is a reason your eyes are brown right now and it has nothing to do with genetics.
                  I don't really think that was called for.

                  Originally posted by djack16 View Post
                  Can one of you idiots whining about liberalism please point out how LIBERALISM has anything to do with this judges bogus ruling? It's like blaming conservatism for people not knowing the difference between a primary election or a general election. Or blaming conservatism for the ridiculous treatment of that woman at that Texas airport. It's irrelevant! People who are dumb are just that...DUMB.
                  First off, what I dislike (and I discuss it openly, calmly and reasonably) is actually ANY form of extremism, whether it be on the liberal side OR the conservative side. When you get to thinking of anything in extreme terms you sometimes wind up with concepts like Jihad.

                  This Judge's decision was ultra-liberal in-nature, regardless of her political affiliation, Due to the very definition of what liberal means. Vice-versa, by definition the ultra-conservative view would be to hang 'em high without even a trial (a stance I would also never support).

                  So you ____________________________ (please supply any derogatory term you like. I won't stoop to your level but I'm sure with the attitude and mindset YOU have, your brain has already supplied a better one than I could), just who are you calling an IDIOT?

                  Maybe the next time you waltz into a thread you'll take the time to learn a person's actual viewpoint before you start throwing around insults. Then again, I doubt it...

                  - V

                  P.S. It occurred to me that you may need it spelled out for you:

                  Main Entry: liberal
                  Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
                  Function: adjective
                  Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
                  Date: 14th century
                  1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
                  2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample, full
                  3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
                  4: not literal or strict : loose

                  5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
                  6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
                  Last edited by vvincelli; 03-29-2008, 06:18 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by vvincelli View Post
                    If headshots had the same probability for hits as center mass we would absolutely be trained to shoot for the head as there is a higher probability of causing death, and thereby stopping the threat.
                    Although shooting in the head is more likely to cause immediate incapacitation, I cannot agree with this reasoning. The object in shooting is (or should be) to stop the threat as quickly as possible. So you would (under the assumption stated here) shoot in the head because it is more likely to cause immediate incapacitation, not because it is more likely to cause death.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Dal you are correct......I was trained that in any shooting scenario where the BG might be wearing body armor to shoot for the head and again the training was to end the threat not to shoot with the intent to kill. Nowhere is it written that only LEOs have an inherent lack of intent to kill when using deadly physical force. If it is legitimate to say that a cop was only shooting to stop a threat it must also be legitimate to say that a BG was shooting to stop a threat. The BG's very act of shooting may be illegal but proving it is an attempt to kill is nearly impossible.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        With all due respect guys (and believe me, I understand what you're trying to say) we're splitting hairs here.

                        Yes, we are trained to shoot the way we shoot in order to stop the threat, incapacitate, etc. But that doesn't change the underlying fact that the reason those are our best options for incapacitation is because there is a higher probability of causing death.

                        I understand that we don't want to be labeled that we intentionally go out and try to kill people, but dancing around it with words and terms doesn't change the underlying fact. We are trained to shoot that way because death is the surest and fastest form of incapacitation and stopping the threat.

                        Coloring the wording doesn't change the basis for why it is what it is. Center mass gives us the highest probability (in a stressful situation) of scoring lethal hits (which immediately stops the threat). If we don't manage to score a lethal hit but the subject is incapacitated, so be it, and we are trained to immediately stop firing (as it should be). Subject might live, might not but we are not executioners. We use lethal force in order to protect innocent life and stop when we've achieved that outcome, one way or the other.

                        I do understand the reason some Officers choose cling to those terms and I do not at all look down upon them for it. I am just a little more comfortable with saying what it really boils down to. Killing someone who is trying to kill me is the best chance I have for survival.

                        Let me put it another way. Say it was a deadly physical force confrontation, suspect is close-in, shooting at me with a gun on top of a downtown skyscraper and my best way to stop is threat is simply to push him off the building. I would do it in a heartbeat knowing that the odds of it resulting in anything else but his death are slim to none. That is also a use of deadly physical force on my part, and I would feel absolutely secure in that decision as my life was on the line. Coloring it by saying I'm just stopping the threat by placing him 20 stories away from me very quickly doesn't really change the fact that I'm trying to kill him in order to live.

                        While this type of scenario may not be common, it is very plausible. I've often played the "what if" training game considering what I would do if I came upon a traffic stop in which the bad guy was shooting at another Officer and in some of the scenarios I've run through my mind I found my best option was to run the suspect over. Just use of deadly physical force by another method.

                        What it ultimately boils down to is that if I am acting against deadly physical force, I will use any means at my disposal to stop the threat. If the situation ever presented itself that the surest option was not to shoot at him, but to absolutely kill him with a better method which presented itself I would take that option in a heartbeat. Vice-versa, if a situation presented itself and I was authorized to use deadly physical force but there simply happened to be a less-than-lethal option which would end the incident, and that option was a sure thing (this is getting pretty hypothetical) I would use that option instead of deadly physical force. That type of situation might be pretty out there, but I suppose somewhere, somehow it's possible. Just trying to say that I realize we are NOT out there to go around intentionally trying to kill anyone we have justification to kill, but rather we DO try to kill when it's the best option to stop the threat.

                        One last scenario (sorry, thought of something a little more plausible). Shooting occurs and I am close to the suspect and I have the shotgun out. I can easily go for a head shot due to proximity, even though center mass would have a huge chance of stopping the threat and not as large a chance of causing death as the headshot. I'm still gonna shoot him right in the head as I know it will kill him and stop the threat. No question I would.

                        - V

                        P.S. Sorry this post got so long. I've been trying to keep my points more concise, but don't always manage it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                          Dal you are correct......I was trained that in any shooting scenario where the BG might be wearing body armor to shoot for the head and again the training was to end the threat not to shoot with the intent to kill. Nowhere is it written that only LEOs have an inherent lack of intent to kill when using deadly physical force. If it is legitimate to say that a cop was only shooting to stop a threat it must also be legitimate to say that a BG was shooting to stop a threat. The BG's very act of shooting may be illegal but proving it is an attempt to kill is nearly impossible.
                          Dino yes we are shooting to stop the threat, but what kind of force do we call it? Stop the threat force or DEADLY FORCE. What you are employing is deadly force under the protection of justifiable homicide. ERGO; Attempted Homocide. Thus just as applicable to this kid but without the justification to use force and therefore we arrive at a charge of attempted murder.
                          Today's Quote:

                          "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                          Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                            I know that this is not a very popular thought here, but the judge was probably correct. Once again, Attempted Murder is almost impossible to prove. Most crimes are proved by the act, so in shooting or stabbing a person, causing a serious injury, your act alone is proof of your intent to cause that injury, making you guilty of assault. BUT to raise that assault to an Attempted Murder, the prosecutor MUST prove your intent to kill, which is virtually impossible, unless you make an admission.
                            First of all, this was not a trial. Therefore, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard on which you are implicitly relying does not apply. It was at most a probable cause hearing.

                            Second, intent can be inferred from the ordinary consequences of one's act. Most states have a pattern jury instruction to that effect. So, if I shoot you right between the eyes while holding a gun and pointing it at you, a trier of fact may infer that I intended to kill you, regardless of what I say -- even if I say that it was an accident, or even if the gun is loaded but misfires.

                            Conversely, while intent to cause an injury is a permissible inference from the fact that an injury occurs, the injury can occur without there being an assault. For example, if I am holding a knife and slip and stab you with it, there would be considerable doubt about whether I intended to injure you, so I probably would not be found guilty of assault.

                            In this case, the suspect shot the officer and then fired at him two more times. Considering the effect of rifle bullets on the human body, one might reasonably infer that he was trying to kill the officer.
                            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Actually the result of the act proves the intent........so a shot to the head that that kills proves the intent to kill.....a shot to the leg that injures only proves an assault....possible consequences do not prove attempted murder...........as the saying goes a miss is as good as a mile.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by nycool2
                                I don't think that can be true in every case.
                                Of course.

                                Example 1: Kid jumps out in front of my car without warning. I run him over and kill him. There is no intent to kill despite the fact that a death occurs.

                                Example 2: A doctor prescribes a drug for the patient. The patient has no history of allergies. The patient nonetheless experience anaphylactic shock and dies. No intent to kill even though death occurs.

                                Example 3: We get into a fight. I punch you, and you fall over, hit your head on a rock, and die from the concussion. No intent to kill, because death is not a likely consequence of my actions.

                                Conversely:

                                I shoot a police officer in the chest 10 times with a submachine gun. He does not die because he is wearing a vest. Nearly everyone would find an intent to kill.

                                I place a powerful explosive device in the receiver of someone's phone. It detonates when he answers the phone, but the victim drops the receiver and it only blows off his legs and he survives. Nearly everyone would find an intent to kill.

                                Intent is proved by the totality of the facts and circumstances.
                                Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                                Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 6234 users online. 364 members and 5870 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X