Manhunt: Police shoot innocent people looking for suspect

[the1kidd03]

I honestly don't feel that you have... All you provided is that the police officers that pulled the trigger "THOUGHT" they were in danger.... But just because they "THOUGHT" a creeping truck with its lights off was dangerous... it still doesn't justify shooting 40 rounds into the BACK of the truck.

I know those officers THOUGHT they were doing the right thing at that time... but now we all know that they WEREN'T. That is why I suggest they be pulled up on a felony charge that fits. Whether it be attempted murder or reckless endangerment (if that is a real charge), negligent discharge or whatever.

They need a day in court to prove that they were "Insane" (which I proposed in an earlier post).

A crime was committed. THERE IS NO ARGUING THAT!!! And if a crime was committed, we should define it and charge these officers with it.

Whether or not they deserve to be locked up is debatable, but that is what the judiciary system is for. If it is good enough for me, then it is good enough for them too.

I'm glad our court system sentences based on here say and media interpretation since you've already concluded through all of the evidence what is right....

 

[long coat]

2 questions.
1. Why did they shoot a truck that was driving AWAY from them?
2. What would have happen if the 2 ladys would have somehow shot back and hit one of the LEOs?

 

[Sainte]

Isn't that SOP in LA?

 

[sepe]

2 questions.
1. Why did they shoot a truck that was driving AWAY from them?
2. What would have happen if the 2 ladys would have somehow shot back and hit one of the LEOs?

More houses and parked cars would have been shot up in an attempt to stop the threat.

 

[Ted]

I honestly don't feel that you have... All you provided is that the police officers that pulled the trigger "THOUGHT" they were in danger.... But just because they "THOUGHT" a creeping truck with its lights off was dangerous... it still doesn't justify shooting 40 rounds into the BACK of the truck.

I know those officers THOUGHT they were doing the right thing at that time... but now we all know that they WEREN'T. That is why I suggest they be pulled up on a felony charge that fits. Whether it be attempted murder or reckless endangerment (if that is a real charge), negligent discharge or whatever.

They need a day in court to prove that they were "Insane" (which I proposed in an earlier post).

A crime was committed. THERE IS NO ARGUING THAT!!! And if a crime was committed, we should define it and charge these officers with it.

Whether or not they deserve to be locked up is debatable, but that is what the judiciary system is for. If it is good enough for me, then it is good enough for them too.

I'm confused. You just argued that the officers involved didn't possess the requisite mens rhea, but then advocated that they be charged for violating a crime.

You'll also note that mistake of fact is a defense, at least in Indiana. Was it? I don't know, but its a fairly possible affirmative defense in this case.

I believing that you're confusing the various levels of intent. While the LEOs in this instance may not have intentionally or knowingly attacked these people, on some level they are culpable....likely due to criminal stupidity.....otherwise known as recklessness, or possibly negligence.....dependent upon the jurisdiction.

 

[lucky4034]

I'm glad our court system sentences based on here say and media interpretation since you've already concluded through all of the evidence what is right....

Whoa... being sentenced and being charged are two different things. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here?

2 COMPLETELY INNOCENT people were shot in the back. Another COMPLETELY INNOCENT guy had his car rammed and was shot at 3 times.

Someone pulled those triggers and are innocent until proven guilty.... However, they should be charged with a crime and go through the judiciary system just like you or I would have to. I don't care if they are your buddy or uncle or Jesus reincarnated. Instead, it sounds like "oops" is all that is happening here and that echos the sentiment of Mr. Dorner in his manifesto, that LA cops live by a different set of rules and regulations from everyone else.

 

[lucky4034]

I'm confused. You just argued that the officers involved didn't possess the requisite mens rhea, but then advocated that they be charged for violating a crime.

You'll also note that mistake of fact is a defense, at least in Indiana. Was it? I don't know, but its a fairly possible affirmative defense in this case.

I believing that you're confusing the various levels of intent. While the LEOs in this instance may not have intentionally or knowingly attacked these people, on some level they are culpable....likely due to criminal stupidity.....otherwise known as recklessness, or possibly negligence.....dependent upon the jurisdiction.

Ignorance is no excuse for the law... they are responsible for what happened and a court should decide their fate. I fully believe that they probably thought they were making a good decision, but their actions were reckless and errant and they are responsible for them.

I'm not sure what part confused you... but it seems you went on to pretty much echo what I said. The intentions, whether good or bad were wrong and a mistake of this magnitude should come with SOME kind of punishment. Whether suspension or prison time or nothing... I'll leave that to a jury.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Did you hear the latest news? LAPD is offer a reward of....

One...MILLION DOLLARS!!

 

[ATOMonkey]

Whoa... being sentenced and being charged are two different things. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here?

2 COMPLETELY INNOCENT people were shot in the back. Another COMPLETELY INNOCENT guy had his car rammed and was shot at 3 times.

Someone pulled those triggers and are innocent until proven guilty.... However, they should be charged with a crime and go through the judiciary system just like you or I would have to. I don't care if they are your buddy or uncle or Jesus reincarnated. Instead, it sounds like "oops" is all that is happening here and that echos the sentiment of Mr. Dorner in his manifesto, that LA cops live by a different set of rules and regulations from everyone else.

It's the "my bad" law enforcement defense. Works like a charm.

 

[rambone]

Here's a picture of David Perdue, the third person LAPD tried to murder for driving a pickup truck.

He almost looks like a 300 lb black guy. Moreso than the two hispanic ladies, anyway.



Police seeking Dorner opened fire in a second case of mistaken identity - latimes.com

 

[ATOMonkey]

Here's a picture of David Perdue, the third person LAPD tried to murder for driving a pickup truck.

He almost looks like a 300 lb black guy. Moreso than the two hispanic ladies, anyway.



Police seeking Dorner opened fire in a second case of mistaken identity - latimes.com

They hit his truck so HARD it knocked the rear axle off, then they shot at him. That level of stupidity is difficult to comprehend.

 

[lucky4034]

Did you hear the latest news? LAPD is offer a reward of....

One...MILLION DOLLARS!!

With the price of inflation... you'd think they would be happier to offer 10 million dollars of tax money.

 

[rambone]

At the same time, we also know the media of ANY variety is RARELY 100% truthful, accurate, unbiased, and NOT misleading. Hence, WE DON'T KNOW.

We actually do know some facts.

FACT: Police shot at 3 people who were not named Christopher Dorner.
FACT: Police shot a pickup truck in the rear as it drove the other direction.
FACT: None of the shooting victims looked remotely similar to the suspect, a large, muscular black male.

I don't think anyone here could/would have conducted themselves in any manner contradictory to that of those officers in THEIR situation at that time. Although many of us may have been more judiciary with our marksmanship, I doubt anyone would have made a different decision otherwise.

Please speak for yourself. I don't want to be lumped in with irresponsible idiots who shoot at unidentified targets. Anybody who behaves this way does not belong in a uniform. The public doesn't need this kind of "service."

 

[Ted]

Ignorance is no excuse for the law... they are responsible for what happened and a court should decide their fate. I fully believe that they probably thought they were making a good decision, but their actions were reckless and errant and they are responsible for them.

I'm not sure what part confused you... but it seems you went on to pretty much echo what I said. The intentions, whether good or bad were wrong and a mistake of this magnitude should come with SOME kind of punishment. Whether suspension or prison time or nothing... I'll leave that to a jury.

Agreed that there is no excuse for ignorance of the law, but there is the defense of a mistake of fact. Does it apply in this case, if California has the same type of statute? I don't know, but I can't discount it at this juncture.

Here is the relevant portion of an Indiana law that would likely apply, if it would occur here:

IC 35-41-3-7
Mistake of fact
Sec. 7. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.12.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Is it reasonable to mistake a skinny white dude for a 275 lb black man?

Insert the "it was dark" defense coupled with the "my bad" defense.

 

[Ted]

Is it reasonable to mistake a skinny white dude for a 275 lb black man?

Insert the "it was dark" defense coupled with the "my bad" defense.

Likely not, but we don't have all the facts of the contributing circumstances that lead to the misidentification either.

Again, I'm not discounting that the cops were assclowns, but I am stating that there is more to the story that we haven't received.

 

[lucky4034]

Agreed that there is no excuse for ignorance of the law, but there is the defense of a mistake of fact. Does it apply in this case, if California has the same type of statute? I don't know, but I can't discount it at this juncture.

Here is the relevant portion of an Indiana law that would likely apply, if it would occur here:

Again... I'm not here trying to decide their fate. My only point is that they should stand trial for this. Besides I don't think the mistake negates culpability in this case, but again... I'm not going to be on the jury and from the looks of it, no one else is either.

Looking in from the outside... I don't see a scenario where they shouldn't AT LEAST lose their jobs. They have proven themselves completely unfit....

 

[jamil]

Agreed that there is no excuse for ignorance of the law, but there is the defense of a mistake of fact. Does it apply in this case, if California has the same type of statute? I don't know, but I can't discount it at this juncture.

Here is the relevant portion of an Indiana law that would likely apply, if it would occur here:

I don't think this law covers negligently mistaken. A trial in court should determine if this was reasonably mistaken or negligently mistaken. That can't happen if charges aren't filed.

Justice not served.

 

[draytime]

Police seeking Dorner opened fire in a second case of mistaken identity - latimes.com

Cops need to get their **** together out there.

 

[griffin]

Papers please.

[Tommy Chong] I only have a pipe, man. [/Tommy Chong]