Yet another malicious prosecution of a police officer

[Derec]

The officer is being prosecuted (or perhaps 'persecuted' fits better here) for first degree murder for shooting the shoplifter William Chapman, 18. Despite his short life, Chapman already had a sizable record that included bringing weapons to school and making a bomb threat. And despite the fact that Chapman knocked out the officer's taser (and thus showed himself to be a threat), the prosecutor thinks that the officer maliciously and intentionally killed the shoplifter.
Jury deliberates first-degree murder charge in William Chapman shooting
This part is amazing to me:

“That means Virginia law anticipates that police officers are going to come in contact with people who resist arrest, are going to come into contact with people who assault them, are going to come into contact with people who disarm them,” said Morales. “And Virginia law has anticipated that these people will live to face prosecution for violating Virginia laws.”

So Stepanhnie Immorales here admits that Chapman did all these things, but thinks that shooting him is "first degree murder"? And her reasoning seems to be that if the things Chapman did are criminal offenses, then the subject must be brought into custody alive to face trial and thus, according to her, it would never be justified for police to kill a suspect. I do not think she really thought this through.
This part is funny though:

Deliberations were delayed on Wednesday afternoon when the jury and attorneys appeared unable to resolve a technical problem jurors had encountered when trying to play the snatched video clip recorded by Rankin’s Taser.
The assistant commonwealth’s attorney Brandon Wrobleski, whose LinkedIn profile still boasts of his experience as a salesman at a Best Buy electronics store from 2011 to 2012, ultimately managed to get the recording to play.

We have not heard the "dindu nuffin" thing recently, but here it is again, from the Dindu's mouth himself:

The footage appears to show Rankin and Chapman physically struggling. “Get your hand out of your pocket, get your hand out of your pocket,” Rankin tells Chapman. According to Morales, Chapman can be heard asking: “You’re going to tase me when I didn’t do nothing?”

Shoplifting, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer are "nothing" now?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Shoplifting, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer are "nothing" now?

This was the second unarmed man the officer had shot.

Shoplifting, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer are "nothing" now?

In the United States these are not capital crimes.

 

[ksen]

Shoplifting, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer are "nothing" now?

In the United States these are not capital crimes.

 

[laughing dog]

Once again, we have a thread about the shooting of an unarmed black man. Once again, we have the same suspect smearing the victim of the shooting, as if one's past actions and alleged crime of shoplifting somehow justify whatever happened. Once again, we have the same suspect making fun of the victim with inappropriate "dialect".

And once again, the same suspect will wonder why anyone would think he is not fooling anyone but himself.

 

[Derec]

This was the second unarmed man the officer had shot.

We" went over this already. "Unarmed" does not mean "not a threat".

In the United States these are not capital crimes.

We went over this already. There is a big difference between a capital crime and police killing somebody during a struggle.

 

[Derec]

Once again, we have a thread about the shooting of an unarmed black man. Once again, we have the same suspect smearing the victim of the shooting, as if one's past actions and alleged crime of shoplifting somehow justify whatever happened. Once again, we have the same suspect making fun of the victim with inappropriate "dialect".

And once again, the same suspect will wonder why anyone would think he is not fooling anyone but himself.

Once again we have a prosecutor overcharging. The suspect already knocked out the taser out of the officer's hands. He went to charge him again when the distance between them was very close. Even if you think the shooting was not justified, it is ridiculous to think it was first degree murder.

I am not making fun of his dialect. I am pointing out the stupidity of him saying he didn't do anything when he did plenty.

P.S.: The judge refused a mistrial, even though the a family friend met with one of the jurors. Isn't jury tampering grounds for a mistrial and also a crime in itself?

 

[ksen]

We" went over this already. "Unarmed" does not mean "not a threat".

In the United States these are not capital crimes.

We went over this already. There is a big difference between a capital crime and police killing somebody during a struggle.

That's true. In the former the person ends up dead at the hands of the State and in the latter the person ends up dead at the hands of the State.

Totally different.

 

[Derec]

That's true. In the former the person ends up dead at the hands of the State and in the latter the person ends up dead at the hands of the State.

Totally different.

In one a prisoner is duly charged and convicted and executed in accordance with the applicable while not posing any threat. The goal is to kill.
In the other, a person who is not captive is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to pose a direct and grave threat and is shot. The goal is to stop the threat, not to kill.
Are you really incapable of grasping the difference between the two?

 

[Trausti]

If the jury doesn't return a not guilty verdict, then the appeal is obvious. The prosecutor's closing argument that "Virginia law has anticipated that these people will live to face prosecution" screwed her case. In the article the jury even requested copies of this law, and the judge said just focus on the evidence. The jury is confused. I'm not sure if the defense objected at that point; but that argument is clearly misleading and improper as it implies that the police officer does not have a right to self-defense.

 

[ksen]

That's true. In the former the person ends up dead at the hands of the State and in the latter the person ends up dead at the hands of the State.

Totally different.

In one a prisoner is duly charged and convicted and executed in accordance with the applicable while not posing any threat. The goal is to kill.
In the other, a person who is not captive is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to pose a direct and grave threat and is shot. The goal is to stop the threat, not to kill.
Are you really incapable of grasping the difference between the two?

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

 

[Derec]

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

No, the goal is to stop the threat. If they do not die they get transported to a hospital. Plenty of people shot by police survive. Unlike people who are executed.

 

[ksen]

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

No, the goal is to stop the threat. If they do not die they get transported to a hospital. Plenty of people shot by police survive. Unlike people who are executed.

None of that obviates the fact that police are trained to shoot to kill when using their weapons, not shoot to stop the threat.

It's nice that you're worried about a fired police officer who likes to post Nazi propaganda on his facebook and has killed before. He's 2 for 2 in unjustified shootings.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

No, the goal is to stop the threat. If they do not die they get transported to a hospital. Plenty of people shot by police survive. Unlike people who are executed.

As a soldier, one of the first things we are taught is that if we are shooting, shoot to kill. Shooting doesn't work like it does in the movies. Any time you are close enough to guarantee accuracy I. Shooting at a limb, the target is necessarily close enough to close before you can aim, and movement makes aiming too difficult. If they are far enough to both aim and hit, they are too far to aim accurately. This means that the only option is to start with aiming center mass. Further, we are taught that the use of a gun is ALWAYS to be understood as lethal.

I can't imagine a police officer, equipped with a much less reliable and accurate pistol (as opposed to a rifle), being taught that they should, or even CAN be any more accurate.

You are simply publish shit out of your ass. When guns are involved, the shooter should ALWAYS do so with the understanding that he is acting lethally. Hell, our training went so far as to state that you shouldn't even take off the safety of the weapon if you weren't ready to kill someone.

Either he was trained adequately, and can be reasonably assured that he was acting with intent in taking the safety off on his weapon, or he was not trained adequately and his actions constitute gross incompetence.

As to the ethics of shooting a perp, I've said it again and again: an action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known, otherwise no action could *ever* be considered right or wrong. It doesn't matter if you just shot Adolf Hitler if you didn't know he was Hitler when you shot him. acting in such a manner means you should be sent to a corrections facility to correct the behavioral problem which drove you to shoot an unknown person.

 

[Derec]

None of that obviates the fact that police are trained to shoot to kill when using their weapons, not shoot to stop the threat.

Again, they shoot to stop the threat. Given that these are lethal weapons it often results in death, but the purpose is very different than a judicial execution where the purpose is to kill. Again, it's not really that difficult a difference to grasp.

It's nice that you're worried about a fired police officer who likes to post Nazi propaganda on his facebook and has killed before. He's 2 for 2 in unjustified shootings.

Nazi propaganda? Like what?

As to 2 for 2, perhaps, perhaps not. But in any case, neither of the cases constituted a first degree murder.

 

[Jarhyn]

Again, they shoot to stop the threat. Given that these are lethal weapons it often results in death, but the purpose is very different than a judicial execution where the purpose is to kill. Again, it's not really that difficult a difference to grasp.

It's nice that you're worried about a fired police officer who likes to post Nazi propaganda on his facebook and has killed before. He's 2 for 2 in unjustified shootings.

Nazi propaganda? Like what?

As to 2 for 2, perhaps, perhaps not. But in any case, neither of the cases constituted a first degree murder.

When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Any nonlethal shooting is best interpreted as an accidental outcome. This is the way anyone with government training is trained to view shooting their weapon. Even when equipped with a rifle or carbine that can pick off a quarter at 25 meters. With a pistol, things are FAR more difficult to hit.

 

[Derec]

As a soldier, one of the first things we are taught is that if we are shooting, shoot to kill.

I and ksen were discussing the difference between police shooting a suspect and executing a convict. He refuses to see any difference.

Shooting doesn't work like it does in the movies. Any time you are close enough to guarantee accuracy I. Shooting at a limb, the target is necessarily close enough to close before you can aim, and movement makes aiming too difficult. If they are far enough to both aim and hit, they are too far to aim accurately. This means that the only option is to start with aiming center mass. Further, we are taught that the use of a gun is ALWAYS to be understood as lethal.

All you said is correct. And yet none of it disputes any of the points I made to ksen.

I can't imagine a police officer, equipped with a much less reliable and accurate pistol (as opposed to a rifle), being taught that they should, or even CAN be any more accurate.

I never claimed they weren't taught to shoot center mass. But they are not taught to shoot until the target is dead either. Again, the dispute with ksen here is that he claims there is zero difference between a police shooting and a judicial execution and thus police are not justified in shooting anybody not convicted of a capital crime.

You are simply publish shit out of your ass. When guns are involved, the shooter should ALWAYS do so with the understanding that he is acting lethally. Hell, our training went so far as to state that you shouldn't even take off the safety of the weapon if you weren't ready to kill someone.

Again, I never disputed any of what you are writing here. Did you even read the exchange with ksen? That his claim was that there is no difference between a police shooting and an execution?
Yes, every time a police officer shoots somebody lethal force is used. That does not mean the goal is to kill the suspect.

As to the ethics of shooting a perp, I've said it again and again: an action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when results are known, otherwise no action could *ever* be considered right or wrong. It doesn't matter if you just shot Adolf Hitler if you didn't know he was Hitler when you shot him. acting in such a manner means you should be sent to a corrections facility to correct the behavioral problem which drove you to shoot an unknown person.

In this case the perp already knocked the taser out of his hands and was still acting threateningly. He thus reasonably feared for his life in my opinion. Even if you are of the opinion that the shooting was not justified, I do not see how anybody can get to first degree murder from the facts of the case.

 

[Derec]

When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Any nonlethal shooting is best interpreted as an accidental outcome. This is the way anyone with government training is trained to view shooting their weapon. Even when equipped with a rifle or carbine that can pick off a quarter at 25 meters. With a pistol, things are FAR more difficult to hit.

If police shoot somebody and they survive, do they give them coup-de-grace? Or do they transport them to the hospital? Since the goal is to stop, not kill, the suspect is given medical care to counteract the effects of the shooting.
Now compare that to an execution. Since the goal is to kill, the lethal action is usually performed until death is verified by a physician.
Do not be as obtuse as ksen. You are better than that. Again, nobody is disputing that guns are lethal weapons and that "shoot to wound" is not practical (which is why I wrote "shoot to stop").

 

[Nice Squirrel]

When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Any nonlethal shooting is best interpreted as an accidental outcome. This is the way anyone with government training is trained to view shooting their weapon. Even when equipped with a rifle or carbine that can pick off a quarter at 25 meters. With a pistol, things are FAR more difficult to hit.

If police shoot somebody and they survive, do they give them coup-de-grace? Or do they transport them to the hospital? Since the goal is to stop, not kill, the suspect is given medical care to counteract the effects of the shooting.

I think we have enough evidence to argue that medical care is not always rendered.

 

[Toni]

I and ksen were discussing the difference between police shooting a suspect and executing a convict. He refuses to see any difference.

I disagree (with more than your sentence structure): I believe that ksen has pointed out that in an execution of a convicted criminal, the convicted criminal has received due justice. An individual or individuals shot by police have not. I agree with ksen.

All you said is correct. And yet none of it disputes any of the points I made to ksen.

No. You claim police shoot to stop/remove a threat. Jarhyn points out that soldiers are trained to shoot to kill. Period. You are just quibbling with what 'remove a threat' really means. If you are talking about guns, it means killing someone. That's what it means. The fact that you quibble with the meaning demonstrates how very uncomfortable you are with your stance that police can and should kill unarmed citizens at will. For things like shoplifting. Or a broken tail light.

I never claimed they weren't taught to shoot center mass. But they are not taught to shoot until the target is dead either.

Really? You have source to back up your claim? Certainly you do not possess the intellectual integrity required to admit that firing a shot into the center mass of another human being is likely to result in the death of said human being. And that death is intentionally caused.

Again, the dispute with ksen here is that he claims there is zero difference between a police shooting and a judicial execution and thus police are not justified in shooting anybody not convicted of a capital crime.

No. Once again, I will remind you that a criminal facing execution has received due process. A person shot by police because of a broken tail light has not. Excuse me: I was being euphemistic when I stated 'shot by police because of a broken tail light.' The person I am thinking of was shot because of the panic, cowardice and ineptitude and racism of the police officer who shot him.

Yes, every time a police officer shoots somebody lethal force is used. That does not mean the goal is to kill the suspect.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word lethal? Or do you think there are degrees of lethal? Like: a little bit lethal but not really? I mean, don't most people survive shots to their chest? (no, they don't.)

You don't believe that yourself. You are being too careful to acknowledge that shooting someone center mass is shooting with intent to kill. Removing threat is a euphemism. Please have the courage to own what you are advocating.

In this case the perp already knocked the taser out of his hands and was still acting threateningly. He thus reasonably feared for his life in my opinion. Even if you are of the opinion that the shooting was not justified, I do not see how anybody can get to first degree murder from the facts of the case.

Well yes, most people will try to stop the source of pain. In the case of tasers, the subject is likely to react by lashing out, not by being a quiet good little boy or girl. Because that's the normal, demonstrated reaction to being tasered.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In one a prisoner is duly charged and convicted and executed in accordance with the applicable while not posing any threat. The goal is to kill.
In the other, a person who is not captive is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to pose a direct and grave threat and is shot. The goal is to stop the threat, not to kill.
Are you really incapable of grasping the difference between the two?

Wrong. When a police officer pulls and fires his weapon the goal is to kill. That's how they are trained. Shit, that's how anyone is trained that's been trained in the use of firearms.

The goal is to stop the threat. Normally that involves exactly the same actions as shooting to kill would so you can't decide much on what they did.