Pardons, Commutations and Dropped Prosecutions Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 213
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
BlooVooDoo said:
Taylor’s boyfriend fired a single shot and they couldn’t even prove that shot is the one that injured the officer. Charges against him were dropped and the city settled for $2 million when he sued them for misconduct.
Click to expand...

They absolutely proved that his shot is the one that injured the officer; he admitted to firing at the police because he didn't know that they were police officers. The city settling has nothing to do with the supposed innocence or guilt of the officers involved. Cities have settled numerous times even when their officers did nothing wrong (see: Mike Brown).

As is stands, the prospect of a life sentence for an alleged crime that didn't even injure a single person is preposterous.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
You don't need to be a lawyer to recognize the fact that after all of the uproar and misinformation about this case, the reason that exactly one person was convicted after three trials is because these officers lawfully returned fire after being fired upon. As I said, it was a bad situation but no one deserved to go to jail over it - not Taylor's boyfriend and not the officers involved in the shootout.
Click to expand...
1. Well, there was one person convicted. So his conviction doesn't count because the others got off?
2. You are wrong about the legal process.
3. The law says he should face up to lifetime behind bars. If you don't know the law -- which you absolutely do not, based on your posts here -- why are you spouting off on it?

JFC, stay in your lane, man. When you talk about emergency response and FEMA, I listen to you because I think you know what you're talking about and know more than I do. Are you not capable of extending the same courtesy and respect to people trained in the law?

It doesn't actually matter whether they were fired upon. Shooting a dozen bullets blindly into an apartment is a violation of civil rights and should be punished harshly.

Let's suppose you're right: they were fired on first by a person in the apartment. Is it your position that everyone in the apartment is now fair game? It's OK to kill babies and little children? Or is your position that if a baby died the cop should go to jail but not if a black woman dies? Where are you drawing the line? What if it wasn't a shot? What if it was a firecracker? Or a gun with blanks?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
You don't need to be a lawyer to recognize the fact that after all of the uproar and misinformation about this case, the reason that exactly one person was convicted on a single charge after three trials and after being acquitted on everything else is because these officers lawfully returned fire after being fired upon. As I said, it was a bad situation but no one deserved to go to jail over it - not Taylor's boyfriend and not the officers involved in the shootout.
Click to expand...
Firing 32 rounds at targets you can’t even see (in an apartment building!) is reckless and exactly the kind of shitty police work qualified immunity promotes.
 
superrific said:
1. Well, there was one person convicted. So his conviction doesn't count because the others got off?
2. You are wrong about the legal process.
3. The law says he should face up to lifetime behind bars. If you don't know the law -- which you absolutely do not, based on your posts here -- why are you spouting off on it?

JFC, stay in your lane, man. When you talk about emergency response and FEMA, I listen to you because I think you know what you're talking about and know more than I do. Are you not capable of extending the same courtesy and respect to people trained in the law?

It doesn't actually matter whether they were fired upon. Shooting a dozen bullets blindly into an apartment is a violation of civil rights and should be punished harshly.

Let's suppose you're right: they were fired on first by a person in the apartment. Is it your position that everyone in the apartment is now fair game? It's OK to kill babies and little children? Or is your position that if a baby died the cop should go to jail but not if a black woman dies? Where are you drawing the line? What if it wasn't a shot? What if it was a firecracker? Or a gun with blanks?
Click to expand...

Sorry, super. You don't get to gatekeep public opinion. People who are not attorneys can and will have an opinion about the legal process.

This was this person's third trial. He was acquitted on state charges. His first federal trial ended in a mistrial as jurors were unable to reach a verdict. His second federal trial ended in him being acquitted of all but one charge. No one else who fired shots that night was charged.

As I said to Bloo, the prospect that a person should spend life in prison for a crime that didn't even injure a single person is preposterous, particularly when people have willfully murdered children and have gotten out in five years. This person returned fire after being fired upon and missed. He absolutely deserves his freedom.

With regard to your hypotheticals, they are not relevant to this case. What if Taylor's boyfriend savagely murdered Taylor while the police waited outside? What if Taylor hadn't been involved with shady people? We can play the "what if" game all night long.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Sorry, super. You don't get to gatekeep public opinion. People who are not attorneys can and will have an opinion about the legal process.
Click to expand...
You can have your opinions. And I can deem them arrogant and stupid, which they objectively are.

I'm not saying a life sentence would be appropriate. There's a big gap between one day and a lifetime, though, don't you think? It doesn't matter if he was acquitted on state charges, because the charges don't have the same charges (and even if they did, the federal conviction would still be valid).

You're choosing to privilege the juries who deemed the cops innocent, rather than the that convicted. Why is that? Why, of two verdicts, do you respect the state level one (which was not really prosecuted) but not the conviction? Gee, I can't think of why.

THIS IS WHY BLACK LIVES MATTER IS IMPORTANT. IIRC you were horrified by riots after Geoge Floyd. Fine. Giving this guy a day in prison is going to make that sort of thing more likely in the future. If you don't want riots, then uphold the law. Otherwise, STFU.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Who did he hit?
Click to expand...
Please explain why this matters. He fired a dozen rounds blindly into an apartment. That is a criminal act. He doesn't lose his culpability just because the bullets happened to miss.

I guess you're the type of guy who doesn't think attempted murder is a crime.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Did he fire 32 rounds? Who did he hit?
Click to expand...
The three cops fired 32 rounds combined. They didn’t hit anyone with a gun. Or the family in the apartment upstairs or the family in the apartment behind Taylor’s. They didn’t know who they were firing at. They were just recklessly shooting and that’s a crime for anyone without a badge.
Why do you have no expectations or standards for law enforcement?
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Did he fire 32 rounds?
Click to expand...
Under traditional legal principles, each of them must answer for the others because of the felony murder rule. That was not presented to the jury because Daniel Cameron is a corrupt POS. Training in the law helps in not making an ass of oneself when talking about law.
 
superrific said:
You can have your opinions. And I can deem them arrogant and stupid, which they objectively are.

I'm not saying a life sentence would be appropriate. There's a big gap between one day and a lifetime, though, don't you think? It doesn't matter if he was acquitted on state charges, because the charges don't have the same charges (and even if they did, the federal conviction would still be valid).

You're choosing to privilege the juries who deemed the cops innocent, rather than the that convicted. Why is that? Why, of two verdicts, do you respect the state level one (which was not really prosecuted) but not the conviction? Gee, I can't think of why.

THIS IS WHY BLACK LIVES MATTER IS IMPORTANT. IIRC you were horrified by riots after Geoge Floyd. Fine. Giving this guy a day in prison is going to make that sort of thing more likely in the future. If you don't want riots, then uphold the law. Otherwise, STFU.
Click to expand...

I pointed out the fact that it took three trials to get this guy convicted on a single charge because IMO it speaks to how flimsy the case against him was (is). Was there any ill-intent behind him returning fire? Was anyone hurt? Did he have a criminal record? I'd say that the answer to all three questions is most likely a resounding "no." So what do you suppose the sentence should be for a first-time offense in which some drywall is damaged and no one is hurt?
 
BlooVooDoo said:
The three cops fired 32 rounds combined. They didn’t hit anyone with a gun. Or the family in the apartment upstairs or the family in the apartment behind Taylor’s. They didn’t know who they were firing at. They were just recklessly shooting and that’s a crime for anyone without a badge.
Why do you have no expectations or standards for law enforcement?
Click to expand...

They entered a doorway and were met with gunfire. Taylor's boyfriend shot the first cop who went through the door. The officers returned fire. Taylor, who was standing in the hallway behind her boyfriend, was hit. As I said, a tragic situation but not a criminal one.
 
superrific said:
Under traditional legal principles, each of them must answer for the others because of the felony murder rule. That was not presented to the jury because Daniel Cameron is a corrupt POS. Training in the law helps in not making an ass of oneself when talking about law.
Click to expand...
Who is this Daniel Cameron guy? Oh, that's right, he's an experienced attorney. Seems like he has undergone a lot of training in the law.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Article is paywalled.

Here's another paywalled one that seems to dispute your article:

www.courier-journal.com

Experts: Report shows officer was shot by Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, not by friendly fire

Experts say Breonna Taylor's boyfriend must have been the one to shoot a Louisville officer because no one else fired the same type of ammunition.
www.courier-journal.com www.courier-journal.com
Click to expand...
That’s commentary by someone whose opinion isn’t relevant. Once KSP forensics said the evidence was inconclusive, there is no proof.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I pointed out the fact that it took three trials to get this guy convicted on a single charge because IMO it speaks to how flimsy the case against him was (is). Was there any ill-intent behind him returning fire? Was anyone hurt? Did he have a criminal record? I'd say that the answer to all three questions is most likely a resounding "no." So what do you suppose the sentence should be for a first-time offense in which some drywall is damaged and no one is hurt?
Click to expand...
You have destroyed your reputation. First, it does not speak to the flimsiness of the case at all. The conviction standard is reasonable doubt. So every single jury could have thought he was at least 90% likely to be guilty, but if one jury thought it was less than 98%, it would have acquitted. That says nothing about his guilt. Nothing at all.

No one is hurt is the weirdest expression of racism I've seen in a while. Yeah, nobody was hurt except the black woman who died. Sure.

Suppose three gangsters open fire in a drive-by. Should only the one whose bullet actually hit be liable? The others should get off because their bullets -- intended to hit people -- only hit dry wall? I mean, this is the stupidest shit around.

Is attempted murder a crime? Should it be? Explain yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top