Pardons, Commutations and Dropped Prosecutions Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 234
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
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.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
That’s commentary by someone whose opinion isn’t relevant. Once KSP forensics said the evidence was inconclusive, there is no proof.
Click to expand...

My article is more recent than yours and states that the report conclusively found that Taylor's boyfriend, who admitted to shooting at the police, shot the police officer. Not really a stretch of the imagination to conclude that the dude who fired at the police hit one of them.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cameron was running for higher office as a black man in one of the most racist states in the country. As I said: he was a corrupt POS. Not that he didn't know the law.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...

Super, you are supposed to be an attorney. The details matter. Can you please tell us all which person this particular officer hurt when he returned fire? Not understanding an argument and then shouting "racism" to cover your tracks isn't a good look.
 
What a hill to die on. Reckless shooting of a black woman by law enforcement officers isn't criminal.
 
superrific said:
Cameron was running for higher office as a black man in one of the most racist states in the country. As I said: he was a corrupt POS. Not that he didn't know the law.
Click to expand...

We can both agree that he knows the law, then, as is evident by his decision not to bring charges against officers that returned fire after being fired upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top