PDA

View Full Version : oddly enough, I agree with following legalese wording... but...



Phillip Allen
04-25-2015, 06:15 PM
doncha just love lawyers? :)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/anger-at-acquittal-of-chicago-policeman-in-shooting-of-woman/ar-AAbsKuw

Paul Pless
04-25-2015, 06:20 PM
<yawn>

Phillip Allen
04-25-2015, 07:36 PM
so, Paul, injustice is boring for you... you don't have to point it out... it would be better to be quietly embarrassed.

Ian McColgin
04-25-2015, 08:59 PM
Be interesting to know what's really up here. One take could be that the judge was penalizing the DA for deliberate and rather stupid undercharging. The judge could not find the cop guilty of murder if he was not even charged with murder. You can go down, finding a person guilty of a lesser included offence, but not up to an unspecified higher offence.

Phillip Allen
04-25-2015, 09:07 PM
Be interesting to know what's really up here. One take could be that the judge was penalizing the DA for deliberate and rather stupid undercharging. The judge could not find the cop guilty of murder if he was not even charged with murder. You can go down, finding a person guilty of a lesser included offence, but not up to an unspecified higher offence.

a good possibility

I would like to see the prosecutor investigated for wrong doing... don't forget a charge of murder can still be brought

Ian McColgin
04-25-2015, 10:18 PM
I am not sure a murder charge can be brought. Man's been tried for the act. Another charge, whether lesser or greater, is double jeapordy.

Phillip Allen
04-25-2015, 10:22 PM
I am not sure a murder charge can be brought. Man's been tried for the act. Another charge, whether lesser or greater, is double jeapordy.

I don't think so... if a charge for a lesser crime does not work then a charge for a greater crime may apply...from jay-walking to murder being an exaggerated example

as far as I'm concerned, a charge against a prosecutor of accessory after the fact is possible if it can be demonstrated that his actions abetted the felon (with forethought)

Ian McColgin
04-25-2015, 10:31 PM
Still double jeapordy which is unconstitutional. From wikipedia's entry on double jeapordy: ". . . Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977), where the defendant had first been convicted of operating an automobile without the owner's consent, and later of stealing the same automobile. The Supreme Court concluded that the same evidence was necessary to prove both offenses, and that in effect there was only one offense. Therefore, it overturned the second conviction."

Phillip Allen
04-25-2015, 10:34 PM
Still double jeapordy which is unconstitutional. From wikipedia's entry on double jeapordy: ". . . Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977), where the defendant had first been convicted of operating an automobile without the owner's consent, and later of stealing the same automobile. The Supreme Court concluded that the same evidence was necessary to prove both offenses, and that in effect there was only one offense. Therefore, it overturned the second conviction."

so, a prosecutor needs simply to insure he is charged with malice and it's a new case

even so, remember the 'abet' portion of my post above

Paul Pless
04-26-2015, 06:28 AM
Phillips dislike of cops runs so deep that he's willing to cast aside constitutional principles. Kinda shows the deep hypocrisy from when he preaches states rights and second amendment issues. The constitution is only important to him when its convenient. . .

Ian McColgin
04-26-2015, 07:16 AM
The facts of the case have been tried. Our ban against double jeapordy means the cop cannot be tried again on those facts no matter what you call the crime.

The judge's ruling essentially says that the prosecutor may have been trying to low-ball the possible penalty but he undercharged to the point where the legal definition essential to the charge - negligence - could not fit because by legal definition the shooting was intentional. The judge left no doubt that the crime was murder and this whole charlie foxtrot is the prosecutor's fault.

Phillip Allen
04-26-2015, 08:08 AM
The facts of the case have been tried. Our ban against double jeapordy means the cop cannot be tried again on those facts no matter what you call the crime.

The judge's ruling essentially says that the prosecutor may have been trying to low-ball the possible penalty but he undercharged to the point where the legal definition essential to the charge - negligence - could not fit because by legal definition the shooting was intentional. The judge left no doubt that the crime was murder and this whole charlie foxtrot is the prosecutor's fault.

looks like a good way to get him off then...

Phillip Allen
04-26-2015, 08:10 AM
The facts of the case have been tried. Our ban against double jeapordy means the cop cannot be tried again on those facts no matter what you call the crime.

The judge's ruling essentially says that the prosecutor may have been trying to low-ball the possible penalty but he undercharged to the point where the legal definition essential to the charge - negligence - could not fit because by legal definition the shooting was intentional. The judge left no doubt that the crime was murder and this whole charlie foxtrot is the prosecutor's fault.

it seems like some people have had to endure the double jeopardy then... the 4 cops in California (Rodney King) and OJ Simpson...

Tom Wilkinson
04-26-2015, 08:13 AM
Criminal and civil trials Phillip. Oj can never be tried for murder again in that case.