Brazilian shot in London - Disturbing developments

Originally posted by no1marauder
OK, there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. There is no doubt the police intentionally killed the guy, but I'm sure they would argue a "justification" defense i.e. that they reasonably believed that he was a suicide bomber about to use an explosive device and they had no choice but to kill him. If a jury totally disbelieved them, it could be ...[text shortened]... state law, but I believe it's pretty similar in virtually all systems based on Anglo-Saxon law.

I can say it looks definitely like murder to me (with the evidence so far) but I can only ask for a trial. I don't see the misunderstanding.

f a jury totally disbelieved them, it could be murder. If the jury reached the conclusion that they consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable possibility that they were killing an innocent man, they could be found guilty of manslaughter.
I disagree only here. Negligence is passive in nature, you may word it as disregard of a possibility of innocence to look passive, but that translates merely into an execution done by a policemen which is active in nature.

Besides, where could he have stuck the bombs? Up his buttocks? He had an unbuttoned denim jacket and was restrained, ffs.

Originally posted by Palynka
Because they are afraid. Because they are willing to risk killing an innocent that:

- Was wearing an open light denim jacket;
- Was restrained;
- Didn't run away.
- Vaguely resembled someone that was only a suspect.

The guy panick ...[text shortened]... der in my book, but all I'm asking for is a trial.

I understand what you say but if the guy panicked and shot or given orders to shoot it will come under recklessness or negligence. Not to long ago a guy was shot dead by police who was carrying a table leg which they thought was a shotgun, they look like getting let off if they already haven't been.

Originally posted by leestatic
I understand what you say but if the guy panicked and shot or given orders to shoot it will come under recklessness or negligence. Not to long ago a guy ws shot dead by police who was carrying a table leg which they thought was a shotgun, they got let off.

I disagree. Can you answer these questions:

Is panicking and killing someone recklessness?
Is panicking and killing someone negligence?

Is issuing an order for an execution recklessness?
Is issuing an order for an execution negligence?

Where was the "table leg" in this case? He was restrained and had a short unbuttoned denim jacket, where was the imminent threat?

Originally posted by Palynka
[b/]
I can say it looks definitely like murder to me (with the evidence so far) but I can only ask for a trial. I don't see the misunderstanding.

f a jury totally disbelieved them, it could be murder. If the jury reached the conclusion ...[text shortened]... ttocks? He had an unbuttoned denim jacket and was restrained, ffs.

Manslaughter is reckless homicide, not negligent homicide. You remain confused. Recklessness requires a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, while negligence requires a failure to perceive such a risk. The language I have used is taken from NY Penal Law 15.05.

You are also assuming that the leaked documents contain an accurate, true and complete version of the relevant facts. They might or might not, so I'd say you're jumping to conclusions.

Originally posted by Palynka
I disagree. Can you answer these questions:

Is panicking and killing someone recklessness?
Is panicking and killing someone negligence?

Is issuing an order for an execution recklessness?
Is issuing an order for an execution negligence?

Where was the "table leg" in this case? He was restrained and had a short unbuttoned denim jacket, where was the imminent threat?

In my state, three police officers were acquitted after shooting a man 26 times; they said that he had his wallet in his hand and they thought it was a gun.

You remain confused; recklessness or negligence can cover not merely the result (which you are concentrating on) but also the circumstances existing at the time. As the police would be justified in shooting to stop a suicide bomber (one presumes), the circumstances and their mental state must be ascertained. The law does not look only at results, otherwise every one who killed someone in a car accident would be a murderer. Nor does it ignore circumstances, otherwise there would be no such thing as killing in self-defense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Manslaughter is reckless homicide, not negligent homicide. You remain confused. Recklessness requires a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, while negligence requires a failure to perceive such a risk. The language I have used is taken from NY Penal Law 15.05.

You are also assuming that the leaked documents conta ...[text shortened]... sion of the relevant facts. They might or might not, so I'd say you're jumping to conclusions.

Please shove your confused snide remarks. I made no such claims and it's your second in a row.

Take it up with Wikipedia:

Manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide, is a kind of homicide wherein a person causes the death of another through negligence or recklessness (not recognized in Australia) or where a person intentionally kills another but is not liable for murder because he is able to avail himself of a defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity.

Or the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:

Involuntary manslaughter - manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner

You are also assuming that the leaked documents contain an accurate, true and complete version of the relevant facts. They might or might not, so I'd say you're jumping to conclusions.
Obviously I'm assuming. Will you agree with me if they are proven right?

Originally posted by Palynka
I disagree. Can you answer these questions:

Is panicking and killing someone recklessness?
Is panicking and killing someone negligence?

Is issuing an order for an execution recklessness?
Is issuing an order for an execution negligence?

Where was the "table leg" in this case? He was restrained and had a short unbuttoned denim jacket, where was the imminent threat?

My view probably no
The UK law yes

[i/]Originally posted by Palynka[/i/]
Please shove your confused snide remarks. I made no such claims and it's your second in a row.

Take it up with Wikipedia:

[i/]Manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide, is a kind of homicide wherein a person cau ...[text shortened]... ly I'm assuming. Will you agree with me if they are proven right?

Since I have the New York Penal Law in front of me, I don't have to rely on Wikipedia. My analysis is correct as far as I can see and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In my state, three police officers were acquitted after shooting a man 26 times; they said that he had his wallet in his hand and they thought it was a gun.

You remain confused; recklessness or negligence can cover not merely the result (which you are concentrating on) but also the circumstances existing at the time. As the police woul ...[text shortened]... does it ignore circumstances, otherwise there would be no such thing as killing in self-defense.

Again I'm the confused one, but you are the one contradicting the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law and Wikipedia.

Why did I ignore circumstances?

Are YOU ignoring he was restrained?
Are YOU ignoring he had nowhere where to conceal a significant bomb?
Are YOU ignoring that all the others had backpacks full of explosives?
Are YOU ignoring that it isn't rational to presume he had a small explosive as a suicide explosion would have little impact?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since I have the New York Penal Law in front of me, I don't have to rely on Wikipedia. My analysis is correct as far as I can see and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

LOL, what about the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law?

Originally posted by leestatic
My view probably no
The UK law yes

Yes to what? You don't even separate recklessness from negligence! Are they synonyms to you?

Originally posted by Palynka
LOL, what about the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law?

Try reading it, jerk:

or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner


I gave you what the criteria would be to determine if they acted in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, but for some reason you can't get it through your thick skull. Have someone else read my posts to you slowly and maybe you'll figure it out.

As my first post indicated, a jury decides what the facts are after seeing ALL the evidence. You and I are not in possession of all the evidence, so it would be presumptous to assume what the jury would find. Stop being such a fanatic about a case where you don't even know all the facts or would you prefer to get a lynch mob together now and skip the whole trial thingy?

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes to what? You don't even separate recklessness from negligence! Are they synonyms to you?

OK fine we shall wait and see because if you think that the police will be up for murder you are very wrong. Sorry i should have put i meant negligence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Try reading it, jerk:

or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner


I gave you what the criteria would be t ...[text shortened]... r to get a lynch mob together now and skip the whole trial thingy?

You just give me so much to work on, it's hilarious.

I've been saying all along that the shooting is NOT NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS!!!! Got it? Good.

Since you agreed with the definition(by telling me to read it):

or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner

I read that manslaughter can be through negligence - a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in a grossly negligent manner. I just said it doesn't apply.

Stop being such a fanatic about a case where you don't even know all the facts or would you prefer to get a lynch mob together now and skip the whole trial thingy
This one takes the cake. How many times did I wrote that I only wanted a trial? Did you skip it when you went through my posts diagonally?

Edit: I'll be back tomorrow hoping that the English posters are willing to defend their rights when they are trampled in this manner and when responsibilities are politically shoved under the carpet, with disregard for the law.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b/]You just give me so much to work on, it's hilarious.

I've been saying all along that the shooting is NOT NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS!!!! Got it? Good.

Since you agreed with the definition(by telling me to read it):

or from the comm ...[text shortened]... trial? Did you skip it when you went through my posts diagonally?

Since you've already decided that the case couldn't possibly be manslaughter or negligent homicide and the only possible conclusion is that it is a murder, what do you need a trial for??? I told you in my first post, jackass, what factual conclusions the jury could reach would would support a verdict for A) Murder; B) Manslaughter; C) Negligent Homicide or D) Not Guilty of any of the above.

Shooting someone in self-defense is a lawful act IF circumstances exist which make your belief that it is justified reasonable; IF your belief is reckless or negligent, it can be manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. If you can't understand that, please stop spouting off as you are only showing your extreme ignorance.