|
Authored by cpeterson on Apr 21, 2014 18:27:44 GMT
Judge Tena Campbell, one of the judges we saw in IBM v. SCO, got to hold the grand opening trial of the new 10-story Federal Courthouse in Salt Lake City. Gang defendant shot at new Salt Lake City federal courthouse
I've been really looking forward to seeing inside the new building, since the construction noise and dust caused so much interference in the Microsoft-Novell trial. I'd never considered going to the courthouse hazardous duty...
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Apr 22, 2014 1:40:42 GMT
The defendant who was shot has died. I now regret having been so flippant in the earlier post.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 22, 2014 15:18:31 GMT
I just find it amazing that such behaviour can be tolerated in a - allegedly - civilised society.
Regardless of what he'd done, the marshal's response seems so completely over the top. iirc was it SIX shots? And then once the guy was down he fired a further two into the prone body? Over here, I think that would count as premeditated murder!
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Apr 22, 2014 16:06:11 GMT
I quite agree. I'm one of those second-amendmenters who won't give up my right to self-defense for anything, but even from my point of view, response to a threat must not go beyond where the threat ceases to exist. I don't care how aggressively the defendant was bleeding into the carpet - if the marshall was so uncertain of the result of his shooting, then he definitely should not be firing unnecessary shots into a room full of people.
I don't think murder would be the appropriate charge - the defendant quite possibly would have perished as a result of a single shot, which was fired in reasonable defense of another person. After that, it would be hard to claim murder of someone who had already been killed with justifiable force.
Criminal / reckless endangerment, with the mandatory 5 year extension for a crime committed with a firearm, number of excess shots times number of people in the courtroom. I'm getting really tired of law enforcement officers who receive both their weapons training, and their concern for welfare of their fellow human, from a rated-M video game.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 22, 2014 21:13:59 GMT
Actually, I think even ONE shot, given the apparent circumstances, is one shot too many and enough for a murder charge. Using a firearm against an unarmed man?
Okay, he did have a pencil, but a marshall with a truncheon should have been able to deal with that! There is absolutely no way (assuming the court/prison officials did their job properly) he could have had a gun, so using a gun against him is a pretty blatant use of "excessive force", as our legal system would describe it.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Apr 22, 2014 23:43:08 GMT
You may well be right.
The mental picture I have of a person face-on-the-floor, and my estimation of the threat level thereof, is something on which I am willing to state an opinion, though it may be wrong.
While the defendant was upright and advancing, there would be many possible different threat levels, and I don't have a committed mental picture. I wouldn't be willing to venture an opinion.
I wonder, though, about the layout of the courtroom. Per the article, Many legal systems just put the defendant in a locked cage, prejudice be damned. I think there are a number of ways that the courtroom could be laid out which would make it very difficult for a defendant, victim, or witness to freely assault any other party, and yet not overtly appear to prejudicially incarcerate or restrain that person. I guess getting elevators arranged so that judges didn't have to ride with defendants was as much as we could get for $185 million.
|
|
Tufty not logged in
Guest
|
Authored by Tufty not logged in on Apr 23, 2014 2:40:42 GMT
Isn't that what tasers are for? Oh, whoops, my bad. Tasers are for using on students who won't shut up.
Teh Squirrril
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 23, 2014 13:20:04 GMT
You mean tasers are for using on stunned victims lying on the floor, who won't obey orders to get up, don't you?
Off topic - given the fact that many of the victims of police violence seem to be mentally "strange" in one way or another, I wonder how many officers are given training in how to deal with people who don't behave normally. I'm thinking about *far* *too* *many* people over here, going (ab)normally about their - perfectly inoffensive - business, and having the misfortune to arouse police suspicion precisely because their behaviour does not fit the social norm.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Apr 23, 2014 19:24:42 GMT
Actually, I think even ONE shot, given the apparent circumstances, is one shot too many and enough for a murder charge. Using a firearm against an unarmed man? Okay, he did have a pencil, but a marshall with a truncheon should have been able to deal with that! <snip> I can easily think of situations where that "one shot" would be perfectly warranted. You're right that a trained marshal with a sturdy stick should be able to deal with that situation - as long as that marshal was BETWEEN the defendant and the witness (or at least significantly closer to the witness to allow enough time for a reaction response), and as long as there was sufficient SPACE to allow enough TIME for that kind of response. More likely, though, the marshal was off to one side or the other so as to not interfere with the legal proceedings (or sight lines of the audience and cameras...) and didn't have time to interpose himself between the two. If the witness was smaller/older/less "able" than the advancing defendant then a shooting response would be perfectly justified. My point is that you and I weren't there. I'm as upset as you about the DEGREE of the response (8 shots? Two (more?) when he was "aggressively bleeding into the carpet?" Ridiculous.), but the APPROPRIATENESS of a shooting response is much more arguable.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 24, 2014 13:17:06 GMT
swmech - bear in mind, where I am guns are illegal - for the most part even police officers are not allowed to carry them, and if a firearms officer ever pulls the trigger all hell breaks loose.
Seen from *that* viewpoint, even one shot in circumstances like those described is one shot too many. The defendant was unarmed. Use of a firearm was "excessive force". END OF. That is the ONLY interpretation that flies over here. (I didn't want to push that point really, seeing as you come from a different culture, but that is how it is over here.)
Cheers, Wol
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 24, 2014 20:50:30 GMT
Seems to me that a leg restraint that would discreetly prevent accused from going too far from where they are sitting would have gone a long way toward preventing any of this. If the jury were not in place when the accused was seated and restrained, the jury would never know unless the accused tried to leave their assigned location. With the accused not even being able to reach others, perhaps the worst they might do is throw something. Unless the accused are superman, even the most expertly thrown pencil or pen will do limited damage.
You could decide based on where the accused spends their nights, whether they get the discreet restraint or not. Those who sleep in the jail will be restrained, while those who posted bail will not be.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Apr 24, 2014 21:22:56 GMT
Cheers indeed. I understand, and if the situation had taken place in your municipality I would try to cast it in your laws (what little I know of them, sorry). Remember, though, that this didn't take place over there (Britain, I assume). From what little I've seen of traditional courtroom layouts "over there" it's substantially more difficult for a defendant to get to the witness stand. The dock is usually on the other side of the room from the stand, and there are several people between them anyway. In the courtrooms I've seen over here, though, that's not the case, and it's a quick few steps to cross the space between witness and defendant. The defendant was definitely not crossing that distance at a leisurely, non-threatening pace - the accounts I've read have used words like "rushed" and "charged" - and he certainly wasn't bringing that pen over to the witness so he could sign an autograph. The messy fact is that the defendant was attacking the witness, with the intent of causing as much damage with that pen as possible. Now, most coroners will agree that an individual stabbed with a knife and an individual stabbed with a pen will cool to room temperature at the same speed. In order to protect the witness prompt action was required, and that action wasn't the loud bang of a judge's gavel or a sharply worded "get back in your seat, young man!" from the defendant's attorney. At times, swift and violent responses are demanded, and this was one of those times. Again, I'm only arguing the appropriateness of the response (and assuming much about the scenario, I readily admit). The DEGREE of the response is something I think we both agree on, even if we don't agree on the appropriateness. The nice part here is that we're able to have civil conversations about it, rather than spouting invective at each other across the pond. All the best.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 26, 2014 1:12:11 GMT
I think it all comes down to training. There's been several recent articles about how Cops and Guards in some jurisdictions are trained to be scared of the general public. If you've been trained to believe everyone is dangerous, you are far more likely to use excessve force. Now everyone is 'dangerous' from a certain point of view. But are they a danger to your life? Not unless you hurt their kids, friends, etc. Cops in Canada get different training. We still end up with excessive force complaints, but no where near as many of them. I suspect that British cops get different training again, and there's no where near as many excessive force complaints in Britain (though it still happens). Change the training, and it should reduce the number of excessive force actions. I think. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 26, 2014 17:56:04 GMT
I can't think of that many "excessive force" incidents the police have been involved with over here. Almost always when they think firearms are involved, or when a police officer simply loses it.
The two worst cases I can think of are of course the Menendes affair, where thanks to a command-and-control mess up, an innocent guy was shot and killed by anti-terrorism officers. Or, in the middle of a demonstration, someone *walking* *away* from the demonstration was hit by a policeman (*completely* unprovoked) with a truncheon and died as a consequence.
A couple of stupid incidents, where people were mistakenly thought to be carrying firearms ... and several :-( instances of mentally handicapped people getting shot - in a couple of egregious cases people who knew the victim tried to stop the police and were restrained, only to be proved right ...
But these incidents are rare, my list probably spans ten or fifteen years, and they're all I can remember.
Cheers, Wol
|
|