zlacker

[parent] [thread] 15 comments
1. dylan6+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-08-13 01:59:21
not being a lawyer, i'm not familiar with all of the various levels of charges, but is this something that could be charged with something along the lines of negligent homicide? playing the what if game, but what if the actions of the police are deemed improper? what are the possible repercussions of the collateral damage?
replies(4): >>staple+O >>kragen+G1 >>mcpack+A2 >>fnordp+56
2. staple+O[view] [source] 2023-08-13 02:09:59
>>dylan6+(OP)
Is this satire?

Read about Eric Garner for "repercussions" of literal caught-on-camera homicide.

It took an entire country rioting to get justice for George Floyd.. there won't even be an investigation into this.

3. kragen+G1[view] [source] 2023-08-13 02:19:15
>>dylan6+(OP)
possibly you are very young or not from the usa

assuming the newspaper's allegations are correct, in the best plausible case, her family sues the city government for wrongful death, qualified immunity shields the thugs, the family wins the case and gets awarded a large amount of money that the government has to pay, which raises taxes on the people living in the area in order to pay it

there is essentially no chance that the district attorney's office will prosecute crooked cops; those crooked cops are their closest collaborators when they are doing what they do 99% of the time, which is prosecuting poor people who don't work for the government. the prosecution of derek chauvin was no more a matter of business as usual than the prosecution of julian assange

replies(1): >>dragon+D6
4. mcpack+A2[view] [source] 2023-08-13 02:29:15
>>dylan6+(OP)
Homicide by inducement of stress? That'd be a hard sell.
replies(1): >>lighte+F3
◧◩
5. lighte+F3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 02:40:37
>>mcpack+A2
Nope. I'd convict immediately for the INTENTIONAL infliction of emotional distress and the death such action caused. Misdemeanors that cause death become felonies - see DUIs.
replies(3): >>greyfa+V3 >>MBCook+z4 >>dragon+86
◧◩◪
6. greyfa+V3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 02:43:59
>>lighte+F3
Good luck making it through voir dire.
replies(1): >>lighte+U7
◧◩◪
7. MBCook+z4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 02:51:30
>>lighte+F3
They’re the police. See any of a huge number of articles. It’s nearly impossible to go after them for shooting someone in the back.

This is far more tenuous.

All this is, sadly, is now an emotional bullet point in a future civil rights suit.

8. fnordp+56[view] [source] 2023-08-13 03:10:31
>>dylan6+(OP)
IANAL:

It’s almost certain there’s no criminal case related to the death of the co-owner, even if the warrant should not have been issued. The fact is it was issued by a judge, and it doesn’t sound like the police did anything specifically outside the scope of the warrant.

If the warrant was issued illegally and there was some provable animus on behalf of the police, and/or it was done as clear harassment, a civil case is the most likely to succeed. By establishing certain facts such as these and proving the degree of distress caused, they can likely bring about a significant judgement against the city and possibly go as far as a sanction on the judge depending on how she was involved.

If it turns out it was a conspiracy between the restaurant owner and the police where they conspired to manipulate the judge into issuing an illegal warrant, the restaurant owner is the most likely to face a criminal charge.

I suspect they will also pursue a criminal or civil case on the basis of harassment of journalists doing protected work based on a false identity theft assertion to justify avoiding the legal requirement to issue a subpoena rather than a warrant. The co-owners death won’t be a material fact in that sort of case but I’m sure would be mentioned to sharpen the case.

Regardless I expect popcorn is warming all over the country among folks with an interest in law.

replies(1): >>dragon+m7
◧◩◪
9. dragon+86[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 03:10:57
>>lighte+F3
> Nope. I'd convict immediately for the INTENTIONAL infliction of emotional distress and the death such action caused. Misdemeanors that cause death become felonies - see DUIs.

Two problems: IIED is a civil tort, not a crime, misdemeanor or otherwise. Second, the rule you state usually doesn't exist; many states have abolished the misdemeanor manslaughter rule or limited iy to a narrow class of misdemeanors, so that death in the course of a misdemeanor isn’t automatically manslaughter, and in states that retain it the class of manslaughter it becomes is a often a wobbler (can itself be a misdemeanor, or a felony, not always a felony.)

◧◩
10. dragon+D6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 03:16:26
>>kragen+G1
The best plausible case involves a federal criminal investigation and charges for conspiracy against rights and/or deprivation of rights under color of law under 18 USC § 241 and/or 18 USC § 242.

(First two entries on this page) https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-secti...

replies(1): >>kragen+Gf
◧◩
11. dragon+m7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 03:26:03
>>fnordp+56
> I suspect they will also pursue a criminal or civil case on the basis of harassment of journalists doing protected work based on a false identity theft assertion to justify avoiding the legal requirement to issue a subpoena rather than a warrant. The co-owners death won’t be a material fact in that sort of case but I’m sure would be mentioned to sharpen the case.

The death would absolutely be relevant in a criminal case (e.g., under the applicable federal statute matching the described conspiracy against protected conduct, it changes the maximum penalty from ten years to death or life in prison), in a civil case, it may also be relevant, as it would likely be among the harms forming the basis for damages. (It may even be the basis of the tort, e.g., if pursued as wrongful death, where the part you describe is the “wrongful” part.)

replies(1): >>fnordp+H7
◧◩◪
12. fnordp+H7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 03:30:43
>>dragon+m7
Fair enough - I wasn’t thinking about in a sentencing context but in a materiality in the establishment of a crime, as the crime would have to somehow encompass the death which seems hard to establish without some direct action.
◧◩◪◨
13. lighte+U7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 03:33:03
>>greyfa+V3
Tell me you've never done jury duty without telling me you've never done jury duty.
◧◩◪
14. kragen+Gf[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 05:18:32
>>dragon+D6
how many people have been convicted under these sections in the last decade

i'm guessing less than 5

it's true that federal prosecutors have the freedom to prosecute local cops without themselves becoming unemployable, in a way that non-federal prosecutors do not

replies(1): >>dragon+Oi1
◧◩◪◨
15. dragon+Oi1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 15:40:14
>>kragen+Gf
> how many people have been convicted under these sections in the last decade

There was enough criminal activity under those provisions and coordinated DOJ civil litigation (which often is a product of investigations that start as criminal investigation of a specific incident, but end up discovering systemic problems in the investigated department) against local police departments under the civil provisions of civil rights law that cutting back on both was a major and public priority of the Trump Administration when it came into office in 2017.

While I can’t think of many recent notable convictions (off the top of my head, the four MPD officers convicted related to George Floyd's murder are the only ones that jump to mind), officers involved in the Breonna Taylor shooting will be going on trial under it this year (current trial date is the end of October, IIRC; the one who reached a plea deal for helping prepare the falsified warrant application pled under a more general conspiracy statute.)

But, while its not a lot of prosecutions, its enough to show that it is more than a theoretical possibility where multiple police officers deliberately act together against a Constitutional rights and leave someone dead as a consequence.

replies(1): >>kragen+Bn2
◧◩◪◨⬒
16. kragen+Bn2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-13 22:13:53
>>dragon+Oi1
i'm guessing there haven't been any non-notable convictions under these sections recently or ever
[go to top]