Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998
Nope. What I am saying is there was no intent to murder - as shown by the evidence. Thus, murder 1, murder 2, just don’t work.

Murder 2 doesn't require intent to kill.

As I posted in another thread: If a guy chugs a fifth of vodka and hops in his pick-em-up and drives down the road at 120 does he mean to kill that family out for a picnic? Is he innocent because it was an “accident?”

Nope. He drew the weapon because he was in the position to do so. The other officer was not.

The officers cuffing Grant were not, the others on the platform were. Either way, the taser wasn't necessary in the first place, which is the point. Grant was under control and tasing him under the circumstances would have simply been vindictive. As it turns out, shooting him was more so.

I called this when it happened. I took one look at the video tape and I knew it. I was right all along.

You did better than I did. I figured he'd get off Scott free since cops get away with murder all the time.

As it turns out this is the first time a CA cop has been convicted of a crime for an on-duty shoot in 30 years or something like that.
50 posted on 07/09/2010 3:53:56 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Filo
As it turns out this is the first time a CA cop has been convicted of a crime for an on-duty shoot in 30 years or something like that.

Where ya getting this filo? San Fran free press?

58 posted on 07/09/2010 4:03:14 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Filo

You wrote:

“Murder 2 doesn’t require intent to kill.”

Strange. Earlier, you wrote: “Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion””

So, your definition is down by 50% already.

“As I posted in another thread: If a guy chugs a fifth of vodka and hops in his pick-em-up and drives down the road at 120 does he mean to kill that family out for a picnic? Is he innocent because it was an “accident?””

Nope, but states have specific vehicular/drunk driving crimes.

“The officers cuffing Grant were not, the others on the platform were. Either way, the taser wasn’t necessary in the first place, which is the point. Grant was under control and tasing him under the circumstances would have simply been vindictive. As it turns out, shooting him was more so.”

He thought the taser was necessary.

“You did better than I did. I figured he’d get off Scott free since cops get away with murder all the time.”

This wasn’t murder.


62 posted on 07/09/2010 4:12:43 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson