ABC, CBS Stick to Family-Ordered Autopsy in Sacramento Police Shooting

And have a shiny object in his hand that turned out to be a cell phone but at night who knows whether it was a gun. I guess the black “civil rights leaders” don’t want the police to fire at a black unless he fires first.

I think you have the wrong case. Shoot someone who is unarmed and has not attacked you or was attempting to aasault you in any way then go to court and say “it was dark” “ there was a flash of light from his hands” and see what happens. If you are a lawyer you are dangerously incompetent. I need to look at my posts on this case but even if I predicted they would be charged this would literally be the first time I have been wrong on one of these cases and I have weighed in on dozens of them.

Until you or one of your family members are the one who is dead. Happening on a weekly basis. We have a married couple here in texas that were killed by the Houston PD. Killed in there home and there dog also. This one however is going to see justice to some degree.

While you are at it please quote the thread where i said they would be charged.

Wouldn’t the autopsy performed by Sac Co be the official one of record?

Then why is the DA refusing to prosecute the officers?

The System protects its own.

Good luck to the family’s attorneys suing the City of Sac with just the autopsy from the family.

Nope, not the wrong case.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3641506/posts?page=57#57

You were so very sure. You were dead wrong. Your rambling in that thread shows how ignorant that you are of the law. The law has never held law enforcement officers OR private citizens to an absolute certainty standard when it comes to deadly force. The standard is, and always has been, reasonableness. If someone is reaching into their waistband and charging you telling you “I’m going to shoot you.” You do not need to wait for them to produce a gun, nor do you need to see a gun before you can utilize deadly force.

You seem to think that we look at situations with 20-20 hindsight (precisely what the Supreme Court rejected in Graham v. Connor).

I already pointed out to you, that the use of deadly force only needs to be REASONABLE, and CAN be mistaken, but still justified. I pointed this out to you before. You just are so desperate to be right, that you will ignore facts and the law. (Kinda like a liberal.)

Here are just a few example from Jury Instructions.

VERBATIM from the PENNSYLVANIA Jury Instruction 9.501:

“Keep this in mind: a person is justified in using deadly force against another not only when they are in actual danger of unlawful attack but also when they mistakenly, but reasonably, believe that they are. A person is entitled to estimate the necessity for the force he or she employs under the circumstances as he or she reasonably believes them to be at the time. In the heat of conflict, a person who has been attacked ordinarily has neither time nor composure to evaluate carefully the danger and make nice judgments about exactly how much force is needed to protect himself or herself. Consider the realities of the situation faced by the defendant here when you assess whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt either that [he] [she] did not believe [he] [she] was actually in danger of death or serious bodily injury to the extent that [he] [she] needed to use such force in self-defense, or that, while [he] [she] did believe that, [his] [her] belief was unreasonable; [or]”

WASHINGTON D.C. Instruction 9.502

“B. DEADLY FORCE
If [name of defendant] actually and reasonably believes that s/he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary to repel such danger, s/he may use deadly force in self-defense. S/he may do so even though afterwards it turns out that the appearances were false because either [name of defendant] was not actually in imminent danger or deadly force was not necessary.”

From CALIFORNIA Criminal Jury Instruction 506

“When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.”

It’s pretty funny that you doubled down on this.

When you can pass the bar exam, you can come back and talk to me about the law.

K, Thx, Bye.

Well unfortunately these days it’s like the fox guarding the hen house. That being said this may not quite be over just yet. This guy was unarmed and was shot twenty times by police who were not in immediate danger.

The family has already said they are suing the City of Sac.

I guess the family can file a complaint with the DOJ.

Good luck!

This is another great example.

Under “Precisionshootist’s” standard of absolute certainty, the officers in this case would have not been justified in this shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmq2BAEZik

(The dead perp was holding a cell phone here.)

Thank you for taking the time to compose this response, and much better than I would have. Getting so sick and tired of Internet absolutist know-it-alls.

Another hands up, don’t shoot.

I’m not a lawyer and I’m not arguing the law, you are. I’m arguing right and wrong. You think because some DA decides not to bring charges this means the officers were justified? What state are you licensed to practise law and what is your specialty?

I dont think there is any similarities between the Houston shootings and this one whatsoever. None.

So what state a you licensed to practice law? Is your specialty criminal or firearms law related?

"I dont think there is any similarities between the Houston shootings and this one whatsoever. None."

I would tend to agree but the point is we have the same type people defending yet another unjustified shooting by the police.

Many here probably think I'm anti cop. I'm not at all. I have known a bunch of them and I'm pretty sure most of them don't believe a word of the BS excuse for pumping 20 rounds into an unarmed man.

This happened in California so all bets are off as they have utterly left the playing field of sanity. Furthermore since this case happened we have pretty much thrown the rule of law overboard completely. Libs have destroyed our system of justice.

Nope, not the wrong case.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3641506/posts?page=57#57

You were so very sure. You were dead wrong. Your rambling in that thread shows how ignorant that you are of the law. The law has never held law enforcement officers OR private citizens to an absolute certainty standard when it comes to deadly force. The standard is, and always has been, reasonableness. If someone is reaching into their waistband and charging you telling you “I’m going to shoot you.” You do not need to wait for them to produce a gun, nor do you need to see a gun before you can utilize deadly force.

You seem to think that we look at situations with 20-20 hindsight (precisely what the Supreme Court rejected in Graham v. Connor).

I already pointed out to you, that the use of deadly force only needs to be REASONABLE, and CAN be mistaken, but still justified. I pointed this out to you before. You just are so desperate to be right, that you will ignore facts and the law. (Kinda like a liberal.)

Here are just a few example from Jury Instructions.

VERBATIM from the PENNSYLVANIA Jury Instruction 9.501:

“Keep this in mind: a person is justified in using deadly force against another not only when they are in actual danger of unlawful attack but also when they mistakenly, but reasonably, believe that they are. A person is entitled to estimate the necessity for the force he or she employs under the circumstances as he or she reasonably believes them to be at the time. In the heat of conflict, a person who has been attacked ordinarily has neither time nor composure to evaluate carefully the danger and make nice judgments about exactly how much force is needed to protect himself or herself. Consider the realities of the situation faced by the defendant here when you assess whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt either that [he] [she] did not believe [he] [she] was actually in danger of death or serious bodily injury to the extent that [he] [she] needed to use such force in self-defense, or that, while [he] [she] did believe that, [his] [her] belief was unreasonable; [or]”

WASHINGTON D.C. Instruction 9.502

“B. DEADLY FORCE
If [name of defendant] actually and reasonably believes that s/he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary to repel such danger, s/he may use deadly force in self-defense. S/he may do so even though afterwards it turns out that the appearances were false because either [name of defendant] was not actually in imminent danger or deadly force was not necessary.”

From CALIFORNIA Criminal Jury Instruction 506

“When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.”

It’s pretty funny that you doubled down on this.

When you can pass the bar exam, you can come back and talk to me about the law.

K, Thx, Bye.

You are citing case law, jury instructions and saying that when I pass the bar exam I can come talk to you about the law clearly implying you have passed the bar exam and that’s great. I just want to know what state you are licensed to practice law and what area do you specialize? If you specialize in this type of law that would lend much credibility to your arguments for me but not so much if you are a corporate lawyer or family law for example. So again what state and what area of the law do you practice?