cynyck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'd assume he'll be charged with negligent homicide, and not actual murder. Murder tends to require either premeditation, or an act of anger. Of course, if they can show that he was ****** off at the guy and in some kind of rage when he fired, then maybe he gets murder.
Negligent homicide? You really think the police officer
accidentally killed the man while intending to only stop him from running? Eight shots, I forget how many actually hit the target, two of which were kill shots? And according to a witness no prior warning?
Also, be careful with malice aforethought (which you refer to as premeditation), because I'm not aware of any time limit needed to establish malice. In other words, he didn't necessarily need to have sat down and planned it. I don't know if he will be charged with negligent homicide because I don't know enough about Criminal Law or Procedure or about South Carolina Law to know if they can charge lesser included offenses, but I certainly see nothing wrong with charging him with murder. The video is enough to support malicious intent, and therefore enough to support
charging murder.
It depends on whether we assume he fired so many shots because he was angry at the suspect and wanted to hurt him, or if he intended to just injure him to prevent him from escaping and
unintentionally fired more shots than intended. Cops do sometimes get tunnel vision when firing weapons, and it's not uncommon for them to insist they only fired "2 or 3 shots" only to discover they emptied the entire clip.
The legality gets tricky with police shootings (as I think we're all aware of by now) because of the way the various charges are described. For example, voluntary manslaughter either require malice aforethought (intent to kill), or can include a lesser version where the intent was to injure but the person died in the course of the action. The problem is that in many cases, the legal code explicitly excludes the latter case when it involves a police officer operating in the course of his duties. It's there specifically so that a cop faced with a fleeing armed bank robber or serial killer doesn't second guess shooting at the person as a means to prevent his escape out of the fear that if he should kill him, he'll be charged with a felony himself.
Similarly, involuntary manslaughter includes two broad categories. The first involves deaths that occur during the commission of an unlawful act (whether intentional or not). That's not going to apply to a police officer though, no matter how much we may disagree with his decision to fire his weapon. He was clearly in all other ways not engaged in any unlawful act. Which leaves us with the second form of involuntary manslaughter which is more generally referred to as "criminally negligent homicide/manslaughter" (specific term depends on jurisdiction). That's what I was referring to earlier. In this case, it can either be an accident, or recklessness. The latter case probably applying here. It's generally used when someone has some kind of professional duty/responsibility that holds a known potential risk to life and limb, and either fails to perform that duty, resulting in death, or does so improperly, resulting in death. While we can certainly debate his choice to use his weapon to stop the fleeing suspect, having made that choice, I think we can all agree that firing so many shots constitutes "doing so improperly, resulting in death".
Again, it's tricky with cops because their jobs actually involve them potentially having to use lethal weapons. The normal legal definitions don't apply as cleanly. In cases like this, they tend to start with the greatest charge they think might possibly apply and then go from there. I'm not sure if "murder" works (and also not sure exactly how that charge is defined in the jurisdiction in question). That usually requires intent, and I don't see anything in the video's I've seen that suggest that the officer had any intent other than to prevent a fleeing suspect from escaping. He massively overused force to do so, but that charge requires proving intent (to an entire jury), which I'm not sure can be done. Proving he acted recklessly in the performance of his duty resulting in loss of life? Almost certainly can prove that.