2008 May 8
-
I’d like to declare that I do not believe I would be on the sucky side in any of these experiments… Though I’m sure more people declare that than actually are.
-
The particular charges were obstructing the road, despite an entire truck going past just fine.
I think the National Weather Service should pay for his defense.
Deputy Ellison is an asshole.
-
If you’re a cop, you don’t even get charged. That’s why they can get away with so many beatings, shootings, and murders — even when they actually commit a crime, and it’s KNOWN, they STILL get away with it. Officer Michael Riggs should be charged!
-
Fuck our shitty religious country and its shitty religious puritan leanings. And especially fuck the republican administrations that want to censor pornography. How many fucking years has this shit been going on?
-
The best part is when he threatens the telemarketer with an obstruction of justice charge for hanging out. Hahahahahahahahahah
2008 May 8 at 3:45 PM
Psychology:
“Surely the shark will get full and stop eating that dude at some point.”
HAhahahaha!!!
Cop shoots kid:
This is one of those situations, where I think his being a cop had nothing to with it. A regular person would have gotten the same thing. What would the charges be? If the kid died, it would be manslaughter or negligent homicide. But I don’t think there IS a charge for accidental injury. At best you could argue for “assault with a deadly weapon”, but for there to be assault, there needs to be intent. Which here, clearly there wasn’t. For an average civilian this would be pursued in civil court, not criminal court. It would be upon the parents of the child to pursue the suit.
Basically, I agree with the decision. While there was certainly negligence, the was NO crime.
And he did get suspended WITHOUT pay.
2008 May 8 at 4:17 PM
With all the laws in the books, you really don’t think that falls under any statute whatsoever?
You really think that if you did the same thing, you wouldn’t be charged with with reckless endangerment, and child endangerment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_endangerment
“Child endangerment: placing a child in a potentially harmful situation, either through negligence or misconduct.” He was found to be officially negligent by the investigation! That definitely meets this definition of child endangerment.
“Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.”
I’d say that considering he was professionally trained to handle a gun in a professional manner, that he’s actually more guilty of reckless endangerment than if you or I had done the exact same thing. He’s been trained to know better.
He shouldn’t have been practicing draws with a loaded pistol in his house, safety or no safety. Alcohol and a child present just make it th at much worse.
Hell, I would not be against CPS temporarily taking custody of the child away simply because the father let a drunk man clean his gun with his 2yo in the room! They’ve taken away kids for sillier things (like that kid who was accidentally served Mike’s Hard Lemonade — that’s not nearly as bad as being shot!).
Even if a kid shoots HIMSELF, others are often charged:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6120613
I’m not sure how shooting a kid is NOT worse than leaving a loaded gun laying around, considering both were non-fatal accidents. One involves a child being stupid. The other involves a TRAINED OFFICER drinking and being stupid around a child. Much worse to me.
This is an Underly-Harsh Punishment.
Hell, this guy shot HIMSELF and was charged:
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/17826659.html
He WAS over the legal alcohol limit, and thus violated that statute — but being under the legal limit doesn’t automatically mean alcohol is not a factor either. Last I checked, alcohol was a factor in 75% of murders, and 50% of pedestrians being hit by cars. They’re not all legall drunk, and I really don’t think that should be the only variable considered– especially if you can get a DUI while under the legal limit!
This guy wasn’t even drunk and got charged for non-fatal accidental shooting of his (I assume non-infant) son. No alcohol even mentioned:
http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=38097
In short, I see no compelling reason to believe this was not an Underly-Harsh Punishment of the worst kind. “Wont somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!”
2008 May 8 at 4:32 PM
I agree about CPS.
However, I still think that this is a case that belongs in civil and not criminal court. Negligence, yes, but not criminal negligence.
Accidents happen. Yes, he was professionally trained to handle a gun. I think this is probably actually contributed to the accident. Someone without training and experience would probably be much more careful.
Most workplace accidents involving death or dismemberment don’t involve the new guy who is just learning. They’re afraid and respect the equipment. It’s usually the 30 year veteran that it happens to. Familiarity breeds complacency, and that’s just an accident waiting to happen. But its human nature.
I’ve witnessed this myself. Not someone getting injured, but people with experience and training do some real stupid shit around trains(like getting out on the track or under a car without double checking with the conductor that the brakes are fully applied), because they’ve lost the fear and become complacent. After nothing has happened for the 300th time, they think it’s not going to happen on the 301st.
2008 May 8 at 4:33 PM
He was under the legal limit. If he was actually drunk, I could see the argument for criminal negligence.
2008 May 8 at 4:35 PM
I think it fits the child endangerment definitely pretty damn exactly. I’m flabbergasted that you’re actually still arguing that there was no crime. You also ignored the links showing how civilians get charged in similar situations — which is what constitutes an Underly-Harsh Punishment: Different standards being applied to the police.
2008 May 8 at 4:58 PM
I don’t think people should get charged for accidents. At least not in criminal court. That’s why I haven’t addressed it. Accidents are accidents.
2008 May 8 at 5:05 PM
Accidents are preventable. Thus the legal concept of negligence and recklessness.
2008 May 8 at 5:12 PM
They are, but they happen. We have enough people in jail already. There’s a difference between negligence and gross negligence. I don’t think this was gross negligence.
2008 May 8 at 5:24 PM
That’s pretty much the exact attitude that lets cops get away with things civilians don’t.
2008 May 8 at 5:41 PM
We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that one.
To me, leaving a bag of meth out for a child to find would be gross negligence. Giving a loaded gun to a child would be gross negligence. Cleaning a gun(an activity which if done properly, SHOULD not cause the gun to fire) in the presence of a child is just negligence. If he were drunk at the time, I would call it gross negligence.
Drinking != drunk.
#9: How does the distinction between negligence and gross negligence have anything to do with cops at all?
2008 May 8 at 5:47 PM
You mean the distinction which you just made up and arbitrarily defined? I’ll agree that it doesn’t.
A bag of meth doesn’t kill a child — I suppose a 2yo could eat it, but that’s VERY unlikely. I’d venture to say that in an equal distribution of cleaning guns around children vs leaving bags of meth around children — that the guns cause more deaths and overall harm. I think the negligence is actually much grosser.
And I actually don’t agree that leaving a gun around is worse… Most kids know not to fuck with those. Most 2 year olds would lack the coordination to turn the safety off. It takes a retarded cop…
Drinking != drunk, but if you think a human being goes from completely normal to intoxicated at a precise BAC level, then you’ve got to be kidding me. It’s not a bit that flips from 0 to 1. Humans are analog.
2008 May 8 at 5:59 PM
Yes, it’s a distinction that I arbitrarily defined. That’s why its an OPINION, not a fact, hence the words “To me,”. Everything I’ve stated is an opinion(except for the workplace accidents).
When it comes to opinions we all arbitrarily draw a line somewhere, the difference is where the line is drawn.
BAC is not a precise line, but a line has to be drawn as to when it can be factored in. Otherwise, it could be argued (and some people do) that anyone that drives after having even ONE drink should be found guilty of DUI.
So to make it clear, in my OPINION, he should not be charged. In my opinion, he has to live with the guilt of what happened(he shot his friend’s child), and that should be punishment enough. Plus whatever civil restitution there may or may not be.
2008 May 8 at 6:03 PM
FYI, I used the meth as an example, because recently there was a news story where this is precisely what happened. And yes, CPS rightfully took the kid. I don’t remember if criminal charges were filed, but I believe they were.
2008 May 8 at 6:04 PM
Okay, I understand that it’s an opinion. However, given the fact that your opinion is NOT how the law is defined, can you at least observe how the law is not being applied evenly to the police?
Anyway — it was my undersatnding that you CAN be found guilty of DUI for 1 drink. DUI is specifically driving under the influence — NOT intoxicated. It’s DWI if you are over the limit, DUI if you are under. Do anything stupid with alcohol in your system and you may need a lawyer. While it may have a similarly defined level (0.04 for example), a small enough girl with a large enough long island ice tea should suffice for my 1 drink example…
2008 May 8 at 6:29 PM
In many cases yes, the law is not applied evenly, I’ll agree. In this case I just don’t see it, and if someone did go to jail for it(cop or not), I would call it overly-harsh punishment.
When I say drink, I’m assuming average drink, where for the average person, depending on body weight, 2-3 beers would put you over the legal limit. If he was under, let’s say he had 3 beers. I don’t know anybody who’s seriously impaired after 3 beers.
DUI/DWI: I think you’re slightly mistaken there. In Maryland for instance, DUI is driving with a BAC of.07 or higher, while DWI is driving with a BAC of .08 or higher. In VA, there is no distinction between DUI or DWI. The main distinction seems to be that a DWI is only used for alcohol impairment, while a DUI is generally used for being under the influence of drugs(legal or not). Hence yes, having a BAC lower than than the legal limit could get you a DUI, but most likely it’s not the alcohol you’re getting it for.
2008 May 8 at 6:33 PM
And one long island iced tea would probably put ANYONE over the legal limit