@busdriver11 Now you know why I’m so opposed to weapons.
By the way, I have no doubt that a jury would have access to all the different versions. However, my hope would be that they’re presented with the truth instead.
The legal system doesn’t actually give you the right to tell lies, although she probably will.
It is unlikely that any self defense issue will be raised in this matter.
With respect to the marijuana: It may have been a legitimate find.
If found in the deceased’s system, it will be used to corroborate the officer’s version of events & to show that her actions were reasonable. An allegation that a person high on pot might leave a door open out of carelessness and that a person high on pot would be unlikely to respond to police commands.
But the presence of pot can raise issues as to why the officer did not smell it & report it in the police statement.
Although this appears to be a murder, the police officer may get off if the jury believes that she was acting in the role of a police officer & that her actions were reasonable.
This would be a disgusting result. An innocent man was murdered in his own living room.
I do not think that there will be a plea deal based on what we as the public know at this stage. But I assure you that we do not know everything.
Based on the limited information that we have available to us at this time, but for the presence of the red carpet doormat, the officer would walk. The red carpet doormat will be too much for jurors to ignore in light of all the other “unreasonable” errors made by the officer.
Remember the glove in the OJ Simpson trial ?
P.S. Lets hope that the red carpet doormat doesn’t disappear from the evidence room.
They will have plenty of witnesses willing to testify to the fact that there was indeed a red door mat in front of his apartment door. His sister said he made a point of it to his guests, saying he was rolling out the red carpet for them.
Let the character assassination begin, really the day of his funeral they “find” weed in his apartment?
@Nrdsb4: Not relevant. They testimony must be that at the time the officer was at the deceased’s apartment door that the the red carpet floormat was there.
The officer will testify that she never saw it. And we know of no other eye witnesses.
@Publisher, I believe a jury would find it relevant.
I also doubt that the officer will testify. If she does testify and insists that she didn’t see it, the jury will have the option to believe her or not. She well may not have noticed it. I certainly have no way of knowing what she saw or didn’t see, what she processed, or what she believed at the time.
With the various versions of events that I have read, I have absolutely no idea what actually happened. It seems as if it was a terrible mistake on her part and irresponsible reaction to her misunderstanding of the situation. But I know I’m not privy to all of the information at this time.
@Nrdsb4 : Juries do not get to decide what is relevant. If the judge does not allow testimony about the red carpet doormat, then the jury will never know.
The officer will testify–otherwise there will be no defense presented & she will be convicted.
If the DA decided not to charge the officer, then no need to testify as there would be no trial.
And yet we know they do, every single day.
Obviously, if a judge doesn’t allow evidence, they cannot deliberate it.
And sorry, but none of us knows at this time whether or not the officer will plea bargain, will go to trial, or will or will not testify. We are just speculating, and some of the speculation is getting rather sketchy.
I would love the input from those more knowledgeable than I about consent to suit/tort claims against municipalities and agencies.
As a society we accord some deference to police acting within the scope of their duties, sometimes a lot of deference. Although we might take it too far in many cases, the principle is sensible from a societal point of view. Police serve an important role, and we need to be careful not to hold them to too high a bar when inevitable mistakes are made. Average people seem to have a tough time understanding this analytically, because they become so emotionally wedded to a narrative. But ask yourself how many doctors are jailed when their errors result in death? There are literally hundreds of thousands a year from medical errors of all types (not only by doctors of course).
This officer will seek to be judged on the “police” standard, the relaxed standard that we accord to police in the discharge of official duties. This would be in the criminal proceedings, and most on here seem to argue that would be a travesty (and, honestly, I agree).
However, in the civil trial that is already being prepared, the attorneys want to be paid, and so does the family, and they will be seeking damages against the deep pocketed city - i.e., the taxpayers - on the premise that she was acting as a police officer.
I suspect such a dichotomy in theory is legally possible considering that we are talking two different venues, but it strikes me from a societal point of view as hypocritical and situational: one standard used to punish an individual and a completely different one to compensate (I won’t go so far as to say reward) other individuals (the family of the victim).
Any lawyers or social theorists out there care to comment?
@Nrdsb4: Yes we do know with a reasonable degree of certainty what will occur if the case goes to trial in large part because we know of the primary evidence that will be presented by the DA.
No need to respond to the rest of your post.
I can speak to the burden of proof. It is higher in criminal cases because the possibility of “deprivation of liberty” (i.e., that the defendant will be sentenced to imprisonment) is considered to be a more serious ramification than a civil case judgment, typically money damages.
Many people, within and outside the legal community, think it is appropriate for municipalities to be subject to civil suit in cases such as this because of the deterrent effect. That is, if a city is sued because one of the police officers it employed and trained used an item of work equipment (the gun) to shoot and kill someone, perhaps the city will decide to do a better job hiring and training police officers in the future.
(BTW, the issue isn’t the venue but the civil-criminal distinction.)
@SatchelSF: Typically in these type of cases attorneys wait for the criminal trial to conclude as any resulting conviction can be used in the civil proceedings. (Also because the defendant would be allowed to postpone the actual civil trial if a criminal case is pending for the obvious reasons.)
As for getting permission to sue the city (municipality) & government agencies, that varies by jurisdiction if not specifically permitted by statute. In this case. I believe that Federal statutes would control & yes it would be a different venue in that these type of claims against police officers are normally brought in Federal court–not in state court.
The more I think about it the more I’m inclined to think that she planned and executed a premeditated murder.
I’m also betting she was drunk or had taken pills of some type, possibly prescription.
@Nrdsb4: You are confusing the legal use of the term “relevance” or “relevant” with the juries right & obligation to weigh the evidence presented. Juries deal with facts; judges deal with the issue of relevance.
So, in layman’s terms, your use & understanding of the tern “relevance” may be used, but it would never be used in a court of law as you suggest.
I thought initial reports said they’d done a drug screen.
I agree that the judge will decide what evidence comes in but can’t imagine that a judge wouldn’t find the floor mat relevant to the issue of whether the cop was reasonable in believing she was at her own apartment. And I don’t believe e there’d be a ruling that it’s prejudice outweighs its probative value. Of Course no one knows for sure what a judge will rule but based on what I’ve seen on admission I strongly believe the floor mat evidence is likely to come in.