I get the people would be "rlly mad someone allegedly lied" but that doesn't mean the lair himself killed a person in the act of manslaughter, such as imperfect self defense or vehicular homicide.
So says all reading, the officer commited manslaughter.
There should have been absolutely no presumption that a gun was being drawn.
Agreed. Trained officer should not shoot unless he visually saw A GUN or the crime warrents lethal force. Officer made a mistake. Easier to blame the victim than hold a boy-in-blue responcible for bad judgement.
It's a sad world we live in when someone feels the need to lie about being robbed at gunpoint in order to have a crime taken seriously. What Oscar did was absolutely wrong and he does carry some responsibility for the 19 year olds death. I'm pretty jaded about law enforcement so I can't help but think the police probably wouldn't have done much about the theft if he hadn't told the lie. Not to excuse his actions, just my thoughts.
The cops would not have hesitated to fire on this guy as soon as he reached in his waistband whether or not he was reported to have a gun. They don't assume he's pulling ice cream from his pants. Hopefully if this goes to trial a jury is competent enough to see that the caller is not guilty of manslaughter, maybe false police report at best.
Guess you don't know anything about our gun laws if you think "they let any idiot have a gun in the USA."
What does this mean? Are you referring to the idiots that aren't old enough or have felony convictions, etc.? Because in the USA, it is an individual's right to bear arms, even the idiots.
More new facts: the cops at the scene didn't even have their lights & sirens (which activate the video) on at the scene (11 pm at night) when the cop car pulled up and blocked off that alley, and McDade was shot from about 10 feet and shot from the officer's car as well as by the cop on foot.
I guess i'm confused and we'll need more information because the mental picture I'm getting doesn't make sense since the cops would be in each other's field of fire, and McDade was within 10 feet of one of the cops. Dark alley split second decision, made worse by Oscar's lies.
get the people would be "rlly mad someone allegedly lied"
no need to characterize it as "allegedly lied". Oscar lied deliberately, and admits to it:
Oscar was eating a taco at the taco stand.
A video camera was recording the 17 year old steal from Oscar's car while McDade was allegedly the lookout.
Oscar insisted on the 911 call that he was mugged with a gun in his face, then after the police failed to turn up a gun, finally admitted he wasn't mugged at all, and admitted he lied about the gun.
Those facts aren't in dispute.
-
One of the really frustrating things about the death is "why was the dead kid there in the first place?"
Did he have something to prove? Is it a cultural thing? Sure, maybe Kendrec McDade was or wasnt a regular accomplice or participant in petty crime, but WHY was he doing it at all, even ONCE? He had so much going for him, but he's a 19 years old college student, and he's hanging out with a 17 year old convicted gang banged and criminal on parole, playing lookout while his buddy steals a laptop?
I've read a figure many times that about 1 in 3 black men will go to prison in their lifetime. That's far more than will go to college. Some will blame the unfair justice system, and that is certainly a factor, but come on... 1 in 3? Yes, racism is a factor. Yes, poverty is a factor. But this is 1 in 3!! How do we end this cycle of cultural reinforcement of hero worship for gangsters and not respecting authority?
How do we get young black men who have everything going for them, from hanging out with gangsters and disrespecting the law? When 72% of black children are being raised in single parent households (no to diss every single parent household but seriously... Come on 72%? I remember when it was 50% and I thought it was disturbing) and 1 in 3 of black men around them are prisoners or ex-cons, how do we fix this?
Republicans say one thing, democrats another... Ultimately what can be done as a society to hope to break this?
I think whoever came up with the manslaughter charge deserves a pat on the back. Carrillo is going to be stuck paying a lot of attorney's fees, his bail is going to be a lot higher, and he is going to have his life turned upside down because of that charge. False reporting in CA is a misdemeanor with sentences of up to six months in jail and/or up to $1000 fine. If you add that to the additional attorney's fees and so on, that sounds like a pretty fair outcome for what Carrillo did. It is an abuse of power, but it does fit the crime.
If that wasn't the intention, maybe the intention was to bring publicity to some of the bad outcomes which can happen if you lie when reporting a crime. They have people talking about it. Maybe the next time someone calls the police, they won't lie to get a quicker response.
I don't believe what Carrillo did should get him convicted of a felony; there was no malice in what he did. If he said he was hoping McDade would get a beating, or worse, that would push it into felony territory. I don't believe that is the case.
dcartist's scumbag level game:
(1) 17 year old ******* gangster - scumbag number 2 - this kid sounds like he is going to be a scumbag for life. He was on probation (probably for doing something similar to this), and he did it again. I'll take bets that he has committed way more than those two crimes, and this isn't going to stop him.
(2) McDade - scumbag number 3 - he committed a crime, and I doubt it was his first time. His parents will be crying that their baby was good and never did anything wrong before. I don't believe that for a second.
(3) cop in car
(4) cop on foot - I'm lumping the police together with no scumbag level. They did exactly what they should have done in this case.
(5) Oscar Carrillo - scumbag number 1- he was robbed and went into ******* mode. He was so greedy that in order to get his bag back, he lied to the police. He had to know that lie could have pulled the police away from more important issues. The lie ended up causing far more problems.
How do we end this cycle of cultural reinforcement of hero worship for gangsters and not respecting authority?
...
Ultimately what can be done as a society to hope to break this?
Go back to a society where giving respect is the default, not the current "you only get respect once you earn it."
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, since quite a lot of people believe the latter. Challenging authority is considered _desirable_ by many people today, and those that don't challenge authority are "Sheep".
Hell, just look at movies. The hero is always some sort of young maverick that doesn't follow rules.
As for the topic:
Isn't it that if a crime is committed, the person is judged by whatever happens result of/during that crime? For example, if a person dies during a bank heist, even if it were a heart attack, the robbers are still going to be charged with murder for it?
Was lying to the police a crime? If yes, and the above paragraph is true, shouldn't the result of that crime also fall on Carillo's head?
What does this mean? Are you referring to the idiots that aren't old enough or have felony convictions, etc.? Because in the USA, it is an individual's right to bear arms, even the idiots.
It's more than just felons and people under age who can't buy guns in this country, despite it being a protected right under the Constitution. There is a push, supported by the NRA, to block sales of weapons to mentally disturbed people (such as the VA Tech shooter) by adding that information to the call in background check. That would take people taking certain medications as well out of the group of gun buyers, such as anti-depression meds or meds that can cause depression.
Then you have other laws - state, city, and local. In Illinois, it's damn near impossible to buy a gun legally. Same with New York City, although I hear it's a bit better in rural New York. Or the fact that Washington D.C. has banned "machine guns" following the Heller v. District of Columbia SCOTUS ruling - and in Washington D.C., anything with a bottom loading magazine is a "machine gun," including my semi-automatic 9mm Glock 17 pistol. Even my dad's pump action .30-06 rifle would be a "machine gun" because it has a five round bottom loading clip.
Gun laws in America are very complex, and even more so when you are a gun owner and begin to realize just how hard and inconveniencing it is at times. For example, I brought my Glock 17 to GP: Indianapolis (not to the site, though). I live in Pennsylvania. There are 26 states that recognize my state's CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit. Indianapolis is one. Ohio is not one. So I had to pull over in Ohio at the first rest stop, unload my pistol and put the trigger lock on it, and put it someplace in my car separate from the ammo to meet Federal guidelines for transporting a firearm. And then when I got to Indiana, I had to pull over again and take it back out, remove the trigger lock, reload it, and reholster it since I can carry it loaded in a vehicle and concealed if I have a permit, but if I lack a permit (or my permit is not legal in a state) I have to transport it under Federal guidelines.
And I won't even get into what you have to do to legally own a Class III weapon (such as an assault rifle, submachine gun, or machine gun) or accessory (typically silencers). A lot of people, especially Europeans, think US gun law is really cut and dry because of the Constitution. But in reality, there are some places where gun laws are pretty straight forward (think of Kennesaw, GA) and there are other places where gun laws make it look like the IRS tax code is a first grade picture book.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Gun laws in America are very complex, and even more so when you are a gun owner and begin to realize just how hard and inconveniencing it is at times. For example, I brought my Glock 17 to GP: Indianapolis (not to the site, though). I live in Pennsylvania. There are 26 states that recognize my state's CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit. Indianapolis is one. Ohio is not one. So I had to pull over in Ohio at the first rest stop, unload my pistol and put the trigger lock on it, and put it someplace in my car separate from the ammo to meet Federal guidelines for transporting a firearm. And then when I got to Indiana, I had to pull over again and take it back out, remove the trigger lock, reload it, and reholster it since I can carry it loaded in a vehicle and concealed if I have a permit, but if I lack a permit (or my permit is not legal in a state) I have to transport it under Federal guidelines.
And I won't even get into what you have to do to legally own a Class III weapon (such as an assault rifle, submachine gun, or machine gun) or accessory (typically silencers). A lot of people, especially Europeans, think US gun law is really cut and dry because of the Constitution. But in reality, there are some places where gun laws are pretty straight forward (think of Kennesaw, GA) and there are other places where gun laws make it look like the IRS tax code is a first grade picture book.
People from other countries are used to the fact that criminal laws apply uniformly across the whole country. In the US what is a crime in one state might be perfectly legal in another. That causes a lot of confusion for people.
The real question here is: what is wrong with the police department such that Oscar had to report a gun for them to investigate the crime? Are they failing to protect their citizens from theft? If so, I can't really blame Oscar for turning to desperate measures. Especially if he's like a college student - if that's the case, then the backpack and laptop are probably all of his worldly possessions and the perps might as well be killing him if they successfully steal those. I'd charge him with false reporting, since he has done that, but definitely not manslaughter, and I don't really even consider him to have acted wrongly. He had a defective police department and did what he had to do to save his possessions.
Also, how hard is it for police to shoot for the arm? Wouldn't that just prevent any gun violence (and if they miss, they hit the center of the body, since the arm was reaching into the waistband, so the result would be the same)?
The real question here is: what is wrong with the police department such that Oscar had to report a gun for them to investigate the crime? Are they failing to protect their citizens from theft? If so, I can't really blame Oscar for turning to desperate measures. Especially if he's like a college student - if that's the case, then the backpack and laptop are probably all of his worldly possessions and the perps might as well be killing him if they successfully steal those. I'd charge him with false reporting, since he has done that, but definitely not manslaughter, and I don't really even consider him to have acted wrongly. He had a defective police department and did what he had to do to save his possessions.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the response times of the police department. They would have investigated the crime either way - fast responses are the best for finding any sort of stolen object. The guy lied to the police about the amount of force that was used to take his laptop, turning a theft into a robbery with a deadly weapon. With somebody running around with a gun the cops respond with deadly force rather than get into a firefight. I knew a college kid who got mugged, gave over his possessions, didn't resist, and is now pushing up daisies. Blasting a mugger with a gun isn't unreasonable. In this case, if they knew they guy had just stolen it, not had a gun, they would have found him anyway, ran up, and tackled him.
Also, how hard is it for police to shoot for the arm? Wouldn't that just prevent any gun violence (and if they miss, they hit the center of the body, since the arm was reaching into the waistband, so the result would be the same)?
Real. Life. Is. Not. Television. It's ridiculously hard, you are likely (80%+ chance) to miss, and if you do, you get a bullet aimed for YOUR center of mass for your troubles. "Shoot to incapacitate" means "bring a tazer or bean bag gun", not 9mm or .45. Even if you hit them in the arm, you're able to hit an artery in the arm. What if you miss, accidentally hit a civilian you don't see? Bullet goes through a window, hits a kid? Guns are insanely ****ing dangerous. Why don't you slide into your parking space next time you parallel park? Shooting the arm is a trick shot, not something you can ever practically do.
The lie was paramount in the amount of resistance the cops used period. The suspect should have kept his hands where the cop could see, but I think the cop likely wouldn't have shot if Oscar didn't lie about an armed mugging and just explained that his bag got stolen.
Lying about the severity of the incident just to make the cops respond more quickly and take it more seriously is a bit ridiculous. As long as you have a description of those that took your bag, even if they just snatched it from your car most cops will at least investigate the area to see if the perpetrators are still around.
I'm fairly certain Carillo is guilty of criminally negligent manslaughter which is another flavor of involuntary manslaughter.
If, by reckless action or inaction, you cause someone's death, you can be held liable for criminally negligent manslaughter. Were Carillo's actions reckless? Yes they were. Did they lead to the boy's death? Yes they did. The police acted in a way fitting for the false statement Carillo gave them.
Involuntary manslaughter is a perfect charge here.
Isn't it that if a crime is committed, the person is judged by whatever happens result of/during that crime? For example, if a person dies during a bank heist, even if it were a heart attack, the robbers are still going to be charged with murder for it?
You are thinking about "felony murder", where if a person dies while you are committing a felony (even if its your partner), it's basically similar punishment to that of first degree murder. Thus, I'd say that if they have that law in California, then the 17 year old might be charged for the death of McDade.
Was lying to the police a crime? If yes, and the above paragraph is true, shouldn't the result of that crime also fall on Carillo's head?
Lying to police is a crime. But I don't think that the death can really be considered to be part of or DURING the commission of his unlawful act of calling 911.
I think the action and the death itself have to be a little more tightly connected than that. I believe they are charging involuntary manslaughter but I don't think it will stick.
Quote from penal code »
California Penal Code 192(b) PC defines "involuntary manslaughter" as an unlawful killing that takes place
during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.3
Scumbag yes.
Manslaughter? No.
What if the cops had crashed into a bus in their rush to get there, and everybody died? Would you charge Carrillo with manslaughter then? What if you later learned that the cops were drunk at the time? Would you still charge Carrillo?
Lets say that Carrillo (knowing full well that it's not true, but just trying to yank my chain) gets very serious and tells me that "That Harlem Safeway is dangerous, the black people there all carry guns, especially the ones wearing do-rags. You should take your gun". So I bring a gun to Safeway, and get into an argument with a black guy with a do-rag in the parking lot. While arguing over the parking space, the black guy reaches down to his waist. I shoot him dead. Should Carrillo be charged with manslaughter? After all, he LIED TO ME, and contributed to my "heightened alertness" that contributed to my shooting the guy.
The lie on the phone call and the shooting by the cops aren't tightly linked enough to me to be called manslaughter.
The real crime that Carrillo committed was lying to the police on 911. He abused the 911 system.
The real question here is: what is wrong with the police department such that Oscar had to report a gun for them to investigate the crime?
That is the wrong question. He had no way of knowing if the police were around the corner and would arrive in 2 minutes... or whether they would take 30 minutes.
It's far more likely that he was just eager to get his laptop back, and he lied about being mugged with a gun, because he knew that would guarantee immediate attention.
Are they failing to protect their citizens from theft? If so, I can't really blame Oscar for turning to desperate measures. Especially if he's like a college student - if that's the case, then the backpack and laptop are probably all of his worldly possessions and the perps might as well be killing him if they successfully steal those. I'd charge him with false reporting, since he has done that, but definitely not manslaughter, and I don't really even consider him to have acted wrongly. He had a defective police department and did what he had to do to save his possessions.
You have no evidence that the police department had defective response times.
(actually I'm sure that California also has idiots like Florida's George Zimmerman, from the other thread, calling the police 46 times in 15 months, for stuff like "guy driving without headlights", "garage door open", and 9 times for "suspicious black man" - if cops are responding to crap like that, how fast do you expect them to respond to a car burglary? And whose fault is it?
People complain that police response times are too slow... why? Because *******s like Zimmerman and Carrillo are not using 911 the way its supposed to be used.)
Also, how hard is it for police to shoot for the arm? Wouldn't that just prevent any gun violence (and if they miss, they hit the center of the body, since the arm was reaching into the waistband, so the result would be the same)?
Shooters are trained to hit center of mass, because in most realistic scenarios, trying for "hand shots" and "arm shots" is just gonna result in misses.
The TV, movie and comic book scenario of shooting people in the arm could only happen if the target was standing absolutely still, and you had him in a sniper scope, maybe. And even in those scenarios, they usually do head shots, not arm shots. to wound.
I'm all for charging Carillo for manslaughter, but I'm also doubtful if it will stick. Hey, Bush got away with invading Iraq because Iraq was armed with WMDs...
What if the cops had crashed into a bus in their rush to get there, and everybody died? Would you charge Carrillo with manslaughter then? What if you later learned that the cops were drunk at the time? Would you still charge Carrillo?
Lets say that Carrillo (knowing full well that it's not true, but just trying to yank my chain) gets very serious and tells me that "That Harlem Safeway is dangerous, the black people there all carry guns, especially the ones wearing do-rags. You should take your gun". So I bring a gun to Safeway, and get into an argument with a black guy with a do-rag in the parking lot. While arguing over the parking space, the black guy reaches down to his waist. I shoot him dead. Should Carrillo be charged with manslaughter? After all, he LIED TO ME, and contributed to my "heightened alertness" that contributed to my shooting the guy.
Slippery slope and impossible to answer yes to, because then you'd just come up with even more convoluted scenarios.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Why do you find the scenario convoluted? It's a yes or no question, and whether I will give other scenarios shouldn't affect your answer.
Carrillo LIES to me that there's black guys with guns at the safeway, and advises me to take my gun. I take my gun (based on his advice) and am nervous believing black people there are armed (based on his information) and end up killing somebody.
Wouldn't he about as liable as he is in this McDade case? Maybe even more liable.
Honestly... I don't think these people deserved death, but do I feel sorry for the person that got shot? Not really. If you go around stealing expensive stuff don't be surprised when bad **** happens to you. So im not really shedding any tears, metaphorically or literally, or the guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
The lie on the phone call and the shooting by the cops aren't tightly linked enough to me to be called manslaughter.
The real crime that Carrillo committed was lying to the police on 911. He abused the 911 system.
If you're saying that Carrillo committed a crime by lying to the 911 operator, and that's the reason why McDade was shot, I'm pretty sure that's sufficient legal grounds for involuntary manslaughter.
I believe that anything of the sort would also fall under criminal negligence. It's pretty hard to argue that Carrillo was thinking about the consequences when he told the 911 operator that the thieves were armed.
Personally think that this is a situation with no black or white answer. There is no obvious blame figure.
The college Student was at fault for going along with the banger.
The banger was at fault for perpetrating the crime.
And Oscar was at fault for giving law enforcement false information.
I don't blame the cops, they were just doing their job and acting based on the information they were given. The man reaches for his belt, they heard he had a gun, they reacted as the believed situation would require.
Do I think manslaughter is an appropriate charge? No. Do I think there should be consequences for the falsified information? Yes.
EDIT: Apologies if this counts as necromancy, didn't think to check the last response and assumed that since it was first page it was fair game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
BRRakdos AggroBR
Modern
URStormUR
Legacy
GInfect StompyG
EDH
RBWort, Boggart AuntieRB
BMarrow-GnawerB
My FLGS:
Stomping Grounds, Pennsylvania
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That doesn't follow when you consider what manslaughter means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
I get the people would be "rlly mad someone allegedly lied" but that doesn't mean the lair himself killed a person in the act of manslaughter, such as imperfect self defense or vehicular homicide.
So says all reading, the officer commited manslaughter.
Agreed. Trained officer should not shoot unless he visually saw A GUN or the crime warrents lethal force. Officer made a mistake. Easier to blame the victim than hold a boy-in-blue responcible for bad judgement.
My Buying Thread
What does this mean? Are you referring to the idiots that aren't old enough or have felony convictions, etc.? Because in the USA, it is an individual's right to bear arms, even the idiots.
More new facts: the cops at the scene didn't even have their lights & sirens (which activate the video) on at the scene (11 pm at night) when the cop car pulled up and blocked off that alley, and McDade was shot from about 10 feet and shot from the officer's car as well as by the cop on foot.
I guess i'm confused and we'll need more information because the mental picture I'm getting doesn't make sense since the cops would be in each other's field of fire, and McDade was within 10 feet of one of the cops. Dark alley split second decision, made worse by Oscar's lies.
no need to characterize it as "allegedly lied". Oscar lied deliberately, and admits to it:
Oscar was eating a taco at the taco stand.
A video camera was recording the 17 year old steal from Oscar's car while McDade was allegedly the lookout.
Oscar insisted on the 911 call that he was mugged with a gun in his face, then after the police failed to turn up a gun, finally admitted he wasn't mugged at all, and admitted he lied about the gun.
Those facts aren't in dispute.
-
One of the really frustrating things about the death is "why was the dead kid there in the first place?"
Did he have something to prove? Is it a cultural thing? Sure, maybe Kendrec McDade was or wasnt a regular accomplice or participant in petty crime, but WHY was he doing it at all, even ONCE? He had so much going for him, but he's a 19 years old college student, and he's hanging out with a 17 year old convicted gang banged and criminal on parole, playing lookout while his buddy steals a laptop?
I've read a figure many times that about 1 in 3 black men will go to prison in their lifetime. That's far more than will go to college. Some will blame the unfair justice system, and that is certainly a factor, but come on... 1 in 3? Yes, racism is a factor. Yes, poverty is a factor. But this is 1 in 3!! How do we end this cycle of cultural reinforcement of hero worship for gangsters and not respecting authority?
How do we get young black men who have everything going for them, from hanging out with gangsters and disrespecting the law? When 72% of black children are being raised in single parent households (no to diss every single parent household but seriously... Come on 72%? I remember when it was 50% and I thought it was disturbing) and 1 in 3 of black men around them are prisoners or ex-cons, how do we fix this?
Republicans say one thing, democrats another... Ultimately what can be done as a society to hope to break this?
If that wasn't the intention, maybe the intention was to bring publicity to some of the bad outcomes which can happen if you lie when reporting a crime. They have people talking about it. Maybe the next time someone calls the police, they won't lie to get a quicker response.
I don't believe what Carrillo did should get him convicted of a felony; there was no malice in what he did. If he said he was hoping McDade would get a beating, or worse, that would push it into felony territory. I don't believe that is the case.
dcartist's scumbag level game:
(1) 17 year old ******* gangster - scumbag number 2 - this kid sounds like he is going to be a scumbag for life. He was on probation (probably for doing something similar to this), and he did it again. I'll take bets that he has committed way more than those two crimes, and this isn't going to stop him.
(2) McDade - scumbag number 3 - he committed a crime, and I doubt it was his first time. His parents will be crying that their baby was good and never did anything wrong before. I don't believe that for a second.
(3) cop in car
(4) cop on foot - I'm lumping the police together with no scumbag level. They did exactly what they should have done in this case.
(5) Oscar Carrillo - scumbag number 1- he was robbed and went into ******* mode. He was so greedy that in order to get his bag back, he lied to the police. He had to know that lie could have pulled the police away from more important issues. The lie ended up causing far more problems.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=557874
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, since quite a lot of people believe the latter. Challenging authority is considered _desirable_ by many people today, and those that don't challenge authority are "Sheep".
Hell, just look at movies. The hero is always some sort of young maverick that doesn't follow rules.
As for the topic:
Isn't it that if a crime is committed, the person is judged by whatever happens result of/during that crime? For example, if a person dies during a bank heist, even if it were a heart attack, the robbers are still going to be charged with murder for it?
Was lying to the police a crime? If yes, and the above paragraph is true, shouldn't the result of that crime also fall on Carillo's head?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
It's more than just felons and people under age who can't buy guns in this country, despite it being a protected right under the Constitution. There is a push, supported by the NRA, to block sales of weapons to mentally disturbed people (such as the VA Tech shooter) by adding that information to the call in background check. That would take people taking certain medications as well out of the group of gun buyers, such as anti-depression meds or meds that can cause depression.
Then you have other laws - state, city, and local. In Illinois, it's damn near impossible to buy a gun legally. Same with New York City, although I hear it's a bit better in rural New York. Or the fact that Washington D.C. has banned "machine guns" following the Heller v. District of Columbia SCOTUS ruling - and in Washington D.C., anything with a bottom loading magazine is a "machine gun," including my semi-automatic 9mm Glock 17 pistol. Even my dad's pump action .30-06 rifle would be a "machine gun" because it has a five round bottom loading clip.
Gun laws in America are very complex, and even more so when you are a gun owner and begin to realize just how hard and inconveniencing it is at times. For example, I brought my Glock 17 to GP: Indianapolis (not to the site, though). I live in Pennsylvania. There are 26 states that recognize my state's CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit. Indianapolis is one. Ohio is not one. So I had to pull over in Ohio at the first rest stop, unload my pistol and put the trigger lock on it, and put it someplace in my car separate from the ammo to meet Federal guidelines for transporting a firearm. And then when I got to Indiana, I had to pull over again and take it back out, remove the trigger lock, reload it, and reholster it since I can carry it loaded in a vehicle and concealed if I have a permit, but if I lack a permit (or my permit is not legal in a state) I have to transport it under Federal guidelines.
And I won't even get into what you have to do to legally own a Class III weapon (such as an assault rifle, submachine gun, or machine gun) or accessory (typically silencers). A lot of people, especially Europeans, think US gun law is really cut and dry because of the Constitution. But in reality, there are some places where gun laws are pretty straight forward (think of Kennesaw, GA) and there are other places where gun laws make it look like the IRS tax code is a first grade picture book.
People from other countries are used to the fact that criminal laws apply uniformly across the whole country. In the US what is a crime in one state might be perfectly legal in another. That causes a lot of confusion for people.
Also, how hard is it for police to shoot for the arm? Wouldn't that just prevent any gun violence (and if they miss, they hit the center of the body, since the arm was reaching into the waistband, so the result would be the same)?
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the response times of the police department. They would have investigated the crime either way - fast responses are the best for finding any sort of stolen object. The guy lied to the police about the amount of force that was used to take his laptop, turning a theft into a robbery with a deadly weapon. With somebody running around with a gun the cops respond with deadly force rather than get into a firefight. I knew a college kid who got mugged, gave over his possessions, didn't resist, and is now pushing up daisies. Blasting a mugger with a gun isn't unreasonable. In this case, if they knew they guy had just stolen it, not had a gun, they would have found him anyway, ran up, and tackled him.
Real. Life. Is. Not. Television. It's ridiculously hard, you are likely (80%+ chance) to miss, and if you do, you get a bullet aimed for YOUR center of mass for your troubles. "Shoot to incapacitate" means "bring a tazer or bean bag gun", not 9mm or .45. Even if you hit them in the arm, you're able to hit an artery in the arm. What if you miss, accidentally hit a civilian you don't see? Bullet goes through a window, hits a kid? Guns are insanely ****ing dangerous. Why don't you slide into your parking space next time you parallel park? Shooting the arm is a trick shot, not something you can ever practically do.
Lying about the severity of the incident just to make the cops respond more quickly and take it more seriously is a bit ridiculous. As long as you have a description of those that took your bag, even if they just snatched it from your car most cops will at least investigate the area to see if the perpetrators are still around.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
If, by reckless action or inaction, you cause someone's death, you can be held liable for criminally negligent manslaughter. Were Carillo's actions reckless? Yes they were. Did they lead to the boy's death? Yes they did. The police acted in a way fitting for the false statement Carillo gave them.
Involuntary manslaughter is a perfect charge here.
Lying to police is a crime. But I don't think that the death can really be considered to be part of or DURING the commission of his unlawful act of calling 911.
I think the action and the death itself have to be a little more tightly connected than that. I believe they are charging involuntary manslaughter but I don't think it will stick.
Scumbag yes.
Manslaughter? No.
What if the cops had crashed into a bus in their rush to get there, and everybody died? Would you charge Carrillo with manslaughter then? What if you later learned that the cops were drunk at the time? Would you still charge Carrillo?
Lets say that Carrillo (knowing full well that it's not true, but just trying to yank my chain) gets very serious and tells me that "That Harlem Safeway is dangerous, the black people there all carry guns, especially the ones wearing do-rags. You should take your gun". So I bring a gun to Safeway, and get into an argument with a black guy with a do-rag in the parking lot. While arguing over the parking space, the black guy reaches down to his waist. I shoot him dead. Should Carrillo be charged with manslaughter? After all, he LIED TO ME, and contributed to my "heightened alertness" that contributed to my shooting the guy.
The lie on the phone call and the shooting by the cops aren't tightly linked enough to me to be called manslaughter.
The real crime that Carrillo committed was lying to the police on 911. He abused the 911 system.
That is the wrong question. He had no way of knowing if the police were around the corner and would arrive in 2 minutes... or whether they would take 30 minutes.
It's far more likely that he was just eager to get his laptop back, and he lied about being mugged with a gun, because he knew that would guarantee immediate attention.
You have no evidence that the police department had defective response times.
(actually I'm sure that California also has idiots like Florida's George Zimmerman, from the other thread, calling the police 46 times in 15 months, for stuff like "guy driving without headlights", "garage door open", and 9 times for "suspicious black man" - if cops are responding to crap like that, how fast do you expect them to respond to a car burglary? And whose fault is it?
People complain that police response times are too slow... why? Because *******s like Zimmerman and Carrillo are not using 911 the way its supposed to be used.)
Shooters are trained to hit center of mass, because in most realistic scenarios, trying for "hand shots" and "arm shots" is just gonna result in misses.
The TV, movie and comic book scenario of shooting people in the arm could only happen if the target was standing absolutely still, and you had him in a sniper scope, maybe. And even in those scenarios, they usually do head shots, not arm shots. to wound.
Slippery slope and impossible to answer yes to, because then you'd just come up with even more convoluted scenarios.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Carrillo LIES to me that there's black guys with guns at the safeway, and advises me to take my gun. I take my gun (based on his advice) and am nervous believing black people there are armed (based on his information) and end up killing somebody.
Wouldn't he about as liable as he is in this McDade case? Maybe even more liable.
Honestly... I don't think these people deserved death, but do I feel sorry for the person that got shot? Not really. If you go around stealing expensive stuff don't be surprised when bad **** happens to you. So im not really shedding any tears, metaphorically or literally, or the guy.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
I believe that anything of the sort would also fall under criminal negligence. It's pretty hard to argue that Carrillo was thinking about the consequences when he told the 911 operator that the thieves were armed.
The college Student was at fault for going along with the banger.
The banger was at fault for perpetrating the crime.
And Oscar was at fault for giving law enforcement false information.
I don't blame the cops, they were just doing their job and acting based on the information they were given. The man reaches for his belt, they heard he had a gun, they reacted as the believed situation would require.
Do I think manslaughter is an appropriate charge? No. Do I think there should be consequences for the falsified information? Yes.
EDIT: Apologies if this counts as necromancy, didn't think to check the last response and assumed that since it was first page it was fair game.