San Fransico gun shooting twist

[Eternal_Freedom]

I wasn't commenting on what he could be charged with. My point is that we've all been discussing his version of events as if it's Gospel truth, even though the guy is, by his own admission about being high, not a reliable witness.

[General Zod]

I wasn't commenting on what he could be charged with. My point is that we've all been discussing his version of events as if it's Gospel truth, even though the guy is, by his own admission about being high, not a reliable witness.

Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the norm in criminal cases. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt without something more substantial.

[Grumman]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt without something more substantial.

He was committing a felony with a gun in his hand, he shot someone, disposed of the gun and lied to police. Why the fuck are you giving him the benefit of the doubt?

[Flameblade]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt without something more substantial.

He was committing a felony with a gun in his hand, he shot someone, disposed of the gun and lied to police. Why the fuck are you giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" you irredeemable fuckwit.

[General Zod]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt without something more substantial.

He was committing a felony with a gun in his hand, he shot someone, disposed of the gun and lied to police. Why the fuck are you giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Murder 1 has very specific requirements. So far, there's not enough evidence to convict him on that specific charge.

In case you missed all of my other posts I'm not saying he should get off scot free, I'm saying he shouldn't be convicted on Murder 1.

[Beowulf]

I know that there was a Japanese handgun from WW2 that was notorious for it's ability to go off all on it's own...but even IT didn't go off three times in a row. I find it highly unlikely that a properly maintained modern firearm could do that.

That was because the transfer bar from the trigger to the sear was external, so it could be pressed on without the trigger being pulled. Still wasn't an easy thing to do.

[Terralthra]

Um, didn't the guy admit he was high on sleeping pills and weed? It's entirely possible that he sincerely believes his story but it just isn't true.

Even if he did that's not enough to make it first degree murder. At best you've got second degree murder going on, but more probably voluntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter in CA is a homicide committed upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. This is not that. Perhaps you mean involuntary manslaughter? "Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.

[General Zod]

The definition I remember reading included being under the influence, which would count if he were on narcotics at the time.

[Simon_Jester]

But you can't demonstrate that there was any motive, malice or forethought, so charging him with manslaughter or negligent homicide would make more sense than a flat Murder charge.

I can't- but then, I am a random private citizen. I haven't investigated the crime scene, interrogated the shooter, interrogated the witnesses, investigated how the firearm came to be there in the first place, or done any of the MANY other things the state of California can and should do to gather evidence in this case.

It may well be that with this evidence in hand, it becomes easy to prove that the shooting was done with malice, forethought, or a criminal motive.

As it stands, when ALL I know about the case is in this thread (I literally hadn't even heard of it until this thread started)... my conclusion is this.

Frankly, this sounds to me like a habitual petty criminal who finally, for whatever reason, 'graduated' to committing serious crimes... and is now trying to deny responsibility for a series of actions that could ONLY have occurred through the gross recklessness, criminality, and stupidity of this same person.

Such persons are dangerous to society, if nothing else because they will constantly harm others in attempts to enrich themselves, while denying responsibility and refusing to admit that they have (and are causing) problems for those around them.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt without something more substantial.

He was committing a felony with a gun in his hand, he shot someone, disposed of the gun and lied to police. Why the fuck are you giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" you irredeemable fuckwit.

You are misconstruing "innocent until proven guilty." It doesn't work that way.

"Innocent until proven guilty" means the state cannot punish you until it has proven you guilty.

It does not mean that random private citizens are somehow required to assume you are innocent when the evidence suggests otherwise. It does not require Grumman to suspend his common sense, or ignore the facts as he sees them.

It is for precisely this reason that we take criminal charges and media allegations of someone's involvement in a crime seriously- because the public can and will make judgments based on the facts available to it. If you publicly accuse someone of a crime in a convincing manner, people will consider the idea, some of them will believe it, and this will affect that person's reputation and future in a real way.

And I don't think that should change. It is more important that private citizens retain freedom of thought and the right to exercise critical thinking skills, than that we somehow mandate that all people automatically assume everyone accused of a crime MUST actually be innocent regardless of the evidence against them.

[General Zod]

It does not mean that random private citizens are somehow required to assume you are innocent when the evidence suggests otherwise. It does not require Grumman to suspend his common sense, or ignore the facts as he sees them.

Does nobody read the rest of my posts where I'm not advocating letting him off the hook completely? I'm only saying there's not enough for Murder 1. Not that he shouldn't be charged period.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes- and I was responding to Flameblade, not you.

[Lonestar]

Has there been any mention of the handgun's make and model? Everything I've seen has been "federal agents handgun" or "40 caliber fire arm" etc... I'm going to guess a Glock or SIG, but I would like to know for sure.

".40" and "Federal agent" practically screams Glock. Glocks got something of a reputation for their relative light trigger pulls compared to older semi-automatics and revolvers, to the point that police were accidentally shooting suspects and themselves during the LE transition from revolvers(and older semiautomatics) to Glocks in the late 80s-mid 90s.

Assuming the killer really didn't intend to kill the person, it's almost certain that his finger was on the trigger when it went off. He didn't "touch it and it went off".

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I think I read in the article it was a Sig, and the accidental discharges you speak of came from poor training procedures. An officer should never rest his finger on the trigger unless he intends to shoot, whether it's a Glock, double-action revolver with a long pull, or a 1911 with the safety on. It may be less forgiving of stupidity, but it's not the Glock's fault if a supposedly trained professional was handling it like a fucking nimrod.

[Sea Skimmer]

The issue was many police went right from revolvors with incredibly high trigger pulls, as much as 12lb force, to the Glock with 5.5, which was actually scientifically calculated (by more then just Glock) as a idealized blend between safety and avoiding poor accuracy in realistic shooting conditions, the later being a real problem in a police weapon anyway. Some police departments though ended up modifying the Glocks to have typically an 8lb pull, which was basically purely for liability reasons. Some still do this. You can get Glock mods to make the pull less though. I'm no Glock fan but this whole issue was indeed 100% bad police training.

[Lonestar]

I think I read in the article it was a Sig, and the accidental discharges you speak of came from poor training procedures. An officer should never rest his finger on the trigger unless he intends to shoot, whether it's a Glock, double-action revolver with a long pull, or a 1911 with the safety on. It may be less forgiving of stupidity, but it's not the Glock's fault if a supposedly trained professional was handling it like a fucking nimrod.

It was 100% police training, prior to the proliferation of Glocks it was actually standard police training to put your finger on the trigger when you pulled your pistol out of the holster.

Skimmer mentioned that some police departments ended up modifying Glock trigger to simulate a heavy DA revolver, the NYPD still does this, for instance. There were more than a few local LE agencies that tried to blame the gun during accidental shootings, Gaston Glock went on the stand few times talking about how cops had shitty TD and were ignoring the instruction manual as a result.