Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(06-27-2020, 03:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was waiting for someone other than me to bring this up.  The use of force continuum, in practice, states you use a level of force one level higher than that used against you.  There are always exceptions, but that's the general policy.  In this instance how the NIJ categorizes taser use is immaterial, as they aren't the ones prosecuting cases with wildly conflicting, and contradictory, charges.

Well it is "material" as a baseline from which police (including Atlanta police), prosecutors and the public can judge interpretation of force levels. That's why it is a good reference point for discussions of use of force.

(06-27-2020, 03:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:A police baton could kill someone, but it is generally not classified as a lethal weapon. The Atlanta DA charged police who used a taser on two college students with aggravated assault, which implies use of a lethal weapon or use of one with intent to cause grievous harm.

Incorrect, it does not imply use of deadly force, it explicitly states it.  The penal code section under which those officers are charged specifically states that the use of deadly force has been used in the commission of the offense.  There is no wiggle room in this regard.

?? Not sure what "it" refers to in your sentence--a police baton, the taser, legal classification, assault charge, an implied reference to a statute? I am going with the latter.

I don't see how your statement contradicts anything I have said. I didn't say the statute itself 'only' implies use of a lethal weapon without stating it. If a police officer tried to kill someone with a baton, then for that case the baton could be construed as a lethal weapon. We know from the "immaterial" force continuum that batons are not generally regarded as lethal weapons. Charging that officer with aggravated assault would then "imply" that the weapon in this case was used with lethal in tent.  "Wiggle room" will appear whenever something not generally classified as a lethal weapon is used as one.

(06-27-2020, 03:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:In charging police for combining tazing with violent beating, it is not clear he was classifying all tasers and uses of tasers as lethal force.

A rather ambiguous term, "violent beating".  I'll use the CA standard, because that's what I know.  The closest analogy to the charges against the college student officers would be 245(a)(1) PC, assault with a deadly weapon.  It is worth noting that even this charge is a "wobbler" in CA, meaning it can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (although it is very rare for it to be charged as a misdemeanor).  In order to align with your line of thinking the officers involved would have to had engaged in assaultive conduct, outside of the taser use, that clearly put the student's life in jeopardy.  The most common example is kicking someone in the head (I'd point out that I've dealt with people who took their shoes off before kicking someone in the head as they believed that would prevent them from being charged with ADW assault).  If not then the sole use of the taser provided the grounds for the ADW assault case.  If this is so then the case against the Brooks shooter cannot, by legal definition, be murder.  If deadly force is used against an LEO then they have the legal right, even obligation, to respond in kind.  It is this point right here where the Fulton County DA digs a hole he will not be able to extricate himself from.

Yes, the officers involved would have to have engaged in assualtive conduct outside of the taser use. That's why the DA combined the taser use with serious beating to arrive at the aggravated assault charge.  And that's why I say that in ONE case involving two college students it became a deadly weapon by implication, not due to some prior classification.

But because a taser, generally classified as non-lethal, was involved in an attempt by police to inflict grievous bodily harm in an earlier case, does not meant that now and forever a taser is a lethal weapon for this DA, any more than a fork used once in aggravated assault would ever after define forks as lethal weapons.

You appear to argue that if a taser were used in an earlier case of aggravated assault tried by the Atlanta DA, then that DA, and the court, is bound to regard it as such in a later case in which the taser, normally defined as a non-lethal weapon (e.g. in the NIJ force-contiunuum spectrum and Atlanta Police policy), is not used as a lethal weapon.  That would be very bad practice.

So I don't see "wildly contradictory" interpretations of the law so far. I don't see that the DA has adopted any "diametrically opposed positions" here, nor evidence of "emotional reasoning."*

And I don't see how politics was clearly placed above the law here, as it so often has been in the past when an officer murdered someone and walked, thanks to pressure from a police union and the collusion of prosecutor.  Someone who pushes back against that sort police culture, long accepted as "normal," is going to be accused of "politicizing" cases, especially by police unions and "law and order" politicians. At best that is one kind of "political' pushing back against another.

That's why responsible observers need to limit speculation and conclusions to what the known facts and the law allow. Once those are clear, then implications for policy and the larger context of the DA's actions, and the policeman's, can be drawn in, hopefully with equal care. Perhaps then this will sort out as "politically motivated" in some nefarious sense, but it is really too early to judge that now.

*in an earlier post, Bels commented on the tendency of police to call tasers "lethal" when used against police but "non-lethal" when used by police. There can be good reasons for such variation. The "wiggle room" is always there with non-lethal weapons.