06-27-2020, 01:46 PM
(06-27-2020, 12:39 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
You misunderstand. It is not material in this specific instance as Howard has already gone on record, by dint of his charges, that a taser is a deadly weapon. So in this specific instance no other baseline is needed.
Quote:?? 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.
"It" is a deadly weapon. I used the example of kicking someone in the head as using a deadly weapon. This does not mean you are constantly walking around on two deadly weapons. I know you think you're painting me into a corner here, but you are not, as I'll explain in a bit.
Quote: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.
The underlined and enlarged is a perfect example of the smarmy condescension that you and others engage in. If you are actually serious about having a civil discourse in this forum, which you constantly claim to be, then I'd highly suggest you cease such sophomoric sniping. Thank you in advance.
Quote: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.
It does not imply, it directly states. I get where you're going with this, but I already addressed it in the post you just replied to. A taser, unlike a baton, a kitchen knife or your feet, has literally one use. While there could be incredibly egregious use of the taser, such as shooting the dart in someone's eye or drive stunning them until the battery is dry this is not what occurred here. The use of the taser was egregious almost wholly because it was completely unwarranted. The taser should never have been deployed but it was not used outside of its normal function. Hence Howard is painting himself into a corner here.
Quote: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.
Except I don't see anything in that video that would constitute deadly force by any metric I have ever seen in my twenty years doing this job. What happened was repulsive and wholly unnecessary but it was not deadly force. The taser should never have been deployed, but, as stated above, when deployed it was used as it normally is used. The felony assault charges are wholly the result of how repugnant and unwarranted the attacks were, hence my ongoing insistence that Howard is filing criminal charges with his heart (and as a politician) and not his head.
Quote: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.
Incorrect, they were not charged with using the taser to inflict grievous bodily harm, they were charged with using the taser as a deadly weapon. There is an enormous difference between GBI assault and ADW. Why I don't see ADW in this instance is explained above.
Quote: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.
No, it can be used as a deadly weapon when used outside the scope of its intended use. As described above, that did not happen in this instance. I feel I have to reiterate this, as someone will surely try and twist this otherwise, but the assault on those college kids was repugnant and unwarranted. The use of the taser was wholly unnecessary, but the taser itself was not used in an unusual way. It just never should have been used at all. Where Howard really paints himself into a corner is his public statement that, "A taser is not a deadly weapon", I'd be very interested to see if Fred will answer his own question from the previous page as the answer should prove enlightening.
Quote: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."*
I know you don't and I know why you don't. I just think you're 100% incorrect for the reasons I've stated.
Quote: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.
"So often"? You'll have to get me a list of these "so often" cases. Again, you have an agenda in this regard, so you view events through that prism. I can surely be accused of the same, but I strongly believe, based on long experience in this exact field, that Howard is doing this for the reasons I have described. As I also pointed out this is not without precedent. Was Mosby pushing back when she filed charges in the Freddy Grey death? Based on your criteria one would assume the answer is yes. Well, she screwed the pooch so bad all the officers walked completely and she was essentially called out publicly by the bench officer in the trials. She withdrew the rest of the charges because she blew it and she knew it. I don't know a single DA or bench officer, and I know many, who doesn't look at her actions with a high degree of legal distaste. I highly suspect Howard will face a similar reckoning. Unless any of these officer opt for a jury trial, in which case they're all doomed.
Quote: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.
Except we have a lot of the facts. In the college student assault we have a video clearly showing what occurred. The same in the Brooks shooting. I d find it odd, though, that you have never felt the need to make this point to Fred, who has consistently stated the officer in the Brooks shooting definitively "knew" that the taser had been discharged twice. Selective enforcement?
Quote:*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.
To an extent, and certainly based on the weapon in question, but I've addressed this point in detail above. Again, Fred could answer why using a taser on a police officer, who would then be incapacitated, could be considered deadly force. It may have to do with what every officer carries on their person (most often two), that the vast majority of citizens do not.
