Fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends on where you get hit, and your bmi...and other things. Getting tazed can sometimes be the thing that makes you go full kool-aid man on the other guy....which is...not what they expect when they taze you.

People who routinely use tazers know this...which might actually be why they aim higher, in a way that probably isn;t a good use of a tazer.

[Brian37]

^^^^^^^^^ BINGO!

Far too much of police training nationwide is to assume the worst and dominate first.

---

I will tell you though, any good defense lawyer will try to argue, "If he was willing to grab at my weapon, and assault me, who is to say if he got away he wouldn't take someone hostage or harm someone else?"

Doesn't wash with me regardless, but that is what his lawyer might argue. If I were a prosecutor I'd point out the 47 minutes where they were getting along before the attempted arrest. I'd also point out other cases where people resisted and still made it to jail.

A good defense lawyer would never, EVER argue that, especially in this case, because;

1. You can’t possibly defend killing someone for some act that a person might commit at some future point, and

2. Unless his partner did a runner and went for a doughnut, the likelihood of Brooks tasering cop, then walking up to take his weapon approaches nil.

Boru

Like it or not, a defense lawyer's job is to serve the client. Their job is to create, at least in legal terminology in America "reasonable doubt", to get the jury to acquit or get a lesser charge conviction. The shooting officer was charged with 11 counts. It is no given unfortunately, that a jury will convict him of the most severe charge. The defense lawyer's job is to get him off, or get him the least time.  

Nobody is going to argue that Brown didn't end up dead. But I have heard this defense before reported in news. 

Not saying in this case this defense will work, but I wouldn't be surprised if their defense lawyers brought it up. Jury selection matters, and all they need is one MAGA fan on that jury to at a minimum create a hung jury.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A good defense lawyer would never, EVER argue that, especially in this case, because;

1. You can’t possibly defend killing someone for some act that a person might commit at some future point, and

2. Unless his partner did a runner and went for a doughnut, the likelihood of Brooks tasering cop, then walking up to take his weapon approaches nil.

Boru

Like it or not, a defense lawyer's job is to serve the client. Their job is to create, at least in legal terminology in America "reasonable doubt", to get the jury to acquit or get a lesser charge conviction. The shooting officer was charged with 11 counts. It is no given unfortunately, that a jury will convict him of the most severe charge. The defense lawyer's job is to get him off, or get him the least time.  

Nobody is going to argue that Brown didn't end up dead. But I have heard this defense before reported in news. 

Not saying in this case this defense will work, but I wouldn't be surprised if their defense lawyers brought it up. Jury selection matters, and all they need is one MAGA fan on that jury to at a minimum create a hung jury.

I’m well aware of what a defense lawyer’s job entails, so please be good enough not to lecture me on it.

I agree that a lawyer might make such a defense as you outlined, but a ‘good’ lawyer wouldn’t do so. Why? Because, at the very least, s/he’d be laughed out of court.

If such a defense had an ice lolly’s chance in Hell of working, it would allow the murder of anyone, any where, at any time.

Judge: ‘Why did your client shoot Mr. Brian James in the face with a bazooka?’

Lawyer: ‘Because he feared that Mr. James might someday drive a bus load of toddlers off a cliff.’

Judge: ‘Case dismissed.’

Boru

(‘Brooks’, not ‘Brown’.)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Depends on where you get hit, and your bmi...and other things.  Getting tazed can sometimes be the thing that makes you go full kool-aid man on the other guy....which is...not what they expect when they taze you.

People who routinely use tazers know this...which might actually be why they aim higher, in a way that probably isn;t a good use of a tazer.

I like and respect you as much as my meagre nature permits, but you’re driving me batty.

It’s ‘taser’ not ‘tazer’.

Boru

[Brian37]

Like it or not, a defense lawyer's job is to serve the client. Their job is to create, at least in legal terminology in America "reasonable doubt", to get the jury to acquit or get a lesser charge conviction. The shooting officer was charged with 11 counts. It is no given unfortunately, that a jury will convict him of the most severe charge. The defense lawyer's job is to get him off, or get him the least time.  

Nobody is going to argue that Brown didn't end up dead. But I have heard this defense before reported in news. 

Not saying in this case this defense will work, but I wouldn't be surprised if their defense lawyers brought it up. Jury selection matters, and all they need is one MAGA fan on that jury to at a minimum create a hung jury.

I’m well aware of what a defense lawyer’s job entails, so please be good enough not to lecture me on it.

I agree that a lawyer might make such a defense as you outlined, but a ‘good’ lawyer wouldn’t do so. Why? Because, at the very least, s/he’d be laughed out of court.

If such a defense had an ice lolly’s chance in Hell of working, it would allow the murder of anyone, any where, at any time.

Judge: ‘Why did your client shoot Mr. Brian James in the face with a bazooka?’

Lawyer: ‘Because he feared that Mr. James might someday drive a bus load of toddlers off a cliff.’

Judge: ‘Case dismissed.’

Boru

(‘Brooks’, not ‘Brown’.)

I disagree. I've seen lots of cases where people get off on very absurd defenses. Mob bosses come to mind. Jury selection isn't made just by the prosecutor, the defense has a say too. There is no given that either way, what a juror is going to think or say or do.  And as a defense lawyer it would be my job to sniff out someone who might side with my client. And in our current climate of favoring law first, you cannot say someone sympathetic to law enforcement won't get on that jury.

Thanks for the correction, you are right "Brooks". 

The Judge doesn't dismiss a case themselves, they may override a prosecutor pre trial, or even a grand jury. But if the client chooses a trial and the jury is hung or votes to acquit then the case is dismissed. 

There are lots of potential jurors in cases like this that will side with the cops. Just watch Fox News right now on this case. They have tons of viewers that would buy such fucked up argument. Again, like it or not, the defense lawyer is going to sniff out a potential juror they think might side with their client.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m well aware of what a defense lawyer’s job entails, so please be good enough not to lecture me on it.

I agree that a lawyer might make such a defense as you outlined, but a ‘good’ lawyer wouldn’t do so. Why? Because, at the very least, s/he’d be laughed out of court.

If such a defense had an ice lolly’s chance in Hell of working, it would allow the murder of anyone, any where, at any time.

Judge: ‘Why did your client shoot Mr. Brian James in the face with a bazooka?’

Lawyer: ‘Because he feared that Mr. James might someday drive a bus load of toddlers off a cliff.’

Judge: ‘Case dismissed.’

Boru

(‘Brooks’, not ‘Brown’.)

I disagree. I've seen lots of cases where people get off on very absurd defenses. Mob bosses come to mind. Jury selection isn't made just by the prosecutor, the defense has a say too. There is no given that either way, what a juror is going to think or say or do.  And as a defense lawyer it would be my job to sniff out someone who might side with my client. And in our current climate of favoring law first, you cannot say someone sympathetic to law enforcement won't get on that jury.

Thanks for the correction, you are right "Brooks". 

The Judge doesn't dismiss a case themselves, they may override a prosecutor pre trial, or even a grand jury. But if the client chooses a trial and the jury is hung or votes to acquit then the case is dismissed. 

There are lots of potential jurors in cases like this that will side with the cops. Just watch Fox News right now on this case. They have tons of viewers that would buy such fucked up argument. Again, like it or not, the defense lawyer is going to sniff out a potential juror they think might side with their client.

Again with the lecturing. Please don’t feel you have to explain things that everybody already knows.

Please give and example of someone getting off with an ‘absurd defense’.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

I’m well aware of what a defense lawyer’s job entails, so please be good enough not to lecture me on it.

I agree that a lawyer might make such a defense as you outlined, but a ‘good’ lawyer wouldn’t do so. Why? Because, at the very least, s/he’d be laughed out of court.

If such a defense had an ice lolly’s chance in Hell of working, it would allow the murder of anyone, any where, at any time.

Judge: ‘Why did your client shoot Mr. Brian James in the face with a bazooka?’

Lawyer: ‘Because he feared that Mr. James might someday drive a bus load of toddlers off a cliff.’

Judge: ‘Case dismissed.’

Boru

(‘Brooks’, not ‘Brown’.)

I disagree. I've seen lots of cases where people get off on very absurd defenses. Mob bosses come to mind. Jury selection isn't made just by the prosecutor, the defense has a say too. There is no given that either way, what a juror is going to think or say or do.  And as a defense lawyer it would be my job to sniff out someone who might side with my client. And in our current climate of favoring law first, you cannot say someone sympathetic to law enforcement won't get on that jury.

Thanks for the correction, you are right "Brooks". 

The Judge doesn't dismiss a case themselves, they may override a prosecutor pre trial, or even a grand jury. But if the client chooses a trial and the jury is hung or votes to acquit then the case is dismissed. 

There are lots of potential jurors in cases like this that will side with the cops. Just watch Fox News right now on this case. They have tons of viewers that would buy such fucked up argument. Again, like it or not, the defense lawyer is going to sniff out a potential juror they think might side with their client.

Close but no cigar oh rambling one...

Who Can Dismiss a Criminal Case?

The prosecuting attorney and the judge are the only ones with the power to dismiss a criminal case. Because the prosecutor filed the charge, they also have the discretion to dismiss it if they believe the facts and circumstances warrant it. Likewise, a judge can dismiss the case if they find no legal basis for the charge, if the defendant’s rights have been violated, or if the state has failed to prove its case. Judges can dismiss a case either on their own motion or on the motion of the defendant. Most charges, however, are dismissed by prosecutors, not judges.


As for who is selected or not for a jury...both sides have a certain number of people they can remove from the jury pool for pretty much any reason they want as long as the decision isn't based on race, gender, etc.

Then each side has a certain number of people it can remove from the pool for cause.

Of course, both sides are hoping to get the people who will be most likely to side with them.  Why bother otherwise with all that goes into seating a jury if you aren't looking for the people who will lean in your favor?  If they didn't have some say in trying to seat the best jury then there should just be a lottery and whoever draws the numbers of seats to fill become the jury.

[Brian37]

I disagree. I've seen lots of cases where people get off on very absurd defenses. Mob bosses come to mind. Jury selection isn't made just by the prosecutor, the defense has a say too. There is no given that either way, what a juror is going to think or say or do.  And as a defense lawyer it would be my job to sniff out someone who might side with my client. And in our current climate of favoring law first, you cannot say someone sympathetic to law enforcement won't get on that jury.

Thanks for the correction, you are right "Brooks". 

The Judge doesn't dismiss a case themselves, they may override a prosecutor pre trial, or even a grand jury. But if the client chooses a trial and the jury is hung or votes to acquit then the case is dismissed. 

There are lots of potential jurors in cases like this that will side with the cops. Just watch Fox News right now on this case. They have tons of viewers that would buy such fucked up argument. Again, like it or not, the defense lawyer is going to sniff out a potential juror they think might side with their client.

Close but no cigar oh rambling one...

Who Can Dismiss a Criminal Case?

The prosecuting attorney and the judge are the only ones with the power to dismiss a criminal case. Because the prosecutor filed the charge, they also have the discretion to dismiss it if they believe the facts and circumstances warrant it. Likewise, a judge can dismiss the case if they find no legal basis for the charge, if the defendant’s rights have been violated, or if the state has failed to prove its case. Judges can dismiss a case either on their own motion or on the motion of the defendant. Most charges, however, are dismissed by prosecutors, not judges.


As for who is selected or not for a jury...both sides have a certain number of people they can remove from the jury pool for pretty much any reason they want as long as the decision isn't based on race, gender, etc.

Then each side has a certain number of people it can remove from the pool for cause.

Of course, both sides are hoping to get the people who will be most likely to side with them.  Why bother otherwise with all that goes into seating a jury if you aren't looking for the people who will lean in your favor?  If they didn't have some say in trying to seat the best jury then there should just be a lottery and whoever draws the numbers of seats to fill become the jury.

"And judge" your words. I agree. But to get 12 jurors and alternates the prosecutor and defense lawyer and judge all have to agree on the pool. It is a selection process, not a guarantee either way. 

Pre trial motions, and discovery matter. If a judge deems improper protocol in collecting evidence, they can rule it out and if it cant make it to trial because of that ruling by the judge, the prosecutor is forced to dismiss the case. But even if all evidence is let in, jury nullification can still override both the judge and prosecutor. Juries have had a long history of leaning to defaulting to taking the word of police far more than convictions happen. 

All I am getting at is that if these officers don't plead out and go to trial, I would not put it past a MAGA "Law and order" juror making it to the pool of 12 and it either ending up in an acquittal or hung jury. 

The beating of Rodney King caught on tape is a prime example of what should not happen in a court, happening in that multiple officers got off with obvious abuse of force. 

It was obvious to the sane Rodney King, no matter what he had done, did not deserve  the abuse he got when cornered. But again, nobody can guess what a jury is going to think perfectly even after the jury pool is set. Otherwise the cops who beat him should be in prison.

It is a long term structural issue that allows the no brainer conviction to end up in acquittal or hung jury.

My bet is these two will get a lesser conviction in this case. I think the guy who didn't shoot who offered to testify against his partner has a far better shot at a more lean sentence. But there is a reason the killer cop got 11 charges. The DA is playing the odds that the most harsh charge might not stick, but the lesser charges are a better bet.

[arewethereyet]

No, the prosecutor, judge, and defense attorneys do not have to agree on the jury.

READ what I wrote.

Both the prosecution and the defense have the right to strike a certain number of jurors just because. No one has to agree on anything. Then both sides can dismiss another group based on cause. Again, they don't have to agree.

Jury selection would never be completed if both the defense and the prosecution had to agree on the strikes. They aren't looking for the same thing. The plan is to keep the people that will do your side the most good and the least damage.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Close but no cigar oh rambling one...

Who Can Dismiss a Criminal Case?

The prosecuting attorney and the judge are the only ones with the power to dismiss a criminal case. Because the prosecutor filed the charge, they also have the discretion to dismiss it if they believe the facts and circumstances warrant it. Likewise, a judge can dismiss the case if they find no legal basis for the charge, if the defendant’s rights have been violated, or if the state has failed to prove its case. Judges can dismiss a case either on their own motion or on the motion of the defendant. Most charges, however, are dismissed by prosecutors, not judges.


As for who is selected or not for a jury...both sides have a certain number of people they can remove from the jury pool for pretty much any reason they want as long as the decision isn't based on race, gender, etc.

Then each side has a certain number of people it can remove from the pool for cause.

Of course, both sides are hoping to get the people who will be most likely to side with them.  Why bother otherwise with all that goes into seating a jury if you aren't looking for the people who will lean in your favor?  If they didn't have some say in trying to seat the best jury then there should just be a lottery and whoever draws the numbers of seats to fill become the jury.

"And judge" your words. I agree. But to get 12 jurors and alternates the prosecutor and defense lawyer and judge all have to agree on the pool. It is a selection process, not a guarantee either way. 

Pre trial motions, and discovery matter. If a judge deems improper protocol in collecting evidence, they can rule it out and if it cant make it to trial because of that ruling by the judge, the prosecutor is forced to dismiss the case. But even if all evidence is let in, jury nullification can still override both the judge and prosecutor. Juries have had a long history of leaning to defaulting to taking the word of police far more than convictions happen. 

All I am getting at is that if these officers don't plead out and go to trial, I would not put it past a MAGA "Law and order" juror making it to the pool of 12 and it either ending up in an acquittal or hung jury. 

The beating of Rodney King caught on tape is a prime example of what should not happen in a court, happening in that multiple officers got off with obvious abuse of force. 

It was obvious to the sane Rodney King, no matter what he had done, did not deserve  the abuse he got when cornered. But again, nobody can guess what a jury is going to think perfectly even after the jury pool is set. Otherwise the cops who beat him should be in prison.

It is a long term structural issue that allows the no brainer conviction to end up in acquittal or hung jury.

My bet is these two will get a lesser conviction in this case. I think the guy who didn't shoot who offered to testify against his partner has a far better shot at a more lean sentence. But there is a reason the killer cop got 11 charges. The DA is playing the odds that the most harsh charge might not stick, but the lesser charges are a better bet.

You do realize that two of the cops in the King case were convicted and went to prison, correct?

Boru