Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SNIP Why the heck should the cops be held to a higher standard?  Oh because they have a badge and training?  Yeah, sure.  Simple fact is those guys made a bad decision, one they and the family of the boy will have to live with, forever. Did the judge show favoritism?  Perhaps, but who cares!  Cops place their life on the line everyday for us, so we can live in a safer world.  Do they deserve a break when they mess up?  Yep!  Putting your ass on the line day in and day out sure as shit should buy you some slack when you fuck up, even when you fuck up big time. Were the roles reversed and you were some high speed, give it all police officer and one day you did a huge FUBAR, would you not expect a break?  Damn straight you would! SNIP Wow. And for the record, "No I wouldn't". Yes, you would as would any normal person.  I am not referring to this specific case here but the simple fact is that no matter how good you are or how hard you try, if you make enough decisions, one will eventually be wrong.   EVERYONE will mess up and make a bad call from time to time.  The only people that make zero mistakes are people that don't do anything. The difference is that when people in certain jobs make a mistake, people get hurt.  It is a sad reality but it is true for a number of professions. If you demand zero mistakes, all you will get is zero action because zero action is the only way to get zero mistakes.

You have absolutely no idea who I am, or how I would behave.

Do not presume to know what I would do.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: EVERYONE will mess up and make a bad call from time to time.  The only people that make zero mistakes are people that don't do anything. Bad call???? What fucking world do you live in? At the risk of rehasning this entire thread... You can't possibly believe that they intentionally killed anyone?  It was stupid...yes, not a doubt about that but people are making this out to be as if they officers intentionally killed someone.  They wrongly believed that their backdrop was clear and fired.  It was stupid...but it was not intended to kill anyone.   It is a tragic event, no doubt but it wasn't the evil plot that it is being painted to be.   That is called criminal negligence... possibly manslaughter.  It is not a "mistake."The cops don't deserve Murder 1, but they deserve some serious punishment.   You defense of these police officers (and your hypocritical condemnation of Fredrick in the other threads) would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.  It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of your role in society (both as a police officer and a civilian).   Matt Ryan Fredrick is a murderer.

He is innocent until proven guilty.  

He intentionally fired a weapon at a person who he failed to identify as a threat.

That is the subject of this debate, is it not?  He incorrectly identified the person as a threat - that does not mean he was wrong to feel threatened.

He killed a uniformed LEO serving a legal warrant.

Some reports say he was in civvies.

How you can compare him to an innocent child is beyond reason.

I don't recall comparing him to an innocent child.  I was comparing your religious defense of the thin blue line in that case to this case.

I would guess that you don't even know the legal definition of negligence or manslaughter...neither apply.

You're very sure about that, aren't you...

It was a freak accident...sad but accidental none the less.  You couldn't intentionally make that shot if you tried a thousand times...nobody could.  Wrong place, wrong time, horrible luck.

The police officer took an action he knew could have dire consequences.  Firing a weapon into the air is considered criminally negligent in most jurisdictions if someone gets hit by the bullet.  

The guys careers are over.

The baby's LIFE is over... your perspective and disregard for innocent human life is embarassing to your profession.

They have lost their livelyhood and are functionally unemployable in their entire career field.  That is huge.

Hardly huge enough.  If I'd done that, MY career would be over, and I'd probably never get hired by an airline either.  Oh by the way, I'd also be in jail - and you'd be only too happy to arrest me.

It is like losing your ability to feed your family and have a house...

Lucky for the family of the victim, they have one less mouth to feed.

Cop job skills don't exactly translate to the private sector all that well and when LEOs are fired, it ends badly for the rest of their lives.

Your job is not unique in that way.  

Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.

I'm not interested in vengance - only justice.  That you see justice as vengance when it is turned against your "kind" is very telling.
Matt

You know, we keep having threads like this, and I'm gonna run out of room on this piece of paper listing the folks that I will not respond to.

 I'm sure the 'vengeance' angle is supposed to make us feel guilty: But I've built up an immunity to that.  The issue in this thread isn't even 'Justice', as I see it.

 I'd just like the assh*les to be held accountable.  Five bucks says those policemen will cross the street, and become firemen.


 As for the hunting accident comparison: Sorry, no cigar.  The Cheney hunt didn't take place in a residential area, and his companion was there by choice.  

 [There's a lot of guys shooting 7Mag, '06, on up to some fairly heavy rifles during big game seasons.   Killing power for MILES.  You just don't lob a slug into the air with no regard for those who might be in harm's way.

 There really are no excuses.  Not even the brainfart excuse.  Not with deadly force.]

Quoted:  I'm sure the 'vengeance' angle is supposed to make us feel guilty: But I've built up an immunity to that.  The issue in this thread isn't even 'Justice', as I see it.  I'd just like the assh*les to be held accountable.  Five bucks says those policemen will cross the street, and become firemen.  As for the hunting accident comparison: Sorry, no cigar.  The Cheney hunt didn't take place in a residential area, and his companion was there by choice.    [There's a lot of guys shooting 7Mag, '06, on up to some fairly heavy rifles during big game seasons.   Killing power for MILES.  You just don't lob a slug into the air with no regard for those who might be in harm's way.  There really are no excuses.  Not even the brainfart excuse.  Not with deadly force.]

So the shooter in every hunting 'accident' - fatality or not - should be charged/convicted/sentenced to years in jail/prison?

I absolutely agree that there really are no excuses.  Unlike some here, what I'm not certain of is what's the appropriate punishment when there was no intent or malice (in any shooting 'accident').

Brian

Quoted: It's a tough call.   It was accidental death Manslaughter caused by poor judgment to discharge a weapon in a populated area for the dumb decision to kill a snake.  At the same time, how many have served jail time for Vehicular Manslaughter resulting from poor judgment for things like text messaging while driving?

You, sir, get a cookie for the text message comparison.  Hell -- Make it a cigar!

Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make 'right'.    

Quoted: So the shooter in every hunting 'accident' - fatality or not - should be charged/convicted/sentenced to years in jail/prison? I absolutely agree that there really are no excuses.  Unlike some here, what I'm not certain of is what's the appropriate punishment when there was no intent or malice (in any shooting 'accident'). Brian

What do you mean, "or not"?  You're still with the Apples and Oranges bullsh!t.

In a fatality?  Only if you want to see a decline in the 'accident' rate.  

[edit:  I'm going to bed.  I get a headache when I'm browbeaten with crap logic.]

Quoted: Quoted: So the shooter in every hunting 'accident' - fatality or not - should be charged/convicted/sentenced to years in jail/prison? I absolutely agree that there really are no excuses.  Unlike some here, what I'm not certain of is what's the appropriate punishment when there was no intent or malice (in any shooting 'accident'). Brian What do you mean, "or not"?  You're still with the Apples and Oranges bullsh!t. In a fatality?  Only if you want to see a decline in the 'accident' rate.   [edit:  I'm going to bed.  I get a headache when I'm browbeaten with crap logic.]

'or not' meant an injury - as in the guy Cheney shot didn't die but spent time in the hospital due to being shot.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   I'm not interested in vengance - only justice.  That you see justice as vengance when it is turned against your "kind" is very telling. Matt

Superbly said. Thank you.

Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.

You're right, that child won't be back.

So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE.

Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)?

Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance.

But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.  

Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide.

That's terrible.hat
He needs to be fired and held accountable to something.

Quoted: So the shooter in every hunting 'accident' - fatality or not - should be charged/convicted/sentenced to years in jail/prison? I absolutely agree that there really are no excuses.  Unlike some here, what I'm not certain of is what's the appropriate punishment when there was no intent or malice (in any shooting 'accident'). Brian

If two regular folks (or hunters) were jackassing around near a residential area, shot a couple center fire cartridges into the air (at a squirrel in a tree, whatever) and the result was the death of a stranger, jail time would be appropriate IMO.

Obviously, the length of sentence depends on the jurisdiction and the court's past record of sentencing in negligent homicide cases.  I know that's a cop out, but how else can one be "fair."

This case is so fact specific its difficult to come up with suitable analogies.  For people familiar with firearms, the actions of the officers were so mind numbingly reckless, its baffling.

Badge makes no difference.

Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   You're right, that child won't be back. So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE. Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)? Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance. But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.   Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide.

Oddly enough, as fate would have it I was previously a probation officer and have written a mountain of letters about the progress of criminals in their search for a better way of life.

That has nothing to do with this event.  

You want your pound of flesh and you didn't get it.  You didn't get it because cooler heads were able to seperate emotion from fact.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   You're right, that child won't be back. So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE. Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)? Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance. But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.   Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide. Oddly enough, as fate would have it I was previously a probation officer and have written a mountain of letters about the progress of criminals in their search for a better way of life. That has nothing to do with this event.   You want your pound of flesh and you didn't get it.  You didn't get it because cooler heads were able to separate emotion from fact.

I am aware that officers write letters all the time for Defendants.

Ok, so in the case of a negligent homicide of a stranger, you must have written a pre-sentence report arguing for a deferred judgement with no jail?

Deflections aside, that was the question.

I cannot imagine that recommendation in my jurisdiction.  So if that's a regular recommendation for the negligent homicide of a stranger, I would be very surprised.

I'm asking for reality and logical consistency.

Also, emotion, what are you talking about?  

Please point out where I haven't kept a cool head, asked for a pound of flesh, or became emotional.  

I'll help:

I have said that I believe that some jail time would be appropriate but that such a sentence should be measured by other negligent homicides in that jurisdiction.

Wow, pretty emotional.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   You're right, that child won't be back. So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE. Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)? Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance. But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.   Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide. Oddly enough, as fate would have it I was previously a probation officer and have written a mountain of letters about the progress of criminals in their search for a better way of life. That has nothing to do with this event.   You want your pound of flesh and you didn't get it.  You didn't get it because cooler heads were able to seperate emotion from fact.

Loyalty - even misplaced loyalty, as yours is - is an emotion.  It is a learned behavior that can be modified by our choices that result from external stimulus.  You are demonstrating the emotion of loyalty.  Emotions are only legitimate points of argument if they are backed up by facts (that justify said emotions).  We have asked the officers endure the same justice any of us would face.  You seem to think (erronously) that any of us would escape jail time for a similar offense.  If you truly believe that, I suggest you review case law regarding such instances.  No, I will not google them for you.
Matt

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   You're right, that child won't be back. So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE. Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)? Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance. But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.   Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide. Oddly enough, as fate would have it I was previously a probation officer and have written a mountain of letters about the progress of criminals in their search for a better way of life. That has nothing to do with this event.   You want your pound of flesh and you didn't get it.  You didn't get it because cooler heads were able to seperate emotion from fact.   Loyalty - even misplaced loyalty, as yours is - is an emotion.  It is a learned behavior that can be modified by our choices that result from external stimulus.  You are demonstrating the emotion of loyalty.  Emotions are only legitimate points of argument if they are backed up by facts (that justify said emotions).  We have asked the officers endure the same justice any of us would face.  You seem to think (erronously) that any of us would escape jail time for a similar offense.  If you truly believe that, I suggest you review case law regarding such instances.  No, I will not google them for you. Matt

I have seen people that killed other human beings get less punishment than this and no, they were not LEOs.

As an example, I had a case where a teenage female intentionally ran someone off the road in a fit of road rage and killed them.  The girl was on prescription antidepressants, had anger management issues, etc.  In reality, she was a spoiled brat...but guess what she got?  No time...several years of probation/house arrest with a mando counseling every week and to stay on her meds.

Was that the TBL

The fact of the matter is that as tragic as it was, it was a one in a billion accident.  As sad as it is, it would be wrong to seek vengance for the sake of vengance in this case.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   You're right, that child won't be back. So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE. Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)? Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance. But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.   Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide. Oddly enough, as fate would have it I was previously a probation officer and have written a mountain of letters about the progress of criminals in their search for a better way of life. That has nothing to do with this event.   You want your pound of flesh and you didn't get it.  You didn't get it because cooler heads were able to seperate emotion from fact.   Loyalty - even misplaced loyalty, as yours is - is an emotion.  It is a learned behavior that can be modified by our choices that result from external stimulus.  You are demonstrating the emotion of loyalty.  Emotions are only legitimate points of argument if they are backed up by facts (that justify said emotions).  We have asked the officers endure the same justice any of us would face.  You seem to think (erronously) that any of us would escape jail time for a similar offense.  If you truly believe that, I suggest you review case law regarding such instances.  No, I will not google them for you. Matt I have seen people that killed other human beings get less punishment than this and no, they were not LEOs. As an example, I had a case where a teenage female intentionally ran someone off the road in a fit of road rage and killed them.  The girl was on prescription antidepressants, had anger management issues, etc.  In reality, she was a spoiled brat...but guess what she got?  No time...several years of probation/house arrest with a mando counseling every week and to stay on her meds. Was that the TBL The fact of the matter is that as tragic as it was, it was a one in a billion accident.  As sad as it is, it would be wrong to seek vengance for the sake of vengance in this case.

It was a preventable accident brought on through criminal negligence by men who should know better.  You and I both know it.  I do not EVER advocate revenge.  If those officers served jail time, it would be justice.  Vengance would be the a bullet to the brainpan.
Matt

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vengance will not bring anyone back and it will only make a bad situation worse.   You're right, that child won't be back. So, your premise clearly must be that rehabilitation of criminals is the answer rather than VENGENCE. Not a fan of retributive justice (i.e. vengeance)? Somehow, I doubt that's true except in this one instance. But, you could prove me wrong by posting excerpts of all the letters of recommendation you've written for (non-CI, not an informant) defendants urging the court to sentence them to a work program or educational program rather than prison; with no confinement; oh and a deferred.   Also, to keep this above board, please limit your answers to cases where the defendant was involved in a negligent homicide. Oddly enough, as fate would have it I was previously a probation officer and have written a mountain of letters about the progress of criminals in their search for a better way of life. That has nothing to do with this event.   You want your pound of flesh and you didn't get it.  You didn't get it because cooler heads were able to seperate emotion from fact.   Loyalty - even misplaced loyalty, as yours is - is an emotion.  It is a learned behavior that can be modified by our choices that result from external stimulus.  You are demonstrating the emotion of loyalty.  Emotions are only legitimate points of argument if they are backed up by facts (that justify said emotions).  We have asked the officers endure the same justice any of us would face.  You seem to think (erronously) that any of us would escape jail time for a similar offense.  If you truly believe that, I suggest you review case law regarding such instances.  No, I will not google them for you. Matt I have seen people that killed other human beings get less punishment than this and no, they were not LEOs. As an example, I had a case where a teenage female intentionally ran someone off the road in a fit of road rage and killed them.  The girl was on prescription antidepressants, had anger management issues, etc.  In reality, she was a spoiled brat...but guess what she got?  No time...several years of probation/house arrest with a mando counseling every week and to stay on her meds. Was that the TBL The fact of the matter is that as tragic as it was, it was a one in a billion accident.  As sad as it is, it would be wrong to seek vengance for the sake of vengance in this case.

I fail to see what you recommended in the case of the vehicular negligent homicide, though you appear to indicate that you were displeased with the sentence.

The defendant served time on house arrest, which is more than what the officers received.  I also see nothing about a deferred judgement.  Again, that would be more of a punishment, not less.

In sum, that was not an example of less punishment.

So, in this instance, your real argument is that this was an accident, pure and simple, with no criminal negligence by the officers.  Is that right?

Also, who is seeking vengence for the sake of vengence?  Heck, what does that even mean?