Did he think the driver would simply coast to a stop or something? I mean, he had to know the effect of a taser.

He might have. Or maybe he thought the kid would freeze up and then fall off the ATV on the ground. If there is any doubt, they can't convict him of any homicidal intent. The prosecutor must demonstrate intent for the second-degree murder charge.

No one here has explained why that cop didn't have a duty to stop a kid from speeding dangerously on city streets with an off-road ATV at 35mph, posing a traffic hazard to vehicles and a hazard to people, pets and property.

What if he blew through an intersection on his ATV at 35mph followed by the cop car and, as a result, some van load of kindergartners swerved into the path of a bus of nuns and hit them head-on, both vehicles going 45mph and with massive injuries and multiple deaths with dead and dying tykes and nuns all over the street? Do you really want to let teenagers violate city traffic laws egregiously and endanger themselves and the general public? Is that what you want the cops to do? Are they just supposed to follow such lawbreakers around, sirens blaring, to try to keep the public safe as the yout' blows through one intersection after the next on busy streets and interchanges and posing a hazard to people and pets?

What if he had run down a toddler that stepped out into his path and the trooper had been just following him but not doing anything to try to stop him? Would people be calling for the trooper's head because he followed the lawbreaker and didn't stop him before he ran down that 85yo woman who happened to step onto the sidewalk in front of her home and got run down by this near-infant on an ATV?

It seems to me that you and GI have been hanging out smoking pot with that smelly Deckard kid, badmouthing your country and hatin' da cops.

Most states have a grand jury or pre-lim process, to prohibit over or excessive charging. If this officers conduct doesn’t fit the statute, as it was written by elected officials, then the DA risks losing any justice with an acquittal.

Maybe nolu will show up and research the particular statutes and precedents for us. It elevates the discussion and we don't actually have to do all that work for ourselves.     : )

It seems to me that you and GI have been hanging out smoking pot with that smelly Deckard kid

I have zero sympathy for the ATV driver. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

But I can't see a way the cop gets out of this one. The irony is, if the cops swerved in front of the ATV driver to slow him down or stop him and he crashed (ie., same net result), we probably wouldn't even read about it.

whitey

Police tase idiots running, all the time. If they fall and strike their melon, because they are dysfunctional urban asshole potato’s... then chalk that up to Natural Selection. THIS case isn’t anything like that. A reasonable person would assume that tasing an open vehicle operated driver (motorcycle or ATV), at 35 mph on PAVEMENT, could cause death or serious physical injury. The only time this particular tasing would be justified is if the vehicle occupant was endangering people’s lives (like running pedestrians over at 35) or a perceived danger to the officer.

What about when police use spike strips to stop a car speeding at 90mph or so? Doesn't that also include a lot of risk of a crash with injury/maiming/death? Or shooting out their tires? Or that little nudge maneuver from a pursuit vehicle to try to make a fleeing car spin out? People get injured or killed all the time as a result of these lawful police actions and those are all examples of lawful uses of deadly force in the course of enforcing traffic safety laws against an egregious driver.

I don't think you can say that this trooper went much further than those normal accepted police tactics in this particular situation.

You also don't know yet just how dangerously this kid was riding the ATV. Had he already blown through blind corners where someone on foot or in a vehicle might easily have gotten hit? Did he dodge and blast by someone just getting out of their car, almost hitting them? Maybe his driving provided ample evidence to the trooper that the yout' posed a clear and present danger to the public in the course of the pursuit.

Maybe his driving provided ample evidence to the trooper that the yout' posed a clear and present danger to the public in the course of the pursuit.

Drama queen.

I have zero sympathy for the ATV driver. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

When push comes to shove, most of the public thinks that the police can do most anything to you if you run from the cops. Especially a long high-speed chase.

If this wasn't some Precious Child, we would not be hearing about it at all.

Does it really mean that much that he was in his mid-teens instead of being 21 or older?

And, keep in mind, this was a taser. It is a weapon designed for non-lethal results. You cannot expect to go to trial by treating a taser use as though he had pulled out a machine-gun and blasted the kid off his ATV. These are not the same things. A taser is, by definition, intended and designed to be non-lethal.

Drama queen.

Shove it, Ethel.

He was going a pedestrian 35 MPH.

Fast enough to get him killed when he stopped suddenly. A helmet would have helped, but, well, the Damons of this world don't bees wearin' one.

You also don't know yet just how dangerously this kid was riding the ATV.

I read that he was doing wheelies.

Get a life, whitey.

I read that he was doing wheelies.

Ah. In which case, he might have killed or paralyzed himself if the ATV had popped over, pinning him underneath.

Cops also have a duty to protect the irresponsible from themselves, including the use of force to do so.

You may not like this line of argument but the trooper's lawyer will muster exactly the same arguments to a jury.

It's a long way from the easy "a kid shouldn't die on an ATV joyride" to "that trooper is a murderer and should be in prison". A very long way.

If this wasn't some Precious Child, we would not be hearing about it at all.

I'm sure he was "turning his life around", was "planning on going to college", and was "an aspiring nuclear physicist" (with a minor in basketball).

He was "well-loved by everyone who knew him", "would never do anything bad" and "didn't deserve to die".

(Is that enough to get his family a $1 million settlement? If not, I got more.)

Oh no, wheelies!
Get a life, whitey.

Well ... maybe more. Maybe driving with no hands and squealing tires. And revving his engine.

I'm sure he was "turning his life around", was "planning on going to college", and was "an aspiring nuclear physicist" (with a minor in basketball).

If they couldn't convict the Trayvon killer, I don't see how you think they'll convict this trooper.

These troopers lead a charmed life, as cops go.

There was that 20-year-old Florida woman who fled police and was tasered. She fell and hit her head on the concrete.

Yeah,but there is a lot of difference in being tazed when running away by foot,and being tazed while riding an ATV. How can you NOT be in a serious wreck if you are tazed while operating an open vehicle traveling 25 MPH or faster,causing you to lose control over it and fall off?

“No sympathy at all for bullshit. Mother fucker wanna be grown, ya' act grown, ya' gotta fucking deal with it."

During the hiring process, potatoes should be weeded out. Any fucker that talks like that, with any color skin... is a potato.

Juries just don't convict state troopers of any major crime. They don't want to.

Most can't afford to. They work too closely with the state troopers,and the state troopers know too much about the backroom deals they have cut and the cases where they covered up evidence,etc,etc,etc.

Maybe for any case that could swing either way, yes, the benefit of the doubt is AND SHOULD BE given to the officer.

I agree,and the same goes for EVERY other defendant. If the state can't prove their case,the defendant should go free.

You may be right. But I'd like to know what the cop thought would happen after he tased someone on an ATV going 35 mph.

I seriously doubt he even thought about it. He obviously didn't care if he did.

I think it was just a case of "I am a cop and I CAN,so I WILL!",and the thinking never got any deeper than that.

AND.....,the truth is if the kid hadn't died,the cop would have gotten away with it because there would have been an agreement to drop any charges against the kid if his family would give a written guarantee they wouldn't sue. Unfortunately for everyone involved,the kid did die,though.

Most states have a grand jury or pre-lim process, to prohibit over or excessive charging.

Don't they all?

[tooconservative] 1) State statutes vary considerably but this sounds like manslaughter at most.

2) And I'd bet against a jury convicting him.

[GrandIsland] 1) Agreed. A reckless act that results in death... Manslaughter. I doubt he intended to kill the urban trash. This officer was just too stupid to realize tazing him, at 35mph would kill.

It may qualify for depraved-heart murder under Michigan law. As second-degree murder, that would carry up to life in prison.

Intent to cause harm is not a required element.

§ 14.4 Depraved-Heart Murder

Extremely negligent conduct, which creates what a reasonable man would realize to be not only an unjustifiable but also a very hight degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury to another or to others—though unaccompanied by any intent to kill or do serious bodily injury—and which actually causes the death of another, may constitute murder. There is dispute as to whether, in addition to creating this great risk, the defendant himself must subjectively be aware of the great risk which his conduct creates, in order to be guilty of murder.

Criminal Law, 4th Ed., Wayne R. LaFave, Thomson-West 2003, pg. 739

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5ey12fhgbf5yrs2d31q4anlc))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-317

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.317 Second degree murder; penalty.

Sec. 317.

Second degree murder—All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the second degree, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or any term of years, in the discretion of the court trying the same.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.317 Former Law: See section 2 of Ch. 153 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5712; CL 1871, § 7511; How., § 9076; CL 1897, § 11471; CL 1915, § 15193; and CL 1929, § 16709.

https://cases.justia.com/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/20070913_C268085_31_268085.OPN.PDF

Michigan v Booth, MI Ct App, Jackson Cir 268085 (13 Sep 2007)

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED
September 13, 2007

No. 268085
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 05-007008-FC

Plaintiff-Appellee,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
v.
JASON RANDALL BOOTH,
Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of two counts of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, two counts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and causing death, MCL 257.625(4), and driving while his license was suspended, MCL 257.904. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for each murder and OUIL conviction, and of time served for the license-suspended conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to show malice for purposes of his murder convictions. We disagree.

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could persuade a rational trier of fact that all the elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Tombs, 472 Mich 446, 459; 697 NW2d 494 (2005); People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).

“To prove the elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor must present evidence of (1) a death, (2) caused by an act of the defendant, (3) with malice, and (4) without justification or excuse.” People v Lange, 251 Mich App 247, 250; 650 NW2d 691 (2002). In People v Werner, 254 Mich App 528; 659 NW2d 688 (2002), this Court discussed malice as follows:

Malice is defined as the intent to kill, the intent to cause great bodily harm, or the intent to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm. Malice may be

-1-

inferred from evidence that the defendant intentionally set in motion a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. The prosecution is not required to prove that the defendant actually intended to harm or kill. Instead, the prosecution must prove the intent to do an act that is in obvious disregard of life-endangering consequences. [Id. at 531 (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).]

Murder with such a disregard for the likelihood that the defendant's actions could cause death or great bodily harm is commonly referred to as depraved-heart murder. See People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 464; 579 NW2d 868 (1998). Driving while intoxicated and causing death is not per se depraved-heart murder; the prosecution must show "'a level of misconduct that goes beyond that of drunk driving.'" Werner, supra at 533, quoting Goecke, supra at 469. That is not to say, however, that evidence of intoxication is irrelevant, because the decision to drive while intoxicated may be evidence that a defendant disregarded the likelihood that his or her actions could cause death or great bodily harm. See Werner, supra at 531 (noting that the evidence showed "that defendant drove after becoming seriously intoxicated" while deciding whether the defendant acted with the requisite malice for depraved-heart murder).

In this case, the jury heard evidence from which it could infer that defendant's conduct was far more egregious than mere drunk driving causing death, and that he acted with malice in that he willfully disregarded the natural tendency of his actions to cause death or great bodily harm. Id. at 531, 533. More specifically, the jury heard evidence that defendant had blood-alcohol level of .16¹ about an hour and a half after the crash, which would have been higher at the time of the crash, and that defendant's earlier ingestion of cocaine and marijuana may have further impaired his ability to drive. The jury also heard evidence that defendant was angry because he had argued with a patron in one bar and then told a doorman at another that he was angry because he had been previously banned from that bar by its owners. After the doorman told him to find a way home, a witness saw him drive away, squealing his tires, driving over a curb, and going the wrong way down a one-way alley. The witness also said that defendant appeared to be upset when he drove off. The evidence additionally showed that defendant then drove at least fifty-six miles per hour in a speed zone whose limit was less than half that speed and made no attempt to stop or even slow down before driving through an intersection with a flashing red light.

Defendant emphasizes that there was also evidence that he told a nurse he had fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the prosecution is not required to disprove every arguable theory of innocence, but is only required to prove its own theory beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Richardson, 139 Mich App 622, 626; 362 NW2d 853 (1984). Further, the jury was free to disbelieve defendant's protestations that he fell asleep at the wheel. See People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 637; 576 NW2d 129 (1998) ("It is the province of the jury to determine questions of fact and assess the credibility of witnesses.").

¹ Twice the proscribed "0.08 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine." MCL 257.625Q)(b).

-2-

Defendant also argues that there was no showing that his earlier use of cocaine and marijuana contributed to the crash. However, sufficient evidence was presented for the jury to convict defendant notwithstanding his earlier use of cocaine and marijuana. Moreover, a toxicology and pharmacology expert opined that defendant had ingested marijuana twelve to fifteen hours, or sooner, before his blood was drawn less than two hours after the crash. The expert also opined that defendant had ingested cocaine "between six hours or so" before the blood draw, that the cocaine metabolites could break down even after the blood was drawn, and that use of alcohol could prolong the effects of cocaine. She additionally indicated that even a small amount of cocaine could have a significant impact on a person's judgment and abilities even eight hours later. Defendant's argument is without merit.

Defendant next argues, citing Goecke, supra at 465-466, that the prosecution was obliged to show that defendant had failed to heed warning signs that his driving would cause death or great bodily harm, such as narrow misses, in order to establish depraved-heart murder premised on driving while intoxicated. Although Goecke analyzed cases that involved such warning signs, the warning signs are properly characterized as evidence of depraved-heart murder rather than as elements, or otherwise necessary evidence, of it. Goecke, supra at 464-465, left open whether the malice necessary for depraved-heart murder would be tested objectively or subjectively, reasoning that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to depraved-heart murder, and that "[o]nly a highly unusual case would require a determination of the issue whether the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk created by his conduct."

Defendant's argument that warning signs were necessary to establish the requisite intent is essentially a claim that this Court should apply a subjective test. But this case does not require that distinction, because the prosecutor submitted sufficient evidence under either an objective or subjective standard. See id. at 465­466. A reasonable person would objectively understand that defendant's disregard for traffic rules, excessive speed, extreme intoxication, and driving away while angry create the likelihood that death or great bodily harm would result. Further, the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, also showed that defendant was in fact subjectively aware of the risk he created. Defendant knew that he had been drinking, had used marijuana, having admitted as much to police and a nurse, and that he had been advised before the crash to find a way home. Driving over a curb while exiting a parking lot should also have dispelled any misperception that defendant was capable of driving safely, particularly at excessive speeds.

For these reasons, we conclude that the jury had a reasonable evidentiary basis for concluding that defendant satisfied the malice element for second-degree murder.

[...]

§ 14.4 Depraved-Heart Murder

I would be shocked if they convicted a trooper on this.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how the trial goes.

But thanks for digging out that statute. You can never make assumptions about the laws of any state. They can vary quite a bit.

the defendant himself must subjectively be aware of the great risk which his conduct creates, in order to be guilty of murder.

Good luck proving that.

lol

[nc quoting LaFave, Criminal Law, 4th Ed.] "the defendant himself must subjectively be aware of the great risk which his conduct creates, in order to be guilty of murder."

[GrandIsland] Good luck proving that.

Gaining a conviction on the trooper may very difficult.

Proving objective or subjective awareness of the risk the trooper's behavior created should not be very difficult, legally.

I quoted, and you requoted, from a general legal text which is generally applicable, but which is not specific to Michigan.

I also quoted a Michigan court opinion setting forth the standard to be met in Michigan to provide a showing of objective or subjective intent.

Defendant's argument that warning signs were necessary to establish the requisite intent is essentially a claim that this Court should apply a subjective test. But this case does not require that distinction, because the prosecutor submitted sufficient evidence under either an objective or subjective standard. See id. at 465­466. A reasonable person would objectively understand that defendant's disregard for traffic rules, excessive speed, extreme intoxication, and driving away while angry create the likelihood that death or great bodily harm would result. Further, the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, also showed that defendant was in fact subjectively aware of the risk he created. Defendant knew that he had been drinking, had used marijuana, having admitted as much to police and a nurse, and that he had been advised before the crash to find a way home. Driving over a curb while exiting a parking lot should also have dispelled any misperception that defendant was capable of driving safely, particularly at excessive speeds.

For these reasons, we conclude that the jury had a reasonable evidentiary basis for concluding that defendant satisfied the malice element for second-degree murder.

An objective unsderstanding would be decided using the reasonable man standard.

Denying a subjective understanding would require denying the trooper had sufficient intellect to be a trooper and be qualified to use a taser. In general, there will be law enforcement training records contradicting any claimed lack of knowledge of what the taser will do.

A more reasoned approach might argue that the use of the taser was justified because the yute posed a clear and present danger to the public and there was no less dangerous, yet effective, way to stop him.

A more reasoned approach might argue that the use of the taser was justified because the yute posed a clear and present danger to the public and there was no less dangerous, yet effective, way to stop him.

This is what I expect from the defense. As part of that, they will try to dirty up the yout's record as much as possible. And it does seems likely that a kid who flees cops in an extended chase on an ATV at 35mph in an urban area is going to have some kind of record for other behavior. Should we expect this to be the yout's very first time getting in trouble ever? Probably not a "first encounter" with the law or with authority figures.

"It may qualify for depraved-heart murder under Michigan law."

AKA:

is going to have some kind of record for other behavior.

I sat on a jury and was told that the defendant's past could not be disclosed nor considered when determining guilt or innocence for the crime in question. The defendant's criminal past is considered for sentencing, however.

That said, I don't understand how the testimony from the other female accusers was admissible in the Cosby case.

The murder charge is. I agree. But the jury can still convict on the involuntary manslaughter charge.

I agree, Murder is overcharged. This was reckless manslaughter, and should be tried and convicted and punished as such.

That said, I don't understand how the testimony from the other female accusers was admissible in the Cosby case.

Because the judge said it would be so.

We live in a government of men. Certain men. In black robes. A kritarchy.

Depraved-Heart Murder

In my opinion, that's more of a citizen-on-citizen crime. What comes to mind are people who throw rocks from overpasses onto the traffic below.

But cops get involved in many law enforcement scenarios that could injure or kill citizens -- a high speed chase, for example. A shoot-out with a gunman in a crowd. A hostage situation. A suicidal person standing on a ledge.

In all those examples, we can sit back in our armchairs weeks later and criticize the cop's response -- perhaps even charge the cop with murder? He should have done this. He should have done that.

Because the judge said it would be so.

I would appeal the shit out of that decision by the judge. Even if each and every one of those women had won a case against Cosby (which they did not), their testimony (to illustrate a pattern) would be inadmissible.

Now, I understand the logic of the prosection -- the current case fits Cosby's profile.

But the law says each case stands on it's own. Past behavior does mean anything when it comes to the current case.

That said, I don't understand how the testimony from the other female accusers was admissible in the Cosby case.

I think they can establish a pervasive pattern of criminal conduct.

So if you have a record of burglaries and get tried for another one, they can and do bring up your record of burglaries because those reflect the habits of a career criminal.

What they can't bring up in your burglary trial is that you got arrested for pot smoking, for domestic violence, for assault, etc. Because those are entirely unrelated criminal acts.

If you couldn't bring up past criminal behavior, all those three-strikes laws would be moot. So of course you can bring up the record of similar criminal convictions.

I'm speaking generally here; as always, each state has its own variations and so do the feds.

This was reckless manslaughter

Well, yes and no. If you or I were driving along some road on a sunny Sunday afternoon and fired a taser at some kid on an ATV just for the hell of it, yeah, we'd be charged with that.

But a State Trooper doing the same thing while enforcing the law and in an attempt to prevent injury? Maybe not.

I think they can establish a pervasive pattern of criminal conduct.

These women were testifying about Cosby's alleged behavior that was never proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. It's gossip. Why should we believed it ever happened to them?

Second, if I toss a coin 25 times and it comes up heads every time, what are the odds it will come up heads the 26th time? Yeah. 50-50. Past behavior is no indicator of current behavior. If it was, we can avoid the time and expense of trials and go straight to conviction.

The three-strikes law deals with convictions. Past behavior is considered during sentencing, not conviction.

These women were testifying about Cosby's alleged behavior that was never proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. It's gossip. Why should we believed it ever happened to them?

Most of those accusations were the result of civil trials so they would not be admitted.

However, if Cosby's conviction for this case stands on appeal, then I think it could be cited in other future criminal trials as part of a pattern of criminal conduct by Cosby over the course of years.

Second, if I toss a coin 25 times and it comes up heads every time, what are the odds it will come up heads the 26th time? Yeah. 50-50.

You're only proved that you don't understand statistics properly. Apples and oranges.

The three-strikes law deals with convictions. Past behavior is considered during sentencing, not conviction.

Sure but both prosecutors and defense attorneys will try to drag in past behavior on the sly to muddy up a victim (like a rape victim who wears racy clothes or an assault victim with a history of fighting) or to keep a jury from finding out about other unrelated charges or convictions. And a judge tries to keep the trial balanced so someone doesn't get convicted on the basis of crimes he may have committed years ago.

So, let's say you put O.J. Simpson on trial again for some crime. His lawyer would never allow the prosecutor to start talking about his murder trial (he won) or his civil trial (he lost). Or his involvement with extensive satellite TV piracy. Or even his conviction in Nevada when trying to recover his old memorabilia from some crook. A jury might just convict him based on his other crimes or even the perception that he got away with murdering his wife and her lover. Some people still think that's why he served that much time in Nevada prison, not the actual charges he was convicted of.

Most of those accusations were the result of civil trials so they would not be admitted.

A civil cuit has a lower standard of proof.

Moot point. As far as I can tell, all of those civil suits are pending. One was settled out of court. Meaning, from a legal standpoint, his record is as clean as yours and mine.

If a woman wants to accuse Cosby, let her come forward separately in court where discovery and cross-examination can take place. It's supreme bullshit that she should be allowed to testify at another trial when there is zero proof that anything she says is true.

"Witnesses said the trooper pulled close to the ATV and fired his Taser during the chase, and they believe it might have caused Grimes to crash. Witnesses said the teen was trying to get onto the sidewalk when he hit the pickup truck."

Reasonable doubt?

But the law says each case stands on it's own.

Unless, of course, there is an exception to the general rule. And the applicability of exceptions is within the discretion of the judge.

Well, yes and no. If you or I were driving along some road on a sunny Sunday afternoon and fired a taser at some kid on an ATV just for the hell of it, yeah, we'd be charged with that.

But a State Trooper doing the same thing while enforcing the law and in an attempt to prevent injury? Maybe not.

Should be. State troopers should not be empowered to cause certain injury to prevent a very theoretical injury. 35 mph on a 25 mph street simply is not that fast or that dangerous. There's no indication that it was a crowded street.

Truth is, the troopers were pissed that the guy did not stop, so they stopped him, in a manner that anybody could foresee would cause serious injury or death. And it did.

Our society has indeed empowered them to do things like this, but as the incidents pile up, our society may decide that it is time to start taking some of that power back. And the place where that power is most logically taken back (given political realities) is the courts.

From another article:

"Witnesses said the trooper pulled close to the ATV and fired his Taser during the chase, and they believe it might have caused Grimes to crash. Witnesses said the teen was trying to get onto the sidewalk when he hit the pickup truck."

Reasonable doubt?

Up to the jury in Detroit.

Should be. State troopers should not be empowered to cause certain injury to prevent a very theoretical injury. 35 mph on a 25 mph street simply is not that fast or that dangerous. There's no indication that it was a crowded street.

I can see why you don't practice criminal law. You'd be a disaster.

Maybe you can cite some evidence that:

1. The officer did fire his taser, something only alleged by some cop-hating witnesses.
2. The Holy Child on the ATV has electrode penetration injuries and electrical tissue damage to demonstrate that he did receive a taser shock.

You're making a self-righteous argument assuming facts not in evidence, at least not yet.

The witnesses and the accident scene evidence indicates that the yout' had slowed down to try to get on the sidewalk and that he flipped his ATV by trying to corner too fast, throwing him into the back of the pickup and his ATV striking another part of the pickup tailgate and ending up flipped over in the middle of the street.

Maybe young Mr. Potatohead didn't even get hit with the taser at all and just rolled his ATV trying to take the corner too fast. At this point, we don't know.

But even the witnesses (Detroit residents of a high-crime cop-hating neighborhood) say that the yout' had slowed down and was not going 35mph at the time of the crash.

And was Mr. Potatohead even wearing a helmet? The only photo we have of him (so far) on the ATV is this one:

He may be dead only because he tried to corner too fast and wasn't wearing a helmet.

There's a lot of dumbass counties and towns that are relaxing laws against running ATVs on public roads. There are now more people getting killed riding ATVs on paved roads than off-road. And the ATV manufacturers specifically oppose allowing ATVs to be ridden on public roads, saying they are inherently unsafe and unlicensed and not equipped or designed for public roads.

The real murderers of this kid are his own parents, giving a young idiot such a dangerous vehicle and then failing to supervise him in any way.

All I can say is "God bless Saint Darwin", the patron saint of dumbass helmetless riders.

35 mph on a 25 mph street simply is not that fast or that dangerous.

a) It was illegal for him to drive his ATV on the street.
b) He was doing wheelies and driving recklessly.
c) 35 may not be fast in a car, but it is on an ATV.
d) 35 is dangerous. It killed him, didn't it?

There's no indication that it was a crowded street.

All it took was one parked truck, didn't it?

I can see why you don't practice criminal law.

I can see why your political activism is unsuccessful.

35 mph on a 25 mph street simply is not that fast or that dangerous. a) It was illegal for him to drive his ATV on the street. b) He was doing wheelies and driving recklessly. c) 35 may not be fast in a car, but it is on an ATV. d) 35 is dangerous. It killed him, didn't it?

Not dangerous enough to kill him in order to keep him from getting injured.

Up to the jury in Detroit.

Do we have to wait or can we express our opinion before the verdict?