Problem: no death penalty in Michigan.

And I'd bet against a jury convicting him.

Bessner has a history of using excessive force and has been reprimanded before for using his Taser inappropriately, including using the device on handcuffed suspects.

I think murder is pushing it,but the quote above is enough for the kids family to hit the cash jackpot. ANY cop that uses a Taser on handcuffed suspects should not only be fired on the spot,but arrested for torture,misuse of official authority (or whatever the correct wording is),assault,and any other charge they can think of. Any PD that DOESN'T do that is not doing itself or it's other cops any favors.

There are some people who would take that as a license to go hunting cops from that PD,and if I were on the jury,I'd have a hard time voting to convict them.

State statutes vary considerably but this sounds like manslaughter at most.

And I'd bet against a jury convicting him.

I agree with the manslaughter charge,but disagree about not convicting him. I would have no trouble at all voting to convict,and I doubt anyone else that had ever ridden a ATV or motorcycle would have any trouble convicting,either.

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

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

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.

2) Not sure about your trial by jury comment. Are you suggesting that he deserves a trial by his PEERS, that means 12 random cops? lol

The story has a happy ending. This cop will never cop again... and this was the last time this urban potato will ever break the law.

I agree with the manslaughter charge,but disagree about not convicting him. I would have no trouble at all voting to convict,and I doubt anyone else that had ever ridden a ATV or motorcycle would have any trouble convicting,either.

The legal question is motive. Do you really believe that he intended to deliberately cause the yout's death? Seems unlikely he could have preplanned it (first-degree murder) or that he had lethal intent in the heat of the moment (second-degree murder).

So manslaughter (or the state's equivalent) would seem the only charge you would have a chance to convict him of.

And the public is always very reluctant to convict police. They just are.

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.

Hard to imagine more than a manslaughter trial.

And his lawyer will argue -- probably successfully -- that he had a duty to put a stop to this wild riding of an ATV on city streets where an elderly person or child or pet could easily get run down or where he could cause a fatal car accident or cause injury/death to police trying to stop him from breaking the laws everyone has to live by, etc.

Like I said, I would not bet on a conviction even for manslaughter.

And if acquitted, I wouldn't bet his police career is over. Lots of cops have faced far more daunting charges and got away with it and continued as cops.

Then there is the likelihood of a show trial, which is quite common. They charge and stage a cop trial but the prosecutor goes easy or just throws the case on technical grounds. Uh, oops? The community has vented and, its fury spent, the cop gets off and resumes his career, either on the same force or he has to move to some little burg and run for sheriff or whatnot.

Hopefully, we'll have some coverage of this trial and find out the final outcome. You know what a sucker I am for the ol' followup.

The legal question is motive. Do you really believe that he intended to deliberately cause the yout's death? Seems unlikely he could have preplanned it (first-degree murder) or that he had lethal intent in the heat of the moment (second-degree murder).

So manslaughter (or the state's equivalent) would seem the only charge you would have a chance to convict him of.

And the public is always very reluctant to convict police. They just are.

Yup.

One thing is for certain,and that is that retard needs to be put in a position where he NEVER again wears a uniform and a badge,not even as a mall security guard.

And if acquitted, I wouldn't bet his police career is over. Lots of cops have faced far more daunting charges and got away with it and continued as cops.

Yup. Without an actual felony conviction,there is nothing that prevents them from getting hired by another PD that knows nothing about them.

I simply can't recall any state trooper in any state ever getting convicted of a murder charge. They stay out of a lot of messy situations involving domestic/drugs/drinking and have no greater hazard than other cops to getting shot by an unknown felon in a routine traffic stop where the felon's identity is not yet known but the felon knows there is a bench warrant out on him that will send him back to prison.

State cops just keep their hands cleaner overall. And prosecutors protect them even more than they do other cops. And the public just loves to believe that their state troopers are cut well above city cops or deputies.

DuckDuckGo: search for 'state policeman convicted of'

You might get a trooper rarely for an assault charge or false arrest but not much else.

Over the years, G.I. has probably envied the relatively soft and cushy life of a state trooper, how much more the public defers to them, etc. It's a kind of double standard of respect. To the general public, state troopers are just "above" local deputies and town cops and even most sheriffs except for very strong sheriffs in states where they still have real power, like Arpaio was in AZ.

"State statutes vary considerably but this sounds like manslaughter at most."

The prosecutor's got it covered. Bessner is charged with second-degree murder and two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Hell, why not throw in three counts of assault, too.

I doubt he intended to kill the urban trash.

There was that 20-year-old Florida woman who fled police and was tasered. She fell and hit her head on the concrete. She ended up brain dead and in a vegetative state.

"The verdict of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on his taser use: Justified."

"FHP policy allows troopers to use Tasers when it “reasonably appears necessary to control non-compliant individuals who have escalated their level of resistance from passive physical resistance to active physical resistance (i.e.: bracing, tensing, pushing, or pulling).”

"The policy goes on to say it must be apparent the detained person has the ability to physically threaten others or is trying to flee or escape."

The prosecutor's got it covered. Bessner is charged with second-degree murder and two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Completely overcharging the incident.

It makes me think the prosecutor intends to throw the case deliberately after he has appeased the mob by staging a trial. All he has to do is fail to disclose some piece of evidence in a timely fashion and an appeals court will throw out the conviction. Then he runs to the cameras and says they can't hope to get a conviction after a mistrial (which is statistically true).

This trooper won't serve a day in jail. Even if convicted, the system will let him off from jail time.

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

"Completely overcharging the incident."

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

But the jury can still convict on the involuntary manslaughter charge.

Sure, they could.

But they won't.

There are a lot of incentives for at least one juror to decide not to convict. And that is all he needs.

And he won't need top legal talent for an acquittal either.

There are a wide range of forces that will concentrate their influence as a case like this goes to trial and their influence will certainly be reflected in any verdict.

If I were you, I wouldn't bet on a conviction. I'd bet against if I were a betting man.

And the public is always very reluctant to convict police. They just are.

Maybe for any case that could swing either way, yes, the benefit of the doubt is AND SHOULD BE given to the officer. This case isn’t that. This was an outright non-justified use of deadly force.

This idiot isn’t dumb enough in this day an age to roll the dice for a trial. He’ll take a plea for a VERY light sentence that will cause a potato riot.

Sure, they could.
But they won't.

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

Or, was the ATV driver clear of any obstruction, but swerved into the parked car unexpectedly after being tased? Was that foreseeable?

There was that 20-year-old Florida woman who fled police and was tasered. She fell and hit her head on the concrete. She ended up brain dead and in a vegetative state.

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.

Completely overcharging the incident.

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.

A lot of times, they will over charge if the officer can articulate the unlawful conduct fits the crime on the accusatory instrument (commonly known as stretching a charge)... with the idea that if it gets by the grand jury, the defendant is more apt to PLEA to an acceptable lower and more appropriate charge.

This idiot isn’t dumb enough in this day an age to roll the dice for a trial. He’ll take a plea for a VERY light sentence that will cause a potato riot.

A local cop might. But not a trooper.

Those hidden social forces and incentives favor his outright acquittal, probably by a majority on the jury. His lawyer will exploit all of that.

This was an outright non-justified use of deadly force.

Maybe not. Yeah, the cop fired the taser ... but did he hit the moving target from his moving car? Were the taser probes found in the victims body?

Or did the ATV driver simply panic and swerve away from the cop car?

that will cause a potato riot.

A black Detroit police officer on the scene was recorded as saying, "No sympathy at all for bullshit. Mother fucker wanna be grown, ya' act grown, ya' gotta fucking deal with it."

For telling the truth, he was reassigned to non- patrol duty.

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?

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

In Red China, the cops used to pull speeders out of their vehicles and summarily execute them at the roadside.

I've never wanted to live in Red China.

The facts of the case will be for the Detroit jury to decide.

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

Well, that wasn't the intent, was it? I mean if the cop wanted to kill him he would have simply shot him.

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

We can express our opinions all we like. And we do.

Well, that wasn't the intent, was it? I mean if the cop wanted to kill him he would have simply shot him.

I think it was unreasonable, with a foreseeably tragic result, and I don't believe that the police should have a different standard applied to them in such circumstances.

So it's a simple and straightforward difference of opinion.

I don't know if a Detroit jury will agree with me or with you, so we'll see. If they agree with me, I will be pleased. If they agree with you, I'll just shrug my shoulders and chalk it up, once again, to the dysfunction of our justice system.

b) He was doing wheelies and driving recklessly.

But is that a matter of public safety, even for some white Mr. Potatohead who does it? Surely this is not within the purview of the highway patrol (who was requested by the city of Detroit to help law enforcement in high-crime areas of Detroit)?

Of course, it is no business of those racist MHP cops to interfere with the right of minors to operate unlicensed vehicles dangerously on public streets.

It's downright racis' to even suggest that the Potatohead clan should wear a damned helmet.

it is no business of those racist MHP cops to interfere with the right of minors to operate unlicensed vehicles dangerously on public streets.

Oh, I can see the headlines had law enforcement not intervened and the kid was killed in a head-on accident.

"Why didn't they stop him?? He was wasn't supposed to be on the street! The cops watched him go by and din do nuffin. If he be white they'd stop him."

Didn't the driver who he hit head-on, entirely his fault, have a right to peaceable and lawful use of the public roads without some moron crashing into him?

But, nooooooooo, no one can disrespect the rights of lawless ATV/scooter/unicycle/dirtbike riders to do any damned thing they want on any roadway, whatever the known and easily anticipated consequences of operating ATVs dangerously on public roadways is. Because some bleeding hearts wanna feel righteous about shedding their crocodile tears over Mr. Potatohead in Detroit eating the bumper of a Ford F-150.

Licenses, licensed vehicles and insurance of all kinds be damned! These laws don't mean a thing! How dare the police actually enforce them?

Because that is exactly the lawlessness on the public roadways that the majority of asshole posters on this thread are advocating. Some, like Vic, enjoy morally preening over their lawless philosophy, at least as it applies to black teenagers.

And here are helmetless black teens on ATVs operating in a pack to defy the cops chasing them. Traybon, Traybon!

And this is exactly the kind of situation that the MHP was in that neighborhood to stop.

A few days after Sambo ate the Ford bumper in Detroit, cops were driving around the neighborhood, encountering crowds of 100 or so black teens with a dozen illegal dirtbikes and ATVs. I doubt they had the courage to arrest them either.

No wonder Detroit has been such a lawless shithole for the last 50 years. They deserve what they've made of it.

But, increasingly, society is picking up the tab for these incidents. Meaning it's only fair that society minimizes cost by limiting the underlying reckless behavior.

That's the philosophy -- all activity is allowed unless or until it injures another. Only then will the individual be held liable.

No, that's when you blame the cops for failing to protec' da public!

You can look on YouBoob to see the competition among these on-road ATV/dirtbike scumbags as they break traffic laws outrageously and evade cops. It's a Real Thing in urban America.

Not to mention how many backyards and acreages these lawless bikers ride across willy-nilly with no respect at all for property rights.

And God forbid their bikes have mufflers. No, they're noise nuisances as well, night and day in some areas.

Vic isn’t very smart. Shooting at a vehicle or it’s operator with a firearm or taser is DEADLY physical force. Officers must justify the use of it.

Shooting at a vehicle or it’s operator with a firearm or taser is DEADLY physical force.

One is deliberately lethal, the other is designed to never be lethal (supposedly).

Various PDs have their own policies but those two things are not the same.

Tasing someone is simply not the same as shooting them with any gun.

Of course, the cops get blamed. Apparently, it's their job to let people run them down in the street and never shoot back.

I bet he does. But given that he's 15, they'll never release his record or the number of encounters with the police.

I bet he does. But given that he's 15, they'll never release his record or the number of encounters with the police.

I've seen no photos at all of the yout' actually using this ATV off-road.

I think his parents bought it, knowing he would be using it illegally to ride on city streets without license/license plates/insurance.

You can bet his lawyer will be looking at that.

Look at that last vid I posted. You'll hear a neighbor saying that he was constantly riding that ATV through the neighborhood dangerously.

You'll hear a neighbor saying that he was constantly riding that ATV through the neighborhood dangerously.

Just a matter of time before he killed hisself. I agree with the black Detroit police officer on the scene: "No sympathy at all for bullshit. Mother fucker wanna be grown, ya' act grown, ya' gotta fucking deal with it."

Could be a Samuel Jackson scene in Pulp Fiction.

Could be a Samuel Jackson scene in Pulp Fiction.

Maybe more so, his character as Zeus in that Die Hard With A Vengeance movie. Kinda dated now but it was a good franchise movie, certainly no worse than these awful Star Wars and Marvel superhero movies.

Cop Fired After Video Showed He Lied to Protect His Partner Who Tasered Teen on ATV, Killing Him

According to the IA report, dated March 19, the department directly accused the officer, saying:

You knew the other trooper committed criminal offenses for which he was later charged…You drafted a false police report with the intent of assisting the other trooper with avoiding discovery, arrest, trial, or punishment after the crime occurred.

Do these badged assholes ever tell the truth about anything?

Do these badged assholes ever tell the truth about anything?

I doubt it. They must be trained in cop school the finer points of lying.

What a shock - the thug's partner was fired for lying and trying to cover up this heinous act.

Unless you have desk jobs available at the PD or meter maid jobs or such, a cop with a record of lying in reports or in courtroom testimony is useless. They can't be called as witnesses against defendants. Anything they say or did, the defense attorney just says, "Are you lying to the court again just like you did in Case Blah-blah-blah"? Game over for the prosecution.

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.

Maybe not at that age. It is as likely to be a case of a kid using his big brother or fathers ATV without permission,and is more worried of being punished by his mom when he gets home than he is about getting punished by the police.

It's ain't like the one thing male teenagers are known for is good judgement.

And the ATV manufacturers specifically oppose allowing ATVs to be ridden on public roads, saying they are inherently unsafe and unlicensed

And they are right. I had never even ridden an ATV when I first read this news story,but have since bought a 572CC 44 hp 4X4 one to use to pull a tow-behind 48 inch rough cut mower to cut tall field grass. Let me tell ya,25 MPH with nothing hooked to it is a little scary. Short wheelbase,elevated seating position,and quick steering.

Yet some of them are now being made that have 90 HP. Yeah,most of them are the "bench seat" models with a wide track that gives them MUCH better stability,but WTF does anyone need 90 hp for in one of those things? I can see and understand mega torque,but high horsepower?

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

Speaking as a motorcycle rider since 1965,I can tell you that you are a lot LESS likely to get into a accident if you are not wearing a helmet because you can hear and see better.

The real murderers ......

"Murderers"??????

Being a drama queen on this one,ain't ya. I can see a manslaughter charge being appropriate,but murder? Do you REALLY believe the cop and his parents WANTED to see him dead?

According to the IA report, dated March 19, the department directly accused the officer, saying: You knew the other trooper committed criminal offenses for which he was later charged…

No he didn't. He was driving the police car in pursuit of the ATV. He was closing in and was focused on not crashing into it. He didn't see the taser deployed outside the passenger window. He reported on what saw.

Sure, after the fact and supported by video what he reported was incorrect. But that doesn't make it a lie or a coverup. It means he didn't see it.

By the way, how do you cover up the incident when you have taser wires dangling from the kid's back?

that the yout' had slowed down to try to get on the sidewalk

Supported by the fact that there was a driveway behind the pickup that he tried to access.

And they are right. I had never even ridden an ATV when I first read this news story,but have since bought a 572CC 44 hp 4X4 one to use to pull a tow-behind 48 inch rough cut mower to cut tall field grass. Let me tell ya,25 MPH with nothing hooked to it is a little scary. Short wheelbase,elevated seating position,and quick steering.

Hey, what happened to that little Tyan tractor you bought last fall for these mowing jobs? I thought that was the final answer to your mowing problems.

You must have a hell of a lot of mowing to do.

Did you dump the Tyan and just buy a tiny tractor like John Deere's 4044? They're called 4x4 and have 44HP/572cc but are very large compared to ATVs. If so, that is not the kind of ATV that the pickaninnie in the article crashed in Detroit.

Anyway, have fun and be safe on your new ride.

Hey, what happened to that little Tyan tractor you bought last fall for these mowing jobs? I thought that was the final answer to your mowing problems.

I decided to try something lighter ("Little" is a relative word when speaking of tractors. It weighs almost 3,000 lbs.) that was less likely to get stuck and tear up the grass while spinning the tires trying to get out. I did a test run with it one day last week,and drove it right through a couple of hundred feet of marsh grass with enough standing water on it I would have gotten my feet wet if I had tried to walk across it,and it didn't spin a wheel on dig a track,despite me leaving it in 2 wheel drive. Of course,when I am pulling the tow behind mower I am going to have to be in 4x4 mode and going a lot slower,but it still looked promising.

Havn't tried to cut that section with it yet,though. It's been raining the last several days in a row,and the wind has blown in more water. Going to wait for it to dry out a little first,

BTW,that day was the first official day of the summer. I shot my first poisonous snake of the year,and the AC unit in my house died. If that doesn't make summer officially here,I don't know what does. My new AC is supposed to be in Monday,and I will be a happy camper when it shows up!

Still have the TYM (not Tyan) 4x4 and use it for pulling engines,moving cars around,grading,etc,etc,etc.

I also like to park it close to where I am working if I am doing anything in the yard so that if I get too hot I can jump in it and enjoy the chilled air in the air-conditioned cab while listening to tunes on the stereo.

I have never been one to abuse my equipment. If I can get the same job done using something that cost 8 grand instead of 28 grand,and save wear and tear on the 28 grand tractor,that's the way I will be going.

The ATV is useless for the other yard jobs,of course.

You must have a hell of a lot of mowing to do.

Not really. Only 8 acres,but I am old and have COPD,so my days of cutting even a acre of it with a bush hook are OVER. On a typical day I am good for maybe 4 hours of work before running out of air and energy,and there are other things more important for me to be spending my limited time on than cutting wild grasses.

Plus,I hope to pull in a couple of jobs mowing small fields for locals who don't own tractors. If I can make enough money to make the payments on the tractor,I will be happy, Hell,I'll be happy with it if I don't make a dime cutting fields for anyone else. I need it for the other things mentioned,and it's kinda nice to have a tractor I don't have to spend time working on every time I need to use it. I was using a 1957 Ford 645 tractor that was 2wd,and on top of it not really running slow enough to get a good cut (no double low first gear) it is 2 wd and would sometimes get stuck.

Do NOT make the mistake of buying an industrial tractor if you plan on running a bush hog. You just can't go slow enough to get a good cut because they only have 3 speed transmissions instead of the 4 speed with the double low 1st gear. Since the PTO's spin at a fixed speed,you have to go really slow to get a good cut.

Did you dump the Tyan and just buy a tiny tractor like John Deere's 4044? They're called 4x4 and have 44HP/572cc but are very large compared to ATVs.

No,my ATV is a 2018 Polaris Sportsman 570 EPS Utility Edition. Basically a typical work-model 4x4 ATV.

atv.polaris.com/en-us/spo...AEgLs4fD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Ironically enough,it has 44 HP,while my tractor only has 39 hp. I have no idea why a ATV would need 40+ hp,but some now have more than 90 hp.

BTW,that day was the first official day of the summer. I shot my first poisonous snake of the year,and the AC unit in my house died.

Sounds like a great start.     : )

No,my ATV is a 2018 Polaris Sportsman 570 EPS Utility Edition. Basically a typical work-model 4x4 ATV.

Nice.