Gdanning
1yr ago
I really don't understand what Grosskruetz has to do with anything, but, regardless:
because it's possible that he was really guilty
That is literally all that probable cause to charge a defendant requires: ""`"An information will not be set aside ... if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it."' [Citation.]" (People v. Arjon (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 185, 193 [emphasis in original].
Gdanning
1yr ago
results in harsher charges and higher bails, which you accept as just?
I didn't say anything about harsher charges and higher bails being just. I was making a purely empirical claim about the evidence that courts use to assess probable cause.
As for your "other team" silliness, see the use of rap lyrics to help establish probable cause for murder charges. That is protected speech which is used all the time, usually quite appropriately.
Gdanning
1yr ago
It is evidence, albeit slight, of premeditation in every case. The issue in the recent case is whether it is evidence that it was murder at all. That is a different question.
Again, if more evidence surfaces that indicates that this professor acted very violently, or whatever, then that IG post might become highly relevant. But it isn't very relevant now. And the point is what police know at the time of arrest. A police officer who knows that someone who intentionally killed two people and shot another, and who then finds out that the victims are the shooter's enemies, would have to be a moron not to suspect premeditation, even if that suspicion turns out to be unfounded.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I don't know. That's the point: All costs and benefits have to be included.
Gdanning
1yr ago
@netstack did not say that exercise of a constitutional right establishes probable cause. They said it increases suspicion. That is obviously true. I have the right to wear a Nazi outfit, and a right to bear arms, and a right to walk around near a synagogue. But that doesn't mean police have to ignore those things. Most facts which help establish probable cause are themselves perfectly legal.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I didn't want to pay either; nevertheless, there is no way that the costs can be described as "massive."
~$45k per enemy combatant is expensive,
But relatively cheap for educating millions of Afghan girls. If you are going to weigh costs and benefits, you have to include all of them.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Nevertheless, the idea that his self-defense claim was obviously correct is belied by the fact that the jury deliberated for several days.
Gdanning
1yr ago
You think they didn't believe him?
Do I think police do not believe the statements of murder suspects, which statements reduce their culpability? I do.
Regardless, the cases are not similar. In one, you have someone bringing a gun to a protest, and ending up intentionally killing two people. In the other, you have someone bringing a bullhorn to a protest, and, as far as we know, accidentally killing someone. Of course the police are going to treat the former differently than the latter. And that is true despite the fact that Rittenhouse turned out to have acted in self-defense.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Again, I believe that his acquittal was correct, but his guilt or innocence depends on a lot more than on just who fired first. Self-defense has quite a few complexities. For example, the guy in the car here was convicted of murder despite not firing first. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1655732/Video-Surveillance-footage-shows-shootout-killed-3-year-old-boy.html
Gdanning
1yr ago
Because he came across state lines with a gun, and ended up shooting his political opponents. Again, based on facts that emerged, I do not think that he premeditated; in fact, I am sure that he did not, and I am sure that his acquittal was correct. But probable cause is quite a low bar, and of course is based on evidence known at the time of the arrest.
Homicide is covered under section 500 of the California Criminal Code
FYI, that link is to the CA Criminal Jury Instructions; the relevant CA Penal Codes sections are here
"The mental state required for murder" is not required
The reason I say that is the mental state required for murder is indeed required is that the jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter based on heat of passion/ sudden quarrel where murder is also charged says: "A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion." Moreover, your reference to the components of voluntary manslaughter are incomplete; where murder is not charged, the jury is instructed:
To prove that the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the People must prove that:
- The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person;[AND]
- When the defendant acted, (he/she) unlawfully intended to kill someone(;/.) <Give element 3 when instructing on self-defense or defense of another. [AND3. (He/She) killed without lawful excuse or justification.]
Or the People must prove that:
- The defendant intentionally committed an act that caused the death of another person;
- The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;
- At the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew the act was dangerous tohuman life; [AND]
- (He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for humanlife (;/.)<Give element 5 when instructing on self-defense or defense of another.> [AND5. (He/She) killed without lawful excuse or justification.]
Those elements re mental state are identical to the mental state required for murder, i.e., malice aforethought:
There are two kinds of malice aforethought, express malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder.
The defendant had express malice if (he/she) unlawfully intended to kill.
The defendant had implied malice if:
- (He/She) intentionally (committed the act/[or] failed to act);
- The natural and probable consequences of the (act/[or] failure toact) were dangerous to human life;
- At the time (he/she) (acted/[or] failed to act), (he/she) knew (his/her) (act/[or] failure to act) was dangerous to human life;AND
- (He/She) deliberately (acted/[or] failed to act) with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life.
So, when you correctly note that one who kills during a fight and "(He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life" is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, you are noting that the mental state is the same as for murder.
A defendant who kills accidentally in a fight, but does not act with intent to kill or reckless disregard for human life is guilty of involuntary manslaughter:
When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.
The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter.
Edit: To clarify, if you and I are fighting and I get so pissed that I try to kill you (and do). or do something so dangerous that I have acted in disregard for human life, that is voluntary manslaughter. But if I merely hit you in a normal fashion without intent to kill nor in a way that indicates disregard for human life and you fall and die, that is involuntary manslaughter.
Gdanning
1yr ago
And yet, strangely, Hamas has not attacked Egypt, which also blockades Gaza. One might infer that the blockade is a rationalization for the attack, rather than an actual cause thereof.
Gdanning
1yr ago
It's only "defensible" in the sense that the recent Hamas attack was "defensible":
The claim is not that it is morally defensible, as some claim re the Hamas attack, but that it is legally defensible.
It is not defensible in the sense that the arguments in favor of the claim are valid.
Since you have not addressed what he actually said, nor what I said re the law, it is unclear to me how you can be so sure of that.
Gdanning
1yr ago
- They don't have to recognize Israel to cooperate with them against a common enemy. The US and the Taliban have been known to cooperate versus ISIS et al
- My point is that might be another option other than going in and killing Palestinians.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Dude, of course it is defensible. Go look at what he said, not at your recollection.
Gdanning
1yr ago
See my comment to your previous comment. He says the crowd had a stronger claim, which is true, because from what the crowd knew (which is all that matters) their claim would have been VERY strong, but he does not say that only one of them could have a valid claim.
Of course it is relevant; it is the basis of his statement re not charging the crowd.
Gdanning
1yr ago
He did not say "switched places." He specifically predicated his statement on the fact that they were in different "places" -- that the crowd ckearly had reason to think that Rittenhouse was a threat. And, they did. Just as Rittenhouse turned out to have reasonably acted in self-defense. They all acted in reasonable self-defense. His point was simply that it was obvious in the crowd's case, but not obvious in Rittenhouse's case. Ie, while Rittenhouse had a colorable claim to self-defense, the crowd's case was far beyond colorable.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I think you have excluded some of the context. What he says is, "From the crowd's perspective, that's how they viewed him [ie as an active shooter]. And that was a reasonable assumption on their part at that particular moment. ... After learning that he just shot someone, seeing him running through a crowded area with a gun that it would have been reasonable for ... the crowd to view him as an active shooter."
He claims Rittenhouse running away with his gun after killing Rosenbaum is sufficient reason to kill him ... but what else was Rittenhouse supposed to do
No, that is not what he says. He says it would have been reasonable for someone to believe that he could shoot him in self-defense or defense of others. It is important to bear in mind 1) if I reasonably believe someone is a threat, I can kill him in self-defense, even if I am mistaken;* and 2) it is perfectly possible for both parties to be acting in self-defense defense.
*"If the defendant kills an innocent person, but circumstances made it reasonably appear that the killing was necessary in self-defense, that is tragedy, not murder." People v. Minifie, 13 Cal. 4th 1055 (Cal: Supreme Court 1996).
Gdanning
1yr ago
If you want peace in the region, Hamas cannot be allowed to be in charge in Gaza.
I don't know why you assume that current Israeli policy is the one most likely to achieve that goal. Israel could have leveraged the Hamas attack to get other actors to work together toward eliminating Hamas, but that opportunity is waning more and more with every civilian casualty in Gaza. And, even if Hamas is eliminated, the end result will probably be the creation of Hamas 2.0.
And let's not forget that current Israeli policy is at least in part based on what is best for the Netanyahu administration, not what is best for Israel. And many of the elites whom you criticize are very much aware of that.
I already talked about that; I meant what the police believed at the time, because that is all that is relevant to the issue of the arrest.
More options
Context Copy link