In a unanimous vote, the seven-member Eugene Civilian Review Board said Warden was wrong in using a Taser on the Chinese student, who had been mistakenly identified as a trespasser in his own apartment.
… the board majority said the board has the authority under the city charter to call for a new investigation.
Of course the police don’t need to respond to that call. And they won’t. But now everyone can say they’ve done their part, and there won’t be any need for embarrassment when they bump into each other over dinner at Chili’s in the Valley River Mall.
That is, until the inevitable lawsuit gets filed.
Read Full Post »
Posted in castle doctrine, criminal law, dissent, ethics, hypocrisy, oregon, paranoia, politics, prejudice, privacy, property, torts, torture on February 9, 2010|
Leave a Comment »
As a refresher, these cops forced their way into the bedroom of an apartment, one of the cops tripped over his own clumsy feet, and so he tasered the tenant who was in lawful possession. The tenant is a skinny non-english-speaking UO student. Just a kid, basically. And the kid was considering filing suit against the police for reasons I think should be fairly obvious.
I guess I’ve missed a couple of updates on this one:
Soon after learning about the incident in September, Eugene’s police auditor, Mark Gissiner, opened a complaint case, interviewed two Chinese students through a translator and twice visited their apartment.
As auditor, Gissiner also monitored the police department’s investigation into the matter. Last month, Gissiner disagreed with Kerns, saying Warden fired the Taser inappropriately.
Yet much like the civilian review board, Gissiner has no say in deciding officer discipline.
I’m shocked, shocked that an internal police investigation found no problems with this officer’s conduct. But if they did nothing wrong… why did they apologize?
Mayor Kitty Piercy apologized to the Chinese students.
Maybe I need to get my hearing checked, but that sounds like “large cash settlement” to me.
And in other news on the same page, the dirty hippies and skateboard derelicts who loiter outside the library are going to have to find somewhere else to give themselves lung cancer. I for one say huzzah.
Read Full Post »
Two kids try to rob a house. One of them pulls a gun on the resident, who happens to be packing heat himself:
the occupant of the home, whose name he did not release, is not being charged with wrongdoing. Mississippi’s “Castle Doctrine” law allows persons to use deadly force to stop an intruder into their home.
And there you go. They caught the other kid, because he called 911 to report the shooting (!). My question is- does the kid who got caught get charged with the murder of his accomplice?
Mississippi’s felony murder rule § 97-3-27 says:
The killing of a human being without malice, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, while such other is engaged in the perpetration of any felony, except those felonies enumerated in Section 97-3-19(2)(e) and (f), or while such other is attempting to commit any felony besides such as are above enumerated and excepted, shall be manslaughter.
it seems to me that this rule requires that for 97-3-27 liability to attach, the person directly responsible for causing death must be involved in the felony. Here, since the resident wasn’t a perpetrator, no felony murder charges should be possible against the guy who called 911.
Read Full Post »