And this my friend it the what is currently wrong with society. The potential fall out should have nothing to do with this case. Since people may get violent is not a reason to convict or set a man free! Certain groups feel they have the right to a violent protest if they don't get it their way. Very sad.

I agree, people getting violent or even threatening violence is no reason to convict or acquit. That doesn't change the fact that, with the current outrage (whether justified or not) in the black community regarding police involved shootings, this is a potential powder keg. I am along with you that it's sad though.

 

All that said, I still can't see him walking. Guilty of manslaughter is what I see happening. Of course, I'm no lawyer or expert on the law in any way, shape or form. I'm simply giving my opinion.

This guy won't walk away from this as someone said earlier. You may or may not get him at murder but at minimum he will be convicted of manslaughter.

 

That's my thought as well.

 

My roommate told me yesterday "I just don't think they will convict him of anything" to which I replied the same as what you just said.

 

I think manslaughter is a given and Deters was smart to include that in the indictment. Murder is a strong possibility if it goes to trial but I could see the defense asking for a plea deal. It'll just depend if Deters is willing to make a deal. While he said he doesn't listen to political pressure, I'd have to think if the defense asked for a deal he will weigh what the public would think to him agreeing to a lesser charge.

And this my friend it the what is currently wrong with society. The potential fall out should have nothing to do with this case. Since people may get violent is not a reason to convict or set a man free! Certain groups feel they have the right to a violent protest if they don't get it their way. Very sad.

 

Um, I wasn't saying they should convict him just so riots don't happen?

Quick google turned up a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Ohio carrying a 3-11 year prison sentence. No way I settle for that if I'm Deters. 11 years is not even close to justice.

Quick google turned up a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Ohio carrying a 3-11 year prison sentence. No way I settle for that if I'm Deters. 11 years is not even close to justice.

 

11 years would likely be more like 3-5 years served

Quick google turned up a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Ohio carrying a 3-11 year prison sentence. No way I settle for that if I'm Deters. 11 years is not even close to justice.

 

Which is kind of what I was alluding to with my last post in this thread. The defense will most likely ask for a deal. From the sounds of the press conference yesterday, Deters is pretty confident he can get a murder conviction. If he is, NO WAY I offer the deal of manslaughter. Now if things get hairy and Deters starts having doubts about getting a "guilty" finding, it becomes a dilemma of "Do I offer him 3-11 years to make sure he serves time or do I keep fighting so it goes through the whole process?"

 

Not saying Deters should worry about public perception while trying this case but I think at some point it will enter his mind if things don't look good for the prosecution.

Why? Are you thinking lesser charge? That I can see, I can't see the officer walking on this. Either way, if that's what happens, there will be trouble.

 

No conviction? I speculate the opposite, I don't see how 12 people can say he was justified in using deadly force.

 

If you look at the other thread on this he seems to be of the belief that it was a justified shooting.

 

What I see are things that lead me to understand how the officer could have thought this was a dangerous situation. (suspect restarted the car, put it in gear, hit the gas petal, officer ended up a significant distance down the road from where he was - granted that is during/after shot was fired.)

 

I understand completely and agree with prosecution indicting officer of murder, you have to in this case. I see reasonable doubt though in the evidence to convict him of it.

What I see are things that lead me to understand how the officer could have thought this was a dangerous situation. (suspect restarted the car, put it in gear, hit the gas petal, officer ended up a significant distance down the road from where he was - granted that is during/after shot was fired.)

 

I understand completely and agree with prosecution indicting officer of murder, you have to in this case. I see reasonable doubt though in the evidence to convict him of it.

 

And the victim didn't hit the gas pedal until after he was slumped over dead... So that doesn't contribute to the officer thinking it was a dangerous situation.

What I see are things that lead me to understand how the officer could have thought this was a dangerous situation. (suspect restarted the car, put it in gear, hit the gas petal, officer ended up a significant distance down the road from where he was - granted that is during/after shot was fired.)

 

I understand completely and agree with prosecution indicting officer of murder, you have to in this case. I see reasonable doubt though in the evidence to convict him of it.

 

I'm sorry, but your defense of this guy is sickening.

And the victim didn't hit the gas pedal until after he was slumped over dead... So that doesn't contribute to the officer thinking it was a dangerous situation.

 

Then how was the car moving before the shot was fired?

Then how was the car moving before the shot was fired?

 

It didn't look like the car was moving fast at all at that time. If the car was in gear and his foot wasn't on the brake, the car will roll slowly.

What I see are things that lead me to understand how the officer could have thought this was a dangerous situation. (suspect restarted the car' date=' put it in gear, hit the gas petal, officer ended up a significant distance down the road from where he was - granted that is during/after shot was fired.) I understand completely and agree with prosecution indicting officer of murder, you have to in this case. I see reasonable doubt though in the evidence to convict him of it.[/quote']

 

He executed the suspect before he could drive off, get in front of the car, or jump on the hood. There is no justification for lethal force, none. If we set the precedent that cops can use lethal force anytime they sense potential danger, we wouldn't be able to leave our homes.

Then how was the car moving before the shot was fired?

 

If a car is taken out of gear, it moves. Surely you know that.

As soon as the car started rolling the officer should've taken a step back, ordered him to stop, and called it in. Follow in a pursuit. The situation only got dangerous when the officer pulled his gun.

As soon as the car started rolling the officer should've taken a step back' date=' ordered him to stop, and called it in. Follow in a pursuit. The situation only got dangerous when the officer pulled his gun.[/quote']

 

Anyone without a gun and probably must with backs away from the car an he drives off alive. The law thought they could do whatever they wanted to get him to stop at that moment.