9 minutes ago, theguru said:

What are you suggesting with the police officer? 

With Scheffler, like I mentioned in my last post, my guess is he is getting the greatest preferential treatment of all time. 

They charged him with assaulting a police officer with zero evidence (that we've seen to this point) outside of the officer's word. Is that all it takes?

To answer my own question, I guess they can charge him with whatever they want, doesn't mean it will stick. 

Just now, TheDeuce said:

They charged him with assaulting a police officer with zero evidence (that we've seen to this point) outside of the officer's word. Is that all it takes?

To answer my own question, I guess they can charge him with whatever they want, doesn't mean it will stick. 

So you are saying the minor injuries to the officer were made up and the police falsified the post arrest complaint?

1 minute ago, theguru said:

So you are saying the minor injuries to the officer were made up and the police falsified the post arrest complaint?

I'm saying a cop jumping on/at a moving vehicle shouldn't constitute assault on a police officer. If he tried to hold on to a moving car and fell down, that's on him. That's a FAR stretch from assault, IMO. 

I don't trust a single word that comes from LMPD without proof. 

Just now, TheDeuce said:

I'm saying a cop jumping on/at a moving vehicle shouldn't constitute assault on a police officer. If he tried to hold on to a moving car and fell down, that's on him. That's a FAR stretch from assault, IMO.

The KRS says otherwise.

1 minute ago, theguru said:

The KRS says otherwise.

The law states a police officer can jump onto a moving vehicle and it's automatically assault?

3 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

The law states a police officer can jump onto a moving vehicle and it's automatically assault?

The KRS says if you are reckless and cause injury to an officer with a dangerous instrument (vehicle) that is Assault 3rd on a Police Officer.  

Again, Scheffler either complied with the police officer or he did not comply. 

6 minutes ago, theguru said:

The KRS says if you are reckless and cause injury to an officer with a dangerous instrument (vehicle) that is Assault 3rd on a Police Officer.  

Again, Scheffler either complied with the police officer or he did not comply. 

What makes it reckless?

Just now, TheDeuce said:

What makes it reckless?

Not complying and certainly continuing to drive with the officer either hanging on or on your vehicle. 

But that is just Assault 3rd.  I actually think given the facts alleged by the police that Assault 2nd was the proper charge.

Here is my post from Friday on this specific issue:

So for it to be Assault 2nd you would have to prove an intentional mental state, as in Scheffler intentionally disregarded the officer's command and the officer was injured with by a dangerous instrument (the vehicle).

(b) He intentionally causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument;

Assault 3rd is a no brainer here (again, assuming what is on the citation is what happened).  Recklessly caused physical injury with a dangerous instrument. 

508.025 Assault in the third degree.
(1) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when the actor:
(a) Recklessly, with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or intentionally
causes or attempts to cause physical injury to:
1. A state, county, city, or federal peace officer;

3 minutes ago, theguru said:

Not complying and certainly continuing to drive with the officer either hanging on or on your vehicle. 

Is reckless not specifically described by the law?

1 minute ago, TheDeuce said:

Is reckless not specifically described by the law?

501.020 Definition of mental states.
The following definitions apply in the Kentucky Penal Code:
(1) "Intentionally" -- A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct
described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause
that result or to engage in that conduct.
(2) "Knowingly" -- A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a
circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his
conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists.
(3) "Wantonly" -- A person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance
described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously
disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the
circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard
thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts wantonly with
respect thereto.
(4) "Recklessly" -- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance
described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 12, effective January 1, 1975.

1 minute ago, theguru said:

501.020 Definition of mental states.
The following definitions apply in the Kentucky Penal Code:
(1) "Intentionally" -- A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct
described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause
that result or to engage in that conduct.
(2) "Knowingly" -- A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a
circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his
conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists.
(3) "Wantonly" -- A person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance
described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously
disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the
circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard
thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts wantonly with
respect thereto.
(4) "Recklessly" -- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance
described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 12, effective January 1, 1975.

So for the sake of charging someone, any officer can deem any action reckless. Is that correct?

1 minute ago, TheDeuce said:

So for the sake of charging someone, any officer can deem any action reckless. Is that correct?

Yes.

With that said, a prosecutor will quickly strike you down if you error here.

Additionally, we are looking at an Intentional mental state here with the crime as charged. 

Just now, theguru said:

Yes.

With that said, a prosecutor will quickly strike you down if you error here.

Additionally, we are looking at an Intentional mental state here with the crime as charged. 

I think you previously made the point that it would be extremely difficult to prove such a mental state in this particular case. 

Just now, TheDeuce said:

I think you previously made the point that it would be extremely difficult to prove such a mental state in this particular case. 

Intentional is the hardest mental state to prove but Scheffler's comments about not knowing it was a police officer would probably lead a reasonable person to believe that his act of "not stopping" was in fact intentional.  So as I have learned more I think Assault 2nd with the intentional mental state is the correct charge because Scheffler incriminated himself.  At least in my opinion he did. 

7 minutes ago, theguru said:

Intentional is the hardest mental state to prove but Scheffler's comments about not knowing it was a police officer would probably lead a reasonable person to believe that his act of "not stopping" was in fact intentional.  So as I have learned more I think Assault 2nd with the intentional mental state is the correct charge because Scheffler incriminated himself.  At least in my opinion he did. 

But wouldn't they have to prove that he knew it was an officer AND that he intentionally committed a reckless act? Saying he didn't know it was a cop would eliminate that, IMO.