Would it be a risk on the prosecution to overcharge? I'd think if they go to trial and the overcharging were egregious, they would risk no conviction at all. IANAL or LEO so wondering if that thought process makes sense...Originally Posted by Trooper224
done.
^^^THIS^^^
"(8) "Recklessly". A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists."
The acts leading up to the shooting are not items addressed by the statute. Therefore, I would argue his dance is immaterial, and his flip is immaterial. If you do want to include them in the crime, is it a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" to dance on a dance floor? If so, everyone in there was reckless. AT THE TIME THE TRIGGER WAS PULLED, is what is being judged. SO, is it a "Substantial and unjustifiable risk" to pick up a pistol if it is dropped? Is there a GREATER RISK to leaving the pistol unattended on the ground?
He was not waving the gun around showing it off. THAT would be reckless. He was not trying to be Mr Big Shot and intimidate someone. That would be reckless. He did not intentional, draw, point or fire.
I see an easy slam dunk on the conviction for "Drunk With a Gun", but not for assault.
Was it stupid? Yes. Irresponsible? Probably. Was it Criminal Assault? meh. Was it Drunken Disorderly? Seems to fit better.
I am amazed so many want to see this kid tarred and feathered. He obviously had to work hard and keep his nose clean his entire life to get picked up by the FBI to begin with. He fucked up. He will lose his job. He has basically lost everything he has worked for his entire life. Will society be any safer with his incarceration?
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
Charging him is idiotic. Write the man a ticket and be done with it. His FBI career is over. That's penalty enough. This incident is one more example showing reasons for leaving guns at home when participating in activities where alcohol is served. If the same thing had happened at a church picnic, the outcome would be different. Each of us has to weigh risks. In this man's case, he now will become entangled in the criminal justice system best suited for dealing with murderers, rapists, and thieves. Lawyers will soon suck him dry. He will find out who his friends are when he walks into a room, and everybody else leaves. I learned long ago that when it gets down to the nut cut'n, you learn who will and won't stand by you. The DA must be a supreme prick who has a personality aberration.
He has been authorized by the government to carry a firearm and potentially use it. With power comes duty. He should at least be sentenced to the same minimum as a non government employee, but moreso due to that.
Not if the charge has lesser included offenses. From the title, "second degree" implies there are other degrees of assault in Colorado. I don't know that because I'm not a Colorado lawyer, but that would be my assumption. I would further assume that in Colorado -- just like everywhere else -- the jury finding you had not proved all of the elements of the charged offense but had proved all of the elements of another like offense means they may convict on that other like offense.
Example of this in action: Aggravated assault by strangulation charged, taken to trial, jury returns a verdict of domestic assault. Assault requires an act by the defendant causing injury to another or putting them in imminent fear of injury; aggravated assault (in my state) requires doing the same and either a) causing serious bodily injury, b) using a weapon, or c) employing strangulation (recent addition for domestic violence). Jury doesn't buy the State's "she was strangled" argument because they ignore the statutory language and believe the defense's argument saying it's not strangulation if the victim doesn't testify she went unconscious, so they come back with domestic instead.
You mean here? or social media? I'd say most on here don't want to see criminal charges at all. Even @Zincwarrior doesn't appear to want him dragged to the gallows but rather to face the exact charge a non FBI citizen would face, whatever that would be. Of course, he may surreptitiously be part of secret vigilante society yet to make the news.
You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius
Words have specific legal meanings. Read the CO statute's definition of "Recklessly" again.
What the video shows me is he was dancing, likely forgot he had a gun on and then grabbed it in a panic when he realized it fell out in public resulting in the ND. No "conscious" decision making there. Bad decisions yes, conscious decisions, no.
The back flip with the gun would be better categorized as "negligent"
The only possible way they could argue a "conscious decision" would be if he is BAC positive, particularly if his BAC was > .08.
I'm seeing the harsh reactions as being the same dynamic that applies when people speak of other NDs in general, or when speaking about a given enemy. We try to paint them in as poor a light as possible to separate ourselves from them in order to convince ourselves that they are somehow different, worse, and that it can't happen to us.....that we are inherently better human beings. I've seen this discussed before in the gun community, I can't remember the psych term/bias label.
As for me, I can understand a misdemeanor charge. Making him a felon seems awfully harsh for the reasons that Gadfly went over. Zincwarrior mentioned that he should be charged the same minimum as a non-governmental employee, which is continuing to imply that the government is biased and lets off LEOs easy. Instead, what I see throughout America is the opposite. An FBI agent involved in a good shoot was charged with a felony because he lied in the post incident reports, stating that he didn't fire his weapon, yet I have people lie to me all the time about their actual involvement in criminal activities and they rarely if ever get hit with 1001 unless its being tacked on for other reasons. Similarly, a cop gets his eye taken out by a women resisting arrest who kicked him in the eyeball with a fucking stilletto heel, and she got charged with simple assault., not attempted murder or any other appropriate charge.
I understand that alcohol may have been involved, and if so is an aggravating factor......but I am not okay with the idea that I'm going to be a felon if I ND my gun while trying to pick it up after dropping it. I don't understand how any gun owner would be comfortable with that.
Last edited by TGS; 06-13-2018 at 12:36 PM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Or just politically savvy.
Whatever the legal merits are for charging the probationary FBI are, one thing is certain: dismissing the case does not have good optics. It screams “crony politics” for the government to appear to give a pass to an agent working for the same,even if the facts of the case suggest no crime should be charged.
Ultimately the facts will be shown,and he’ll be held to account for his actions. That’s a better outcome then many get.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
Reply With Quote