1st degree murder does, 2nd degree murder (i.e. Manslaughter) does not. It's killing without malice or premeditation. Looking up her history, she's a bit nuts. Had a restraining order against her, she went nuts on her ex-boyfriends car, etc.
Wonder how spousal immunity is gonna work in this case. Wasn't her husband in the helicopter above them? You'd think he'd be a key witness.
Isn't there a law against testifying either for or against a spouse? Like Juice said, It seems she said some things you would normally lie on a police exam for. She said "yes" to both possessing/using drugs and also having an order of protection put against her. That is probably going to raise a few eyebrows considering the line of work.
I don't think this case will hinge on the testimony of the second officer in the helicopter. The most they'd likely ask him is what he witnessed as the event unfolded. They might not even ask that, since they have the video record of his viewpoint.
I do think they made the right call in charging the cop in the tulsa incident. I'm not sure where I stand as to the guilt or innocence, but hey that's for the courts. There were enough questions to charge her, so they did. Well done. Let's figure this out with a jury of her peers. Unfortunately I doubt this news will help settle things in Charlotte tonight. Things are starting to get testy right now. Edit: soon as I posted that the police declared it an unlawful assembly and told the protesters they would remove them with force if necessary.
Here's the police scanner for Charlotte PD. Also there's a midnight curfew now. Because people are gonna listen to that.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but there are two privileges. One is you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. The other is that your spouse is not permitted to testify against you. Some jurisdictions have one, some have the other, some have both. I presume somewhere has neither. I think Oklahmoa at least has the latter.
Wasn't able to find the specific part of the code, but from the notes on this case it looks like in OK the spouse is not permitted to testify against you.
A guy running a live stream was told by law enforcement to shut down his feed at 11:45. I wonder if they're going to do this to the networks too?
Can they do this, legally? Just shut down civilians recording stuff on public streets? I know that they can enforce the curfew and send people away, but to snap off all media record? Is there precident for that kind of censorship?
At least from what I've seen and heard, the way the cops are handling this is not at all conducive to a peaceful resolution. You don't increase the militarization of your force, bring in a bunch of actual soldiers with long rifles, camo and hummers, and expect an emotional crowd to disperse. That's the definition of pouring gasoline on a fire. That being said, it does make for some entertaining viewing.
If it's been declared a State Of Emergency, which I believe it has, then the local (city/state) government would have rather broad and sweeping control over the situation, and as far as I know can even suspend or override constitutional rights.
I saw that and all I could think of was that I was laughing at her, not with her... whereas it was the complete opposite with Obama. She seems to have no clue that people are genuinely pissed off about that whole email thing, and it's like she was up there making fun of it. I said it earlier, but I can't believe just how fucking clueless her campaign seems to have been... and keeping her out of press conferences was a good thing, because every time she opened her mouth, she seemed to put her foot into it.
So they should just be allowed to riot until they get it out of their system? Because that's what this really is. Unless you consider blocking interstate highways and shouting racial slurs at cops "peaceful protests." While I dont agree with or condone rioting, or the tactics of the protesters in general, its interesting to look at it with a wider lens. I think we can all agree that there is a problem with law enforcement in this country, even if we cant fully agree on what that problem is. If you consider historical context, periods of violent protest are sometimes needed to "shock" the system into changing. These protests being on the lower end of the spectrum while something like the French Revolution being on the other extreme end. Thats not an endorsement in any regard, but its interesting how these things tend to be cyclical.
I think she genuinely doesn't give a fuck. Kind of reminds me of my sister in a way (and in no way is that a comment or rip on gender), if you have a problem with something she does, thats your problem and you need to find a way to become ok with it.
They caught the guy suspected of shooting the protester the other night. Why was this guy even allowed out on the street? All charges are from 7/10/15 RESISTING PUBLIC OFFICER POSSESS STOLEN FIREARM CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON - GUN POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON http://bailbondcity.com/north_carolina/mecklenburg-inmate-BORUM/15-172545 A felon with a stolen firearm and 17 months later he's roaming the streets with another gun? This is why we don't need new gun laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have.
Why don't we legalize marijuana nationwide, release all the inmates with only marijuana charges, and replace them with all the gun felons?
The same reason we tend not to really legislate gun control on any serious level. All of the people on the opposite side of the argument have guns.