Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Female cop grabs side arm instead of Taser...

There are certain things the law presumes, as a matter of public policy, that folks are always obliged to take note of, stops signs, red lights, etc. (unless obstructed by overgrown bushes, etc..). You accept that as a condition of your drivers license. That's not relevant to a mistake of fact defense scenario like we're discussing here.

Hey if I record myself accidentally killing somebody with a gun, do you think I could/might be charged criminally?

Another "exactly". Only this one is correct.

Your honor, when my client clobbered his wife over the head with a Louisville Slugger, he thought it was a Nerf product.

MISTAKE OF FACT!

You would do well to quit while your behind.

could/might be charged criminally? Possibly. Should you be charged? Totality of the circumstances.

For ever action there is a reaction,

LE training and militarization play a part in things we see happening in society today that we didn't a few decades ago..

There is more to it that, but it contributes

What is a red herring Alex?

The only "MISTAKE OF FACT" is that she was mistaken for a police officer, she has proven to not be competent after 26 years of attempting to reach competence

Undoubtedly charged, but convicted would depend entirely on who you shot and whether I was on the jury or not.


And since I am not in America you should probably refrain from such.

It actually could be, but it would need to be backed by credible evidence, such as the defendant was at the time in the midst of a 106 degree fevered delirium. That would go a long way to satisfying the preponderance of the evidence test regarding the claim that he believed he was holding a Nerf bat. It would be up to the jury to make that credibility determination.

Short of lots of strong evidence that this was actually his belief, however, no, that would not be an acceptable defense, since it would lack credibility.

You're behind. Not your behind. Your is possessive.

Uh yep!

A local case here a few years ago.

A young father was driving the station wagon to town one day with six or seven of his kids, nieces, and nephews and his wife along for the ride. The driver was a devout Morman. He did not even drink coffee, and he was not speeding.

The kids got to screwing around in the back of the station wagon and the driver took his eyes off the road and looked into the rear view mirror as he scolded them.

Just at that moment he crested a hill with a car sitting square in the road in front of him. He rear ended the car at about fifty miles an hour.

Within the car was a young couple engaged to soon be married. They were sitting in the road waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so they could make a left turn. They had the steering wheel cranked to the stop to the left in preparation for the turn.

At impact, they were pushed into the left lane, directly into the path of an oncoming van. Both of the young lovers were killed.

The driver of the station wagon was jailed for his "mistake". His family went on welfare.

Where's Ltppowell saying some cop's never shoulda quit their shoe salesman job??

I miss that...

Therefore, the "mistake of fact" defense will be of no relevance when a 26 year police office doesn't know the difference between a taser and a pistol , this is a clear case of negligent homicide hence the charge of 2nd degree manslaughter

Perfect example of negligent homicide. Definitely an accident and unintentional

I'd like to read more about that. Being jailed for being at fault in a car crash is rare, absent impairment or excessive speed.

Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver?

Okay, so you're asserting that she actually knew it was a Glock, not a Taser, and that she secretly intended to murder the arrestee, and just added the comments about him being about to be Tasered in order to plant exculpatory evidence into the record. That's a sound theory, but you'd need some evidence for it.

Your theory that she did in fact know the difference, at the time of the shooting, between her Glock and her Taser, of course, totally negates your negligent homicide theory. You realize that, right? If she actually knew the difference at that moment, then yours is just a plain old first degree murder theory, not a negligent homicide theory.

Surely a mistake of fact. The driver believed the road ahead of him to be clear of cars. The fact was otherwise.