911 caller arrested for lying about a gun, maybe getting perp killed

[dcartist]

Originally Posted by mondu_the_fat

Isn't it that if a crime is committed, the person is judged by whatever happens result of/during that crime? For example, if a person dies during a bank heist, even if it were a heart attack, the robbers are still going to be charged with murder for it?

You are thinking about "felony murder", where if a person dies while you are committing a felony (even if its your partner), it's basically similar punishment to that of first degree murder. Thus, I'd say that if they have that law in California, then the 17 year old might be charged for the death of McDade.

Was lying to the police a crime? If yes, and the above paragraph is true, shouldn't the result of that crime also fall on Carillo's head?

Lying to police is a crime. But I don't think that the death can really be considered to be part of or DURING the commission of his unlawful act of calling 911.

I think the action and the death itself have to be a little more tightly connected than that. I believe they are charging involuntary manslaughter but I don't think it will stick.

Originally Posted by penal code

California Penal Code 192(b) PC defines "involuntary manslaughter" as an unlawful killing that takes place

1. during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
   
2. during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.3

Scumbag yes.

Manslaughter? No.

What if the cops had crashed into a bus in their rush to get there, and everybody died? Would you charge Carrillo with manslaughter then? What if you later learned that the cops were drunk at the time? Would you still charge Carrillo?

Lets say that Carrillo (knowing full well that it's not true, but just trying to yank my chain) gets very serious and tells me that "That Harlem Safeway is dangerous, the black people there all carry guns, especially the ones wearing do-rags. You should take your gun". So I bring a gun to Safeway, and get into an argument with a black guy with a do-rag in the parking lot. While arguing over the parking space, the black guy reaches down to his waist. I shoot him dead. Should Carrillo be charged with manslaughter? After all, he LIED TO ME, and contributed to my "heightened alertness" that contributed to my shooting the guy.

The lie on the phone call and the shooting by the cops aren't tightly linked enough to me to be called manslaughter.

The real crime that Carrillo committed was lying to the police on 911. He abused the 911 system.

Originally Posted by orangeglacier

The real question here is: what is wrong with the police department such that Oscar had to report a gun for them to investigate the crime?

That is the wrong question. He had no way of knowing if the police were around the corner and would arrive in 2 minutes... or whether they would take 30 minutes.

It's far more likely that he was just eager to get his laptop back, and he lied about being mugged with a gun, because he knew that would guarantee immediate attention.

Are they failing to protect their citizens from theft? If so, I can't really blame Oscar for turning to desperate measures. Especially if he's like a college student - if that's the case, then the backpack and laptop are probably all of his worldly possessions and the perps might as well be killing him if they successfully steal those. I'd charge him with false reporting, since he has done that, but definitely not manslaughter, and I don't really even consider him to have acted wrongly. He had a defective police department and did what he had to do to save his possessions.

You have no evidence that the police department had defective response times.

(actually I'm sure that California also has idiots like Florida's George Zimmerman, from the other thread, calling the police 46 times in 15 months, for stuff like "guy driving without headlights", "garage door open", and 9 times for "suspicious black man" - if cops are responding to crap like that, how fast do you expect them to respond to a car burglary? And whose fault is it?

People complain that police response times are too slow... why? Because *******s like Zimmerman and Carrillo are not using 911 the way its supposed to be used.)

Also, how hard is it for police to shoot for the arm? Wouldn't that just prevent any gun violence (and if they miss, they hit the center of the body, since the arm was reaching into the waistband, so the result would be the same)?

Shooters are trained to hit center of mass, because in most realistic scenarios, trying for "hand shots" and "arm shots" is just gonna result in misses.

The TV, movie and comic book scenario of shooting people in the arm could only happen if the target was standing absolutely still, and you had him in a sniper scope, maybe. And even in those scenarios, they usually do head shots, not arm shots. to wound.

[mondu_the_fat]

I'm all for charging Carillo for manslaughter, but I'm also doubtful if it will stick. Hey, Bush got away with invading Iraq because Iraq was armed with WMDs...

What if the cops had crashed into a bus in their rush to get there, and everybody died? Would you charge Carrillo with manslaughter then? What if you later learned that the cops were drunk at the time? Would you still charge Carrillo?

Lets say that Carrillo (knowing full well that it's not true, but just trying to yank my chain) gets very serious and tells me that "That Harlem Safeway is dangerous, the black people there all carry guns, especially the ones wearing do-rags. You should take your gun". So I bring a gun to Safeway, and get into an argument with a black guy with a do-rag in the parking lot. While arguing over the parking space, the black guy reaches down to his waist. I shoot him dead. Should Carrillo be charged with manslaughter? After all, he LIED TO ME, and contributed to my "heightened alertness" that contributed to my shooting the guy.

Slippery slope and impossible to answer yes to, because then you'd just come up with even more convoluted scenarios.

[dcartist]

Why do you find the scenario convoluted? It's a yes or no question, and whether I will give other scenarios shouldn't affect your answer.

Carrillo LIES to me that there's black guys with guns at the safeway, and advises me to take my gun. I take my gun (based on his advice) and am nervous believing black people there are armed (based on his information) and end up killing somebody.


Wouldn't he about as liable as he is in this McDade case? Maybe even more liable.

[unkyunk]

Hmm... Maybe not manslaughter, but something.

Honestly... I don't think these people deserved death, but do I feel sorry for the person that got shot? Not really. If you go around stealing expensive stuff don't be surprised when bad **** happens to you. So im not really shedding any tears, metaphorically or literally, or the guy.

[Cyouni]

Originally Posted by dcartist

The lie on the phone call and the shooting by the cops aren't tightly linked enough to me to be called manslaughter.

The real crime that Carrillo committed was lying to the police on 911. He abused the 911 system.

If you're saying that Carrillo committed a crime by lying to the 911 operator, and that's the reason why McDade was shot, I'm pretty sure that's sufficient legal grounds for involuntary manslaughter.

I believe that anything of the sort would also fall under criminal negligence. It's pretty hard to argue that Carrillo was thinking about the consequences when he told the 911 operator that the thieves were armed.

[Marquoth]

Originally Posted by Crashing00

Err... for the same reason that you presumably conclude (ah, who am I kidding, probably not based on what I'm seeing here) that a witness claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster is not actually a good reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

Congratulations for attempting to back up your point by providing the most ridiculous example I've seen on this forum in quite a while (which is saying something).

Guns are known to exist; people are known to carry them; most people have in fact seen somebody carrying a gun (especially in the States, where gun ownership is relatively high). Consequently, "I saw a man with a gun" is an entirely credible statement and should be taken into consideration. Seeing the Loch Ness Monster, on the other hand? Yeah, those two are really on a par

Originally Posted by Crashing00

I mean, I would have thought that on an informed debate forum, the basic facts concerning unreliability of eyewitness testimony would simply be agreed upon by all.

Maybe you ought to think twice about attempting to educate people in debating technique if your rhetoric is going to include such hideous comparisons as your Loch Ness Monster one.

[link670]

Personally think that this is a situation with no black or white answer. There is no obvious blame figure.
The college Student was at fault for going along with the banger.
The banger was at fault for perpetrating the crime.
And Oscar was at fault for giving law enforcement false information.

I don't blame the cops, they were just doing their job and acting based on the information they were given. The man reaches for his belt, they heard he had a gun, they reacted as the believed situation would require.

Do I think manslaughter is an appropriate charge? No. Do I think there should be consequences for the falsified information? Yes.

EDIT: Apologies if this counts as necromancy, didn't think to check the last response and assumed that since it was first page it was fair game.