This one is pretty bad
When an article starts off like this, you have to wonder:
Forget that state agents were chasing the wrong man.
Forget that Rodolfo “Rudy” Cardenas never pointed a gun at the undercover officer who shot him in the back, or that the San Jose man eerily predicted his own death by police shootout.
Despite every questionable action leading to the Feb. 17 tragedy that ended with Cardenas’ death in downtown San Jose, the heart of the criminal case against Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement agent Mike Walker now rests squarely on Walker himself, legal experts say.
The pivotal question a jury must consider is Walker’s state of mind the moment he aimed his Glock .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol at the 43-year-old Cardenas and fired.
State of mind? My ass. What about all the training the police get so that they can overcome stress and fear? The case will boil down to if they should excuse the officer involved because he was spooked. I’m not buying it and hopefully the jury won’t either.
Update: See comments for rescinded catch phrase.
August 9th, 2004 at 9:41 am
Reckon the prosecution will play the race card?
August 9th, 2004 at 12:37 pm
Uncle, you’re all wet. The (alleged) criminal’s state of mind is highly relevant in a case like this, where the fact of the shooting is not in dispute and the only issue is whether or not the shooting may be justified or excused. This is not an example of “like you and me, only better.” It’s an example of “like you and me, period.”
August 9th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
I could buy that it if this info is used to determine if it was accidental v. intentional; or intentional v. negligence. I can’t buy it in terms of innocent v. guilty, which is how it reads to me.
Obviously, the policeman’s lawyer can take what ever approach he wants to defend him, which could be done by my lawyer if it were me. So consider the Like you and me, only better rescinded.
August 9th, 2004 at 2:48 pm
I haven’t read the article in its entirety, but based on the portions you quoted, it sounds like the trial is over whether or not Walker believed Cardenas posed an imminent threat to him, or to others. If he didn’t believe that, he’s guilty of murder. If he did, then the next question will be whether that belief was reasonable or not. If it was, it’s justifiable homicide. If it wasn’t, it was probably manslaughter.
Walker’s (alleged) state of mind at the time of the (admitted, not alleged) shooting is highly relevant to the trial, as well it should be.
August 10th, 2004 at 3:03 pm
I think that we are talking about Mens Rae, which is a staple of English Common Law. What it comes down to is, “Should he have known he was committing a wrong when he did it?” I think that standard should always be applied. You do have to take into account that he was a police officer in the “should have known” part. Given how the police and judiciary in general ignore mens rae today, I won’t weep if he doesn’t get that guarantee.
August 10th, 2004 at 5:55 pm
The e comes before the a (mens rea, pronounced “men’s ray-uh”) but the idea is basically right. A few crimes, and many infractions (speeding, for instance) are strict liability. The rest look at the defendant’s state of mind. The only difference for cops is that the criteria by which the shooting may be justified are different (e.g., citizens can’t shoot fleeing felons but cops can).
August 10th, 2004 at 7:22 pm
Cops can shoot fleeing felons? I thought, as in the case here, that it was dangerous to the cop or others?
August 10th, 2004 at 11:43 pm
It may be. My point is that there probably are some circumstances in which it would be legal for a cop to shoot, but not for a private citizen acting on his own.