Danzinger Bridge Cops! Update! Convictions Tossed Out!

[SVT]

So they threw out the verdict b/c of some Internet Comments that were made by the justice department? and that makes sense?

As far as sentencing is concerned...these men literally ended the lives of multiple people, then tried to cover it up...no sympathy from me, throw the book at these lying killers.

 

[Emperor]

Personally...I feel most have paid their price to society already. Guilty or not...they have already gone through hell. I'm just not a huge fan of incarceration for most time offenders. And even though people lost their lives...I never felt it was a murder charge. At most...it was negligent manslaughter IMO when taking into consideration the chaos of Katrina.
As far as the Justice Dept behavior...I have a huge problem when Lady Justice takes off her blindfold, and totally agree that the verdict should have been thrown out.

In case you didn't know the details, the defendants WERE proven to have committed these very heinous acts through evidence and testimony . A new trial on a technicality (that may or may not have had any significant impact on the actual verdicts), and while definitely deserved, probably won't absolve these guys of the crime.

I would be stunned if they get a lessor conviction.

 

[Emperor]

FYI: If anyone cares.

More than 15 years later, NOPD officers in Danziger shootings permanently lose their badges​

Five officers were convicted in the Danziger Bridge shootings and cover-up in 2016. Another six were convicted years earlier, but haven't been decertified.

Talk about wheels of justice turning slowly!

More than 15 years later, NOPD officers in Danziger shootings permanently lose their badges

Five officers were convicted in the Danziger Bridge shootings and cover-up in 2016. Another six were convicted years earlier, but haven't been decertified.

www.theadvocate.com

 

[enigmedic]

There are few reasons to riot but someone getting away with murder just because they have a badge may be one of them.

It had absolutely nothing to do with "hav(ing) a badge." How old are you? You obviously don't know much about the Louisiana criminal code or the predicates for the varying degrees of homicide, which address circumstance and intent.
Do you think a defendant in a traffic fatality should receive the same charge and sentence as a serial killer? In the time that it took you to post that comment, you could have researched it for yourself. It is more than concerning that someone on a gun forum needs to have that explained.

 

[Girouard]

The city hasn’t been the same since.

…and it changed for the WORSE!

 

[Bonehead88]

The city hasn’t been the same since.

…and it changed for the WORSE!

It's always been this way, your eyes are just opened now. The government always hated us, it was always about control or eleminate those who don't comply by imprisonment or death. The thin blue line isn't here for me and you, its here to enforce the authoritarian government's edict. Supreme court has already ruled police have zero duty to protect you.

 

[thperez1972]

Supreme court has already ruled police have zero duty to protect you.

Would you care to provide the context from that or those rulings?

 

[Bonehead88]

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v.Jun 14, 2022

Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

 

[Bonehead88]

Also look into the Uvalde shooting, their's also one out of Florida that I cant remember exactly the name of the case but all in all by law they are not bound to protect us unless we are in custody

 

[thperez1972]

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father.

The officials took steps to protect the child but they were not enough. The mother sued because the steps were not enough and alleged the officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court stated the officials might be held responsible under the state's tort laws if they did not do enough. But it is not a constitutional violation every time an official could have done more. The 14th amendment doesn't mean the state must actively protect life, liberty, and property. The amendment indicates that the state cannot take life, liberty, and property away without due process.

In 2005's Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

I'll quote wikipedia on this one. "
The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.
Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes."

Basically, the enforcement was not mandatory under state law and any enforcement of restraining orders does not count as property with respect to the 14th amendment. As before, the court said this was not a 14th amendment case.

Also look into the Uvalde shooting, their's also one out of Florida that I cant remember exactly the name of the case but all in all by law they are not bound to protect us unless we are in custody

There was a case that came from the Parkland shooting. In all the cases, the verdict was similar. The supreme court did not say the police have no duty to protect you. They said the constitution does not guarantee police protection. Therefore, not every action or inaction by the police is a constitutional matter. They are not qualified to speak on non-constitutional matters.

 

[Bonehead88]

They said the constitution does not guarantee police protection.

Wouldn't that mean the same as not having a duty to protect you? Look I'm not against police, maybe I came off that way but I'm not. I believe that the best first responder is oneself. Rather be armed and not need it than unarmed and need it. That's all. Not trying to start an argument on whose right whose wrong but it boils down to that they have the choice to help or not, I never said cops wouldn't because most are good guys. The bad ones ruin it for the good ones as usual, kinda like all us 2A supporters, 1 guy goes crazy they blame all us gun owners. Great conversation by the way.

 

[thperez1972]

They said the constitution does not guarantee police protection.

Wouldn't that mean the same as not having a duty to protect you?

No. Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you. The supreme court's ruling does not address state law or department policy. And the ruling does not exempt the police from legal action, be it civil or criminal. The ruling just says it's not a 14th amendment due process violation.

Let's look at the effect if police protection were a constitutional guarantee. For starters, there are far more citizens than there are police officers so it's impossible to protect everyone from the start. But ignoring that, let's look at a made up situation similar to the Gonzales case. Let's say the police responded after the first phone call. What is the correct number of officers to send? The answer would be "enough to ensure protection." But the actual number can only be determined if the response was unsuccessful. If one responded but was unable to find the guy and the end result is the same as the actual case, the police failed to protect the kids and it's a constitutional violation. So what about sending two officers? That would have a better chance of success but there's not was to ensure it is successful. And if not, constitutional violation. So let's go with the max and say that every officer on the shift responds. And let's say they get him and the kids are safe. But while they are all responding to that call as they are constitutionally mandated to do, someone is approached at the gas station in the Costco parking lot by a guy with a gun, a fight breaks out, and the car owner is shot and killed. Well, the police failed to provide him with his constitutionally guaranteed protection and the family will sue. How long before the city/state is broke? Are the individual officers immune in these lawsuits? If not, how long before every officer quits to avoid losing everything they own? And good luck recruiting people to take their place.

Look I'm not against police, maybe I came off that way but I'm not. I believe that the best first responder is oneself. Rather be armed and not need it than unarmed and need it. That's all. Not trying to start an argument on whose right whose wrong but it boils down to that they have the choice to help or not, I never said cops wouldn't because most are good guys. The bad ones ruin it for the good ones as usual, kinda like all us 2A supporters, 1 guy goes crazy they blame all us gun owners. Great conversation by the way.

 

[Bonehead88]

No. Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you. The supreme court's ruling does not address state law or department policy. And the ruling does not exempt the police from legal action, be it civil or criminal. The ruling just says it's not a 14th amendment due process violation.

Let's look at the effect if police protection were a constitutional guarantee. For starters, there are far more citizens than there are police officers so it's impossible to protect everyone from the start. But ignoring that, let's look at a made up situation similar to the Gonzales case. Let's say the police responded after the first phone call. What is the correct number of officers to send? The answer would be "enough to ensure protection." But the actual number can only be determined if the response was unsuccessful. If one responded but was unable to find the guy and the end result is the same as the actual case, the police failed to protect the kids and it's a constitutional violation. So what about sending two officers? That would have a better chance of success but there's not was to ensure it is successful. And if not, constitutional violation. So let's go with the max and say that every officer on the shift responds. And let's say they get him and the kids are safe. But while they are all responding to that call as they are constitutionally mandated to do, someone is approached at the gas station in the Costco parking lot by a guy with a gun, a fight breaks out, and the car owner is shot and killed. Well, the police failed to provide him with his constitutionally guaranteed protection and the family will sue. How long before the city/state is broke? Are the individual officers immune in these lawsuits? If not, how long before every officer quits to avoid losing everything they own? And good luck recruiting people to take their place.

Great points, exactly why our country needs to be well armed.

 

[thperez1972]

Great points, exactly why our country needs to be well armed.

I agree. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.