Realistically, would he have been found guilty of any crime?

Realistically, would he have been found guilty of any crime?


I guess you could say murder but I'm sure Morgan Freeman's character would've defended him and there was a significant amount of emotion built up when the killing happened

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)
youtube.com/watch?v=_PUE8fYxjq8
edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/health/nurse-arrested-police-protocol/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Probably second degree murder.

there is legal precedent to let him off the hook in such cases

I recall they were being tracked by some other cops who would have witnessed the whole thing

no he is a cop that helps a lot.

plus remember that guy who killed the pedo karate instructor who molested the guy's son? he shot him in the head on video it's on youtube. he didn't serve any time

The hesitation would provide a conviction. He obviously thought it through and then shot him.

>BUT WHAT IS IN THE BOX! TELL ME!

theres a dead body, the police knows where they are and noone but morgan or brad pitt could have dobe it

>killed the pedo karate instructor who molested the guy's son
based

Code of silence. Other cops look away when another "goes over the edge." It's also been shown in court that fellow cops will falsify their reports to cover one another's asses.

This is not meant to be some political statement (it's just how life works). In a "realistic" sense, I assume the other cops who find the body and understand the situation will look the other way.

>He obviously thought it through and then shot him.
He wasn't thinking it through, he was trying to hold himself back, and then he got that one image of her in his mind, the one quick flash we see of her in the bed with her face up close, and then he loses it.
Either way, his mental state was fucking gone, convicted or not.

He'd probably get off with some circumstances thing.

Point is his wife and baby are dead and John Doe won.

This

Also he's a cop, he would have multiple officers vouch for his character to the judge.


It didn't change the killers point anyways

Nah. He might lose his badge but that's about it. They have the head and Somerset's testimony.

He'd only been there a week and no one liked him.

Not that it matters.

death sentence should be brought back for pedophiles/child molesters
animated child porn(lolis, etc) is going to be banned globally on the internet sometime soon, cant wait for these creepy motherfuckers to get sentenced

>Your honor this man is not guilty of murder, their was a significant amount of emotional buildup before the killing
I don't think that will work

WHAAAATS IN THEEE BOOOXXXXXXX AHHHH

seriously, was it supposed to be a comedy?

he might have had a chance if it happened in texas. but nah hes fucked

It can change it from premeditated to manslaughter with a good lawyer, which most police forces have

>I don't think that will work

Emotional state is a factor that is always considered.

It would really depend on what they charged him with. My guess is they wouldn't at all given who Doe was and the fact that his wife had been brutally killed by him.

The prosecutor probably wouldn't even indict.

>please give me the gun.

Think that kind of goes out the window after he filled his dead body with holes

You guys know it was just a movie right?

It will downgrade the murder chage to voluntary manslaughter as it the circumstances that lead to his death aren't premeditated and was committed after he lost self control as seeing the severed head of his wife.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)

Thank you for making this thread OP. This is a question that I've posed on Sup Forums multiple times and I enjoy thinking through the hypothetical.

The conventional wisdom on this hypothetical is that he would definitely never be a cop ever again, but as far as criminal liability is concerned, he would either receive a very minimal sentence, or none at all. The investigation and later legal proceedings (a trial?) would be mere formalities where no one, not judge, jury nor the public, wants him to suffer any more, despite the fact that, independent of his snapping, the character Mills is really a very stupid man.

A related matter: depending on the state, to what extent can a jury dictate or influence sentencing? Clearly it's a matter of the applicable state and federal laws. The sentencing phase (if it even comes to that point, the defendent is totally sympathetic) is another interesting hypo-within-a-hypo.

Quasi-related: I was tooling around town the other day and I discovered a long linear section of high power lines that I'd never seen before, wedged in a residential neighborhood. the location struck me as a good spot for some studen filmmaker to shoot a spoof/re-creation of the scene as an exercise.

The reason they took the death sentence off for those crimes + rape is because if you're gonna get killed for what you did anyway you might as well kill your victim

>t. I have no imagination and don't know how to have fun

That would have been a landmark case and no he wouldnt have.

he was emotionally disturbed and thought that the suspect was trying to reach a gun and felt that his and his partners life was in danger

and I don't see any bleeding heart liberals saying that the suspect was a gud boi, trying to turn his life around and dindu nuffin

>Realistically, would he have been found guilty of any crime?

hell no.

first his boss tells Summerset "We'll take care of him"

second we live in a world where cops are filmed killing people in non-self defense situation and they are rarely convicted.

third most states offer of host of potential legal defenses for situations like this.

fourth this would have to go in front of a jury, who would never-ever convict him.

Cite it. You have no idea how the law works.

>The investigation and later legal proceedings (a trial?) would be mere formalities where no one, not judge, jury nor the public, wants him to suffer any more

Justice is blind. Without fear or favor.

He committed the crime, which would get downgraded to voluntary manslaughter on account of the clear provocation. The law would view it that he had no legal right to take it upon himself to exact justice and execute him. Self defense (as an extension the defense of those whom you care about) only occurs before/while the crime is being committed. Snapping and taking matters into your own hands after the fact, is against the law.

what's going on back here tho

>yes goy let us kill whoever we want, you're not suggesting the justice system is ever wrong are you? :^)

What are juries?

Go away.

It depends on how liked the cop is and what the reason was he went over the line

"psychopath gives you your wife's head in a box" seems like one of those situations that would get an entire corps to synch stories to keep him out of jail

Jesus you're retarded.

We are Americans. It's probably different where you're from.

You should go to Wikipedia and look up OJ.

A California jury would convict him.

I am American. Born and raised.
Your reply to me was not an argument, or a citation of precedent.

The French First Republic implemented the death penalty for a whole host of crimes. The murder rate shot up because people didn't want to leave witnesses.

>implying this would even get to trial

He'd be offered plea for the lesser sentence and serve some time on account of the circumstances and the fact he was a cop, any lawyer worth his salt would strongly advise him to take it.

If he ignores that advice, he needs to prove that he acted in self defense to avoid jail time as there is no doubt he actually committed the crime and the extenuating circumstances do not fully absolve him of culpability.

>hypotheticals are never discussed, either in school, or here, and so shall never be discussed

Being this much of a fool.

Do you live under a rock?

Cops kill people illegally and get off scot free all the time.

More importantly, if you were Brad's character (whateverthefuckhisnamewas), would you give a shit about being punished at the time you shot the guy? Seems like temporary insanity to me. I would have shot that mother fucker and then fucked his dead corpse through the eye hole socket with my gun while shooting the back of his skull out. I would have stomped on his corpse, swung him around like a ragdoll smashing him on the ground, ran to the car, run him over with it repeatedly. After all of that, when I had calmed down, I would have checked the box.

If they had tried and convicted me for murder, my only comment would be "worth it".

At worst, second degree murder. Most likely, not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. At best, jury nullification/jury would simply acquit him.

Stop believing what you hear on the news.

I'm extremely familiar with the OJ case, it came up multiple times during law school.
OJ got off because his defense team created enough reasonable doubt he committed the crime. The famous "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" and the prosecutor's mistake of letting him try the glove on to begin with are big reasons as to why this miscarriage of justice occured.

The reasonable doubt that he actually shot him wouldn't exist in this case. The mitigating circumstances would only reduce the sentence not excuse him completely of the crime.

FAKE NEWS LMAO AYYYY FAKE NEWS

>kys

>Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for federal courts, "If the victim's wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior, the court may reduce the sentence below the guideline range to reflect the nature and circumstances of the offense."

Murder would go down to manslaughter, under the rules of provocation.

For me, if sentencing; no prison sentence, mandatory counselling and therapy. License reviewed by the appropriate police force.

Opportunity to move to a different police department and rebuild life/career.

>it's a Sup Forums pretends they're lawyers thread

jury nullification

>he actually listens to msm
Sad!

Passion/provocation is a defense to murder. In this case, since he had just learned of a gruesome murder of his beloved wife, then killed the killer who egged him on to do it. He would have no problem getting that defense. In addition, he is law enforcement and would get all benefit of the doubt.

Voluntary manslaughter is the maximum I would say he would get. It's a justification for his actions, not a total excuse. But given the nature of the killer and the personal relationship with Brad's character (law enforcement agent), I think complete jury acquittal is not out of question.

Even with voluntary manslaughter, he would probably get minimum sentence and first parole possible, as he is not a threat to society or really very likely to be rehabilitated by imprisonment.

That's the real answer. I did well in criminal law class at a high ranking law school. This is all from memory though, and may depend on which state you are in.

>sentence
>assuming conviction

Things that would have to happen to get that far:

The DA would have to decide to prosecute.
He'd have to be convicted by a jury of 12.

Given the nature of that case, there is no way it would even go to trial.

Missed, try again, faget.

Funny I've been a cop 6 years and the only case I've seen that happen both cops were charged and convicted of multiple crimes.

It just goes on like that for a few miles. It's more impressive when you see it in person, and I couldn't help but think of the movie, naturally.

This is partly correct but also completely pollyannish. People are currently upset that an illegal executive order portends to be rescinded in the coming months. The point being that the laws are only as good as the people who are willing to carry those laws into practicable reality, to impose the rule of law as reality upon society. And the point of this hypo, what makes it fun to think about, is that it's exactly the type of perfect hypo which would cause a group of people to conclude "if the rule of law requires x (say, convicting Mills and throwing him in prison for a few years depending on exact charges, details etc), then in this case we will to the best of our ability openly defy the rule of law.", or at least, to on no account whatever unanimously render a guilty verdict.

People, both private citizens and people who are charged with upholding the rule of law, ignore the law all the time. It's almost like you didn't hear about the thing in the hospital a few days ago.

You have just demonstrated you understand absolutely nothing about this.

Not in Texas

best answer i saw so far

this is what i summarized from it.

No.

Poor Brad Pitt. His trauma from going through this probably led him to cheat on Jennifer Aniston. I'm glad he transitioned back to being a successful actor though. Don't know what he was thinking becoming a police detective.

>It's almost like you didn't hear about the thing in the hospital a few days ago.

That nurse who got arrested by the dipshit cop that's about to lose his badge, because she wouldn't break the law and draw blood from an unconcious patient? Yeah, I've heard about it, it actually proves my point.

legally he'd be guilty, but I doubt a jury would convict him
>serial killer who just brutally murdered 6 others, then got the head off a pregnant women gets shot in the face
theyd probably give him a reward. People have gotten away with a lot less

for example, this man was found not guilty by a jury despite shooting him point blank, on camera, due to the circumstances
>youtube.com/watch?v=_PUE8fYxjq8

Wow that's awesome, your personal anecdote has really changed my worldview.

Correction, according to CNN, he has been fired.
edition.cnn.com/2017/09/05/health/nurse-arrested-police-protocol/index.html

>those cops that took away my weed and covered for each other is the same thing as cops covering for the guy whos wife head was sawed off and then delivered to him like a dominos pizza

...

Did you actually watch the video? He plead no contest and got off with probation, based on the extenuating circumstances. He wasn't found not guilty, which is a very specific term; meaning that they did not commit a crime.

kys faggot

my mistake, been awhile since ive read up on it. Still, he straight up capped a guy, from behind, after ambushing him between two police officers and only got probation. You cant tell me the circumstances around that didnt help

On the contrary, no it doesn't. The anecdote more effectively proves /my/ point, which is the one with primacy: that people ignore the law constantly, especially as their power enables them to do so. That is the reason why, assuming you're the same person who wrote , that that post's pat characterization of how the world actually works in practice is hopelessly naive.

Your counter to this, your /secondary/ and /inessential/ point which you /mistakenly/ believe to win you your corner, is that the cop was found out and now faces the consequences (both social and potentially legal), but this is secondary and incidental. Because for every one person - whether cop, criminal or private speed demon - who violates the law /and is caught/, several more do so without ever facing the consequences. And this is the inarguable nub where the argument terminates and I win.