West Norman shooting yesterday; shooter was CLEET instructor

[okcBob]

In my opinion, this guy’s bio screams “ I have a huge ego”.

And that huge ego manifested itself on the day he pulled the trigger

 

[bigfug]

Yeah ... But he was an instructor for CLEET. I'm gonna stand by my comment. He, of all people in the LE community of Oklahoma, given his position (which apparently was his ENTIRE identity given what I've seen and heard), deserves (and rightfully should be) held to that higher standard.

I have seen people argue that cops "don't deserve" to be held that higher standard when off duty. ********. He has the training and has been taught how to handle himself in situations much more problematic than being cut off (or flipped off and called a bad name) in traffic and THIS is how he chose to respond?? Yeah, nope. He's gonna get jail time. And he deserves every damned bit of it. IMHO, of course.

I dont disagree with the fact that he messed up and deserves what he gets, and I may have misread what his "resume" says. I was under the assumption that he was a CLEET certified instructor, not an actual instructor in the employment of CLEET. I would hold one to a higher standard than the other. When I think CLEET firearms instructor, I'm thinking the guy a dept sends to CLEET to get certified, who then becomes the dept's go to trainer for quals, cadets, etc. If he were employed directly by CLEET, then he would be the guy training the guys (instructor) that I am thinking of/referring to.

 

[donner]

Do you know if the jury is allowed to research the accused?
I believe the rap sheet isn’t usually admissible in court?
Isn’t it normal during sentencing to reveal it unless you have a great attorney to seal it.?

it probably depends on the case. I don't think a person's rap sheet can be included in the court proceedings in cases where the people involved would have had no way of knowing about the person's past (in a situation like self defense).

So you can't shoot a stranger and then claim you did it because of that person's past bad acts since you'd have no way of knowing about the person's past. Now if you shot someone and knew the person's history, like they had attacked you before, you could likely include it.

You can't always present evidence to blame the 'victim' (for lack of a better term) that you learned after the fact.

Nor can the prosecution present a case using past acts unless they are directly connected to the crime in question. Otherwise you might get people convicting someone because of a history of crime and not because the jury thought the person committed that specific crime.

But the court can look at the totality of the situation when it comes to sentencing.

Or at least that is what i believe i recall from conversations with an attorney friend. But i could easily be mistaken.

 

[T. MIKE SMITH]

I take it from this dialog, it's not ok to shoot someone even if they deserve it, based on their past criminal activity.

 

[THE JOKER]

it probably depends on the case. I don't think a person's rap sheet can be included in the court proceedings in cases where the people involved would have had no way of knowing about the person's past (in a situation like self defense).

So you can't shoot a stranger and then claim you did it because of that person's past bad acts since you'd have no way of knowing about the person's past. Now if you shot someone and knew the person's history, like they had attacked you before, you could likely include it.

You can't always present evidence to blame the 'victim' (for lack of a better term) that you learned after the fact.

Nor can the prosecution present a case using past acts unless they are directly connected to the crime in question. Otherwise you might get people convicting someone because of a history of crime and not because the jury thought the person committed that specific crime.

But the court can look at the totality of the situation when it comes to sentencing.

Or at least that is what i believe i recall from conversations with an attorney friend. But i could easily be mistaken.

I believe a VPO can be admissible in certain circumstances. My main question is,can the jury Google the accused or can that be grounds for a mistrial?

 

[donner]

I believe a VPO can be admissible in certain circumstances. My main question is can the jury Google the accused

i'm sure prior bad acts can be included in some cases. But it's more likely dependent on the specific facts of the case.

I believe judges typically tell jurors not to watch media or do things that would otherwise influence the case outside of what is presented in court. But that doesn't always mean it'd stop them and could be grounds for a mistrial if discovered.

Sequestering juries comes to mind as a practice to limit outside influence.

 

[donner]

I take it from this dialog, it's not ok to shoot someone even if they deserve it, based on their past criminal activity.

You can't shoot someone for having done bad things previously, especially if you have no way to knowing their past history at the time of the shooting. If you are defending yourself you have to be able to point to the threat (which again, a person's history, which was unknown to you at that time, isn't enough)

 

[donner]

I’m pretty sure the victim’s past and rap sheet are almost always fully admissible.

Ah, i remembered the term i was looking for.

Prior Bad Acts: Specific acts to prove that a person’s action conforms with a character trait is usually not admissible. However, a defendant’s “prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation are admissible in a case where he is accused of similar conduct.”

 

[T. MIKE SMITH]

You can't shoot someone for having done bad things previously, especially if you have no way to knowing their past history at the time of the shooting. If you are defending yourself you have to be able to point to the threat (which again, a person's history, which was unknown to you at that time, isn't enough)

Ya I go that

 

[SoonerP226]

Do you know if the jury is allowed to research the accused?

Generally speaking, no. The jurors are not allowed to do any outside research; they’re only supposed to be evaluating the facts presented to them during the trial.