The People's Sheriff has man die of dehydration in his Jail

[Darat]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

If they knew? Of course they knew, he was awaiting evaluation. I am asking how you know the guards would know that he wasn't drinking water hypothetically given (poured down waterless toilet or whatever). How do you know his behavior and symptoms weren't being reported uphill, and being handled too slowly, from a systemic failure?

First off, though: you cite Wiki's hunger strike procedures and policies. Are you seriously suggesting that Thomas was having a conscientious hunger strike as opposed to suffering from mental illness?

From WebMD

Quote:

Symptoms of Dehydration in Adults

The signs and symptoms of dehydration range from minor to severe and include:

• Increased thirst
• Dry mouth and swollen tongue
• Weakness
• Dizziness
• Palpitations (feeling that the heart is jumping or pounding)
• Confusion
• Sluggishness fainting
• Fainting
• Inability to sweat
• Decreased urine output
• Urine color may indicate dehydration. If urine is concentrated and deeply yellow or amber, you may be dehydrated.
  
• When to Seek Medical Care
  
• Call your doctor if the dehydrated person experiences any of the following:
  
• Increased or constant vomiting for more than a day
  
• Fever over 101°F
  
• Diarrhea for more than 2 days
  
• Weight loss
  
• Decreased urine production
  
• Confusion
  
• Weakness

Take the person to the hospital's emergency department if these situations occur:

• Fever higher than 103°F
  
• Confusion
  
• Sluggishness (lethargy)
  
• Headache
  
• Seizures
  
• Difficulty breathing
  
• Chest or abdominal pains
  
• Fainting

No urine in the last 12 hours

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

I... uhhh...don't think we are talking about a hunger strike. He is reported to have been waiting psychiatric evaluation. That it wasn't coming quickly enough indicates a systemic failure of the justice system rather than conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. In the hypothetical scenario I suggested, the guards may literally not be aware that he was not drinking the water he had been hypothetically given, assuming Thomas was begging for water, pouring it for instance in the flushless prison toilet, and immediately asking for more. The guards may have been assuming he was being a deliberate nuisance, but actually drinking.

OK. I will refrain from making posts related to criminal charges until there is an update on the story. (That includes more information about the previous death).

I do have a question on your hypothetical. If the prisoners are not eating in a common area, then someone must be bring them food. That means for at least 2 or 3 times a day, guards looked in his cell and saw him. People who have gone two days without water do not look healthy. Given (a) the appearance of the prisoner hours before he died, (b) that someone had already died while being denied water and (c) that he was already marked for psychiatric evaluation, shouldn't we expect any reasonable person to have noticed that this was more than a case of being a deliberate nuisance?

B

[cullennz]

You couldn't make this up.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/08/...w-enforcement/

Quote:

David Clarke Named ‘Person of the Year’ by NYC Police Union for ‘Unflinching’ Support of Law Enforcement


One of New York City’s largest police unions has selected outspoken Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke to be its 2016 Person of the Year.

The avid Trump supporter and Black Lives Matter basher is slated to speak at the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association convention early next week.

The union’s controversial move to select Clarke is a stark contrast to last year’s honor recipient, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. It’s also unusual that the PBA would chose a recipient with no ties to the city’s law enforcement or political scene.

“Sheriff Clarke is a passionate and vocal defender of police officers, at a time when our job is more difficult and dangerous than ever before,” said PBA president Patrick Lynch. “That is exactly what the PBA does for New York City police officers, so it has been encouraging to hear Sheriff Clarke make the same case on a national stage.”

“We should be hearing that type of support from elected leaders in both parties and at all levels of government, and are honored to have Sheriff Clarke as our Person of the Year,” he added.

Retired NYPD detective Marquez Claxton has a vastly different view of the conservative, cowboy hat-toting sheriff. For him, the PBA’s decision to honor Clarke is nothing short of “surprising and disturbing.”

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

OK. I will refrain from making posts related to criminal charges until there is an update on the story. (That includes more information about the previous death).

I do have a question on your hypothetical. If the prisoners are not eating in a common area, then someone must be bring them food. That means for at least 2 or 3 times a day, guards looked in his cell and saw him. People who have gone two days without water do not look healthy. Given (a) the appearance of the prisoner hours before he died, (b) that someone had already died while being denied water and (c) that he was already marked for psychiatric evaluation, shouldn't we expect any reasonable person to have noticed that this was more than a case of being a deliberate nuisance?

B

Fair enough. Based on the pictures I have seen of Thomas, he was a very big man, and the physical symptoms may not have been that obvious. Depending on his behavior, he may not have been behaving noticeably different than when he was brought in (described as erratic). If he was being given food and water, the guards may have been assuming his behavior to be 'nuts'. I don't care to defend the guards, as I have a strong feeling they intended him to suffer, but not necessarily to actually torture him or for him to die. I don't now if the guards on duty were there in 2011, when the other prisoner died, or how much that incident was talked about, they could have plausibly not known.

I would certainly like to think I would raise holy hell to get attention for someone I thought was in danger, as I assume you would. In fact, I know I would. The refusing food report just gives me pause and makes me consider the hypothetical where the guards may in fact have been giving him water. I still do not know if the guards reported it to their supervisors or not, nor to I know how many symptoms the man outwardly showed.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

From WebMD

Yes, he may have shown all of these symptoms, some, a few or none when the guards checked on him in solitary.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Because it would be irrelevant when it comes to the duty of care. Or do you think it's required to obtain a lot of permissions in order to get a prisoner to a doctor when a prisoner is obviously ill and/or in the process of harming himself?

Beyond that, an order to deny the patient water or ignore pleas for drinking water would be illegal and any guard following such an order would be legally culpable for any consequences. So, if a report was made and nothing happened, that would only increase the number of people legally responsible for the death; it would not make the supervising guards less responsible.

No, what I'm suggesting is that even in the case of a declared hunger strike, physicians have to be involved in determining whether or not the prisoner is competent to make the decision not to take nutrition. In the absence of a declaration, the duty to obtain medical evaluation is unquestionable.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a prison guard can't take anyone he pleases out of their cells and take them where he wants to, regardless of intention. Pretty sure there is a pretty strict chain of command in order to get that permission. Which may or may not have been done. And depending on how often the guards worked the same parts of the prison, they may not have individually seen him each successive day. Guards don't necessarily work the same block every day.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a prison guard can't take anyone he pleases out of their cells and take them where he wants to, regardless of intention. Pretty sure there is a pretty strict chain of command in order to get that permission. Which may or may not have been done. And depending on how often the guards worked the same parts of the prison, they may not have individually seen him each successive day. Guards don't necessarily work the same block every day.

Blah, blah, blah. You call/tell your supervisor that prisoner <X> needs to go to the emergency room. If it takes more than 30 minutes to get the prisoner on the way to the hospital, you start going over heads while keeping a detailed log.

The most basic duty of anyone guarding prisoners of the law is to maintain their health. Everything else is secondary. It seems like we should have even higher expectations of safety for prisoners in city/county jails given that such prisoners have either a) not yet been convicted of the crime for which they're being held or b) been convicted of a crime so minor that they aren't going to be sent to state or federal prison. There is no acceptable excuse for a prisoner dying of dehydration in a jail cell without seeing a doctor.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Blah, blah, blah. You call/tell your supervisor that prisoner <X> needs to go to the emergency room. If it takes more than 30 minutes to get the prisoner on the way to the hospital, you start going over heads while keeping a detailed log.

The most basic duty of anyone guarding prisoners of the law is to maintain their health. Everything else is secondary. It seems like we should have even higher expectations of safety for prisoners in city/county jails given that such prisoners have either a) not yet been convicted of the crime for which they're being held or b) been convicted of a crime so minor that they aren't going to be sent to state or federal prison. There is no acceptable excuse for a prisoner dying of dehydration in a jail cell without seeing a doctor.

Who said there was any excuse for what happened? Consider actually reading posts. I have said that findings of criminal negligence is a certainty, torture likely. My only contention is of the biased, knee-jerk conclusion that this was a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

I don't now if the guards on duty were there in 2011, when the other prisoner died, or how much that incident was talked about, they could have plausibly not known.

But wouldn't their not knowing indicate a significant problem with how the sheriff is running things?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

But wouldn't their not knowing indicate a significant problem with how the sheriff is running things?

Yes, and I am 100% confident that there is systemic abuse/neglect going on in that prison. From the top down. I am not convinced that there was a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. Cruelty and neglect causing death, a certainty. A group planning a calculated murder, as claimed by other posters, will need a little more evidence.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I think I can do better:

Something obviously went terribly wrong, and someone needs to be held accountable, probably with criminal charges. But at this point, with basically no details about the particulars, there's no reason to try to blame the sheriff for this death. We need to wait for more details to emerge, and see how the sheriff handles this case, before we can conclude that he's at fault here. The article's attempts to tie his political activism to this case is at this point pure political propaganda.

Blame... perhaps not. Responsibility... abso-bloody-lutely. For example, a bank robber stabs and kills a bank guard inside the bank, but the getaway driver is also charged with the same crime, even if she is completely unaware of the killing in the bank. Similarly, the sheriff shares responsibility. Except in this case, the boss is supposed to be there in order to shoulder most of this responsibility -- that's what he's being paid for, for one thing. That's the very center of the job, in fact. The power to set policies and so on with the additional burden of the responsibility if that policy fails.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

No fan of cops, just reason. If the water was shut off for disciplinary reasons, such as urinating in a cup and throwing it at the guards, the guards may have been sadistically 'teaching him a lesson', not realizing that the other shift guards were also depriving him of water. Torture, yes, but not necessarily premeditated murder per se. No actual evidence of conspiracy yet.

That's the thing. Being deprived of necessities of life such as food and water must never be used for disciplinary reasons. Ever. Treat prisoners as human beings and the majority will act like human beings. Treat them as animals then many will lash out in the only ways they can. And that can make the job of being a prison guard really suck. But it in no way mitigates the responsibility each and every guard there has as to ensuring the health and well-being of the prisoners. Morally, certainly, and legally as well.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Devil's advocate: if the prisoner had often moaned for water in the past, the guards may have thought of it as theatrics, and assumed he was being a pest rather than actually dying. If the guards changing shifts communicate less than we are assuming, it is plausible that they thought they were disciplining rather than torturing. Not likely, but possible. The description of conspiracy for premeditated murder as opposed to torture is my only contention here.

FSM help them if it's found out that any logs were falsified too, in order to superficially pass inspection that the guards were giving him food and/or water regularly.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Yes, he may have shown all of these symptoms, some, a few or none when the guards checked on him in solitary.

The guy was dying -- I sincerely doubt there were "few or [no]" symptoms present.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Yes, and I am 100% confident that there is systemic abuse/neglect going on in that prison. From the top down. I am not convinced that there was a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. Cruelty and neglect causing death, a certainty. A group planning a calculated murder, as claimed by other posters, will need a little more evidence.

I thought Dave Rogers gave you a very cogent and reasonable response. Why does that not make much of an impact to your reasoning -- as Devil's Advocate, of course.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Yes, and I am 100% confident that there is systemic abuse/neglect going on in that prison. From the top down. I am not convinced that there was a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. Cruelty and neglect causing death, a certainty. A group planning a calculated murder, as claimed by other posters, will need a little more evidence.

Whether or not murder was intended, if a felony resulted in a death and the persons committing the felony were aware of and reckless of the possibility of causing death, then murder was committed. If the guards had a unity of purpose in depriving the victim of water, then that should be enough to establish guilt. It's inconceivable that they could all have failed to supply water to a dying man because they all thought it was somebody else's job, and equally inconceivable that they didn't realize that people die if they go without water long enough.

Dave

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Fair enough. Based on the pictures I have seen of Thomas, he was a very big man, and the physical symptoms may not have been that obvious.

<snip>

Um, no.

The physical symptoms of the end stages of death by dehydration are going to be obvious to anyone who does not have a vested interest in ignoring them.

[Desert Fox]

I thought it was going to be about Arpio

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

FSM help them if it's found out that any logs were falsified too, in order to superficially pass inspection that the guards were giving him food and/or water regularly.

It was reported that he was refusing food (by Marcus Berry, the inmate who could see and hear Thomas, linked below). This causes me to wonder if he was also not drinking water that was given to him, while still begging for more. Also, Berry did not say that Thomas was not being given water, which seems like an odd omission since he confirmed that Thomas was not eating.

Originally Posted by TheNorseman

The guy was dying -- I sincerely doubt there were "few or [no]" symptoms present.

Berry: 'I could tell he was getting weaker. One day he just lay down, dehydrated and hungry'. A severely mentally ill person who will not eat may not show the symptoms you might expect.

Originally Posted by TheNorseman

I thought Dave Rogers gave you a very cogent and reasonable response. Why does that not make much of an impact to your reasoning -- as Devil's Advocate, of course.

I thought so too, and looking back even complimented his reasoning. So I looked into Wisconsin statutes, linked below. In addition to felony murder, there are first and second degree intentional homicide, first and second degree reckless homicide, etc, all of which might apply. Having not passed the bar in Wisconsin and having limited evidence, I am not confident which is most apt here. First degree reckless homicide may fit the bill as well as DaveRodgers observation of felony murder.

As Devil's Advocate: if, as hypothesized, the guards were giving him water but in his mentally ill state Thomas was not drinking it (as he was not eating food), the guards may be culpable for a lesser crime, or none at all. Felony murder, as claimed by other posters, need not have a premeditated element if my understanding of the statutes is correct. I am primarily challenging this claim of conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, which in context implies that the guards planned to end Thomas' life.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/i...days/89960362/

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/940/I/01

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Whether or not murder was intended, if a felony resulted in a death and the persons committing the felony were aware of and reckless of the possibility of causing death, then murder was committed. If the guards had a unity of purpose in depriving the victim of water, then that should be enough to establish guilt. It's inconceivable that they could all have failed to supply water to a dying man because they all thought it was somebody else's job, and equally inconceivable that they didn't realize that people die if they go without water long enough.

Dave

A sound argument, but if the guards were following instructions and prison policy, and particularly if they were hypothetically giving Thomas water that he was not drinking (as he was not eating), the intent does come into play. I do not think the guards necessarily had this unity of purpose, but that disciplinary instructions came down to them, and they may not have considered the behavior to be jeopardizing Thomas' life, particularly if he was geing given undrunk water. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal:

Quote:

The homicide ruling does not necessarily mean a crime was committed or that the district attorney's office will press criminal charges against any County Jail employees. The medical examiner uses the term "homicide" to denote a death "at the hands of another." Should the case be criminally prosecuted, the district attorney's office would need to prove an intent to kill or a reckless disregard for life.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/i...days/89960362/

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Um, no.

The physical symptoms of the end stages of death by dehydration are going to be obvious to anyone who does not have a vested interest in ignoring them.

Please see the above quote from inmate Berry, who I assume you would concur does not have a vested interest in ignoring symptoms. 'I saw he was getting weaker, and one day he just lay down' does not sound like anything that would draw attention. The same description could be used for being tired.

[Ladewig]

I suppose one's mental illness might be severe enough that one might believe that any water being provided has been poisoned, thus causing one to dispose of the water without drinking it.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

A sound argument, but if the guards were following instructions and prison policy, and particularly if they were hypothetically giving Thomas water that he was not drinking (as he was not eating), the intent does come into play.

Let's remember that the hypothesis that Thomas was refusing water is so far only your invention. Let's also remember that the guards had a duty of care to give medical assistance to someone who might or might not be refusing food and water unless and until it was established that he was exercising a choice he was mentally competent to exercise, a duty of care they clearly did not discharge even if, hypothetically, he had been refusing water. And finally, let's not forget that "I was only following orders" is not a defense, so the guards should not have been following prison policy if that policy was patently illegal - for example, if it included withholding water till an inmate died of thirst, which nobody could reasonably claim not to know was illegal.

Dave

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I suppose one's mental illness might be severe enough that one might believe that any water being provided has been poisoned, thus causing one to dispose of the water without drinking it.

In one of the articles, the family is quoted as saying that he would not eat unless it was his usual meals brought by his family, such was the severity of his mental illness.

[fagin]

Well that excuses everything.

And by everything, I mean nothing at all.

The jail, and all employees had a duty of care, they failed, big time.

And if they guy in the next cell could tell that, it just makes the neglect, for want of a better word, by the guards that much worse.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Let's remember that the hypothesis that Thomas was refusing water is so far only your invention. Let's also remember that the guards had a duty of care to give medical assistance to someone who might or might not be refusing food and water unless and until it was established that he was exercising a choice he was mentally competent to exercise, a duty of care they clearly did not discharge even if, hypothetically, he had been refusing water. And finally, let's not forget that "I was only following orders" is not a defense, so the guards should not have been following prison policy if that policy was patently illegal - for example, if it included withholding water till an inmate died of thirst, which nobody could reasonably claim not to know was illegal.

Dave

Yes, I agree. My contention, as it has been from the start, is that the characterization of conspiracy to commit premeditated murder is unwarranted based on the available evidence, particularly on a skeptical forum, and based as they did on one Huffpost article.

The claim by Berry about Thomas not eating lightly supports the hypothesis (invention is somewhat loaded IMHO) that he was not drinking either. Other posters came to very specific conclusions, particularly regarding premeditation.I hesitate in accepting the notion that the guards were collectively sociopaths that willfully and knowingly caused him to die. Is my suggestion of another scenario which also fits the evidence really so untenable on a skeptical forum?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by fagin

Well that excuses everything.

And by everything, I mean nothing at all.

The jail, and all employees had a duty of care, they failed, big time.

And if they guy in the next cell could tell that, it just makes the neglect, for want of a better word, by the guards that much worse.

Please read some posts. All are in agreement that it is inexcusable. Berry asked if Thomas needed water, and Thomas replied with a muffled 'yeah'. Berry does not say that the guards refused to bring him water, just that it was turned off in his cell, which in context is a strange omission, considering that it is the primary issue. Coupled with the family's report that he only ate what they brought him, it is plausible that the guards may not be the sadistic murderers they are being portrayed as.

[BardKesnit]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Yes. I know. As I said, that would certainly be criminal negligence and probably torture. Just not conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. If the guards were giving Thomas food and water, and he refused them, is it murder?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Whether or not murder was intended, if a felony resulted in a death and the persons committing the felony were aware of and reckless of the possibility of causing death, then murder was committed. If the guards had a unity of purpose in depriving the victim of water, then that should be enough to establish guilt. It's inconceivable that they could all have failed to supply water to a dying man because they all thought it was somebody else's job, and equally inconceivable that they didn't realize that people die if they go without water long enough.

Dave

Bluntly, there is no conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy under the law requires agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal act. So unless the guards all got together and agreed to not give this guy water with the intent of killing him, there is no conspiracy.

(I am a lawyer.)

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

I thought so too, and looking back even complimented his reasoning. So I looked into Wisconsin statutes, linked below. In addition to felony murder, there are first and second degree intentional homicide, first and second degree reckless homicide, etc, all of which might apply. Having not passed the bar in Wisconsin and having limited evidence, I am not confident which is most apt here. First degree reckless homicide may fit the bill as well as DaveRodgers observation of felony murder.

Not felony murder. Felony murder is when someone is killed while the perp committed another crime, which must be one of the crimes laid out in the statute. (In this case, aggravated battery, agg battery to an unborn child, battery against specific people, sexual assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, arson, burglary, armed auto theft, armed robbery.)

Quote:

Felony murder, as claimed by other posters, need not have a premeditated element if my understanding of the statutes is correct.

Yes and no. The death does not have to be premeditated, but there must be an underlying crime.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b04a1497b5f12e

Not too surpsizing he wouldn't have a well run jail.

The Sherif didn't do that the jailer did.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by BardKesnit

So unless the guards all got together and agreed to not give this guy water with the intent of killing him, there is no conspiracy.

What if they got together and agreed not to give him water with the intent of making him suffer, and he died as a result? Presumably that would establish conspiracy (though I imagine it might be hard to prove in court), but not necessarily conspiracy to commit murder? What offense would this be?

From what you say of Wisconsin law, it might be a lesser degree of homicide, if felony murder is specifically excluded. Is this set by precedent or statute?

Dave

[BardKesnit]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What if they got together and agreed not to give him water with the intent of making him suffer, and he died as a result?

Nope. Conspiracy is a specific intent crime. The parties must agree to carry out the specific criminal act with the specific intent.

Quote:

Presumably that would establish conspiracy (though I imagine it might be hard to prove in court), but not necessarily conspiracy to commit murder?

Getting together and agreeing to deprive him of water would meet the "agreement between two or more people" part of conspiracy. As for the criminal act, I'm not actually sure what the crime would be for denying water. (It isn't battery, as that requires "touching.") I just made a quick scan through my state's criminal code and nothing jumped off at me as applicable. (There are criminal acts in other sections of the code, and I didn't go through all of them.)

Quote:

From what you say of Wisconsin law, it might be a lesser degree of homicide, if felony murder is specifically excluded. Is this set by precedent or statute?

Statute. MostlyDead linked to the Wisconsin statute for homicide. Under the heading "Felony Murder," there's a list of statute numbers. Those are the specific crimes that Wisconsin considers for felony murder. Each state has a slightly different list (though robbery, kidnapping, and sexual assault are pretty universal).

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by BardKesnit

Nope. Conspiracy is a specific intent crime. The parties must agree to carry out the specific criminal act with the specific intent.

Getting together and agreeing to deprive him of water would meet the "agreement between two or more people" part of conspiracy. As for the criminal act, I'm not actually sure what the crime would be for denying water. (It isn't battery, as that requires "touching.") I just made a quick scan through my state's criminal code and nothing jumped off at me as applicable. (There are criminal acts in other sections of the code, and I didn't go through all of them.)

Statute. MostlyDead linked to the Wisconsin statute for homicide. Under the heading "Felony Murder," there's a list of statute numbers. Those are the specific crimes that Wisconsin considers for felony murder. Each state has a slightly different list (though robbery, kidnapping, and sexual assault are pretty universal).

Try Wisconsin statute 940.29 -- Abuse of residents of penal facilities.

"Any person in charge of or employed in a penal or correctional institution or other place of confinement who abuses, neglects or ill-treats any person confined in or a resident of any such institution or place or who knowingly permits another person to do so is guilty of a Class I felony."

Denying water, most especially as a "punishment" for "flooding his cell" is the specific criminal act that they could conceivably conspired to commit.

[BardKesnit]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Try Wisconsin statute 940.29 -- Abuse of residents of penal facilities.

"Any person in charge of or employed in a penal or correctional institution or other place of confinement who abuses, neglects or ill-treats any person confined in or a resident of any such institution or place or who knowingly permits another person to do so is guilty of a Class I felony."

Denying water, most especially as a "punishment" for "flooding his cell" is the specific criminal act that they could conceivably conspired to commit.

Yup, that works.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by BardKesnit

Yup, that works.

Since that's not on the list for felony murder, then, presumably that would preclude a murder charge, right?

Dave

[applecorped]

Blue lives matter

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BardKesnit

Bluntly, there is no conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy under the law requires agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal act. So unless the guards all got together and agreed to not give this guy water with the intent of killing him, there is no conspiracy.

(I am a lawyer.)




Not felony murder. Felony murder is when someone is killed while the perp committed another crime, which must be one of the crimes laid out in the statute. (In this case, aggravated battery, agg battery to an unborn child, battery against specific people, sexual assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, arson, burglary, armed auto theft, armed robbery.)



Yes and no. The death does not have to be premeditated, but there must be an underlying crime.

Thanks for the clarifications. Earlier posters were claiming that this was a premeditated murder and I have been arguing that there is no evidence to support premeditation (or conspiracy, at least yet). Based on the statutes, what we are informally calling premeditated murder would formally be intentional homicide, correct?

[BardKesnit]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Since that's not on the list for felony murder, then, presumably that would preclude a murder charge, right?

Dave

It precludes felony murder, but not another murder charge. Doing a quick scroll through the linked Wisconsin statute, an argument might be possible for first-degree reckless homicide. (Depends on how WI case law has defined "utter disregard for human life.") If not first-degree, then maybe second-degree reckless homicide.

Interestingly, I did not see a general "negligent homicide" statute. (Granted, I was scrolling through quickly, so may have missed it.)

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Based on the statutes, what we are informally calling premeditated murder would formally be intentional homicide, correct?

Yes.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Blame... perhaps not. Responsibility... abso-bloody-lutely. For example, a bank robber stabs and kills a bank guard inside the bank, but the getaway driver is also charged with the same crime, even if she is completely unaware of the killing in the bank. Similarly, the sheriff shares responsibility. Except in this case, the boss is supposed to be there in order to shoulder most of this responsibility -- that's what he's being paid for, for one thing. That's the very center of the job, in fact. The power to set policies and so on with the additional burden of the responsibility if that policy fails.

That would be as crazy as holding a business responsible for the conduct of it's employees. No true conservative would ever do that kind of insanity.

Next up you will be holding commanding officers in the military responsible for the actions of their subordinates.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

The Sherif didn't do that the jailer did.

And the buck never stops at the desk of the man in charge. Always got to find a lower level person to scapegoat.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Blue lives matter

Blue Careers matter!

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by MostlyDead

Thanks for the clarifications. Earlier posters were claiming that this was a premeditated murder and I have been arguing that there is no evidence to support premeditation (or conspiracy, at least yet). Based on the statutes, what we are informally calling premeditated murder would formally be intentional homicide, correct?

Yes clearly the staff of the jail would never have any idea that simply denying someone water for a week could be harmful. You have to remember the level of competence we are dealing with when we are talking about police officers after all.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yes clearly the staff of the jail would never have any idea that simply denying someone water for a week could be harmful. You have to remember the level of competence we are dealing with when we are talking about police officers after all.

"Not part of their training".

"No protocol in place."

Etc., etc.,

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That would be as crazy as holding a business responsible for the conduct of it's employees. No true conservative would ever do that kind of insanity.

Next up you will be holding commanding officers in the military responsible for the actions of their subordinates.

Pffff... what was I ever thinking!!? Of course you're right. That's why the big bosses get paid all that money -- to best decide who of their subordinates should be fed to the wolves.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yes clearly the staff of the jail would never have any idea that simply denying someone water for a week could be harmful. You have to remember the level of competence we are dealing with when we are talking about police officers after all.

As inmate Berry reported that Thomas was refusing food brought to him, and the family said that Thomas was severely mentally ill and would only ate meals brought by his family, I think it is reasonable to hypothesize that the guards may have been bringing him water, but he was not drinking it. Is this somehow impossible or even implausible to you?