Lawyer, 3 CHP officers linked to killing of ‘scrapper’

Either way, it wouldn't cover the failure to report, moving the body, lying about it, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What about this?

CALJIC 5.50 reads:

A person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat.

In the exercise of his right of self-defense a person may stand his ground and defend himself by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge; and a person may pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary.

This law applies even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene. [Source]

Seems there is wiggle room here.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Provided your life was in danger. He would have had to show that he believed there was an imminent threat to his life to use that defense.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps but it's all kind of irrelevant now that I think about it. They acted very strangely in covering it all up.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Lol! Next you're going to ask where I live and say you'd like to "hang out" sometime, right?

Ta-ta

BTW where do you live? Maybe we could go have a beer sometime?

Or play some golf ..

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps but it's all kind of irrelevant now that I think about it. They acted very strangely in covering it all up.

Kinda what I said up there at the top isn't it? Lol

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes, you did. But you know me...I like to arrive to conclusions on my own.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

True true.

www.nbcnews.com...

That article has a bit more info on who's charged with what. Sounds like one of the CHP guys is suspected of murder, the two brothers may have participated, the wife and stepdaughter are charged with obstruction and accessory. Still not 100% clear but it does shed some more light on things.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: FamCore

Agreed. That's one of the more disturbing mugshots I've seen on a while. The level of disconnect his mugshot portrays is pretty mind boggling. Zero effs given by him from what I can tell.

That's assuming he is found guilty by a court of course.
I agree it looks pretty much overwhelming but you know, trial by jury and all that, I'm a big believer in it.

Regarding the smiling mugshot, the current picture UK police have for me is a big beaming smile.
I was innocent and no way was I having the classic miserable looking criminal face in my mugshot so I presented a warm and most friendly wide smile.
The cop argued with me for a while but conceded there was no law prohibiting a smile for the camera.
I explained to him that if I was ever missing/wanted and the police issued my mugshot then I wanted the public to be looking for someone happy, not grumpy.

...I'm not sure my smile would be as wide if I was facing a murder charge, innocent or guilty.
Interesting story though, nice one for sharing it here.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
the guy's mugshot says it all.

Those are mugshots? Where were they taken, a Sears portrait studio?
I was under the impression that mugshots were taken after booking, in prison clothes, against a measurement background, front and side, holding your #.
Guess I'm mistaken.

a reply to: KAOStheory

Not every agency uses the same format for booking pictures, so no.

Subject, not each other.

If you can't discuss a topic without discussing each other, perhaps you shouldn't engage?

Title, and, coincidentally, the subject of the thread is:
Lawyer, 3 CHP officers linked to killing of ‘scrapper’

Here in Texas it is legal to kill someone who is trespassing/stealing from you, and I'm sure most states have similar defenses in place. So I was coming on here to see why they felt the need to hide the body.

Good God.

First of all....mugshot. That goes beyond smug, that is straight up jolly. A really creepy, terrifying type of jolly.

Second of all, it doesn't sound like the guy just caught him in the act, killed him then panicked and called in a couple of buddies to hide the body. It sounds like they captured him (after tracking him down, perhaps) then did who-knows-what to him, THEN killed him and dumped the body.

Third of all, it's not just Attorney McNutjob and one or two other people.....there's like ten accomplices!

"The only difference between fiction and reality, is that fiction has to make sense." -paraphrased from Mark Twain and Tom Clancy

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
First of all....mugshot. That goes beyond smug, that is straight up jolly. A really creepy, terrifying type of jolly.

Oh I'm not so sure, if we didn't know the background story and claims of murder coverup he looks quite a friendly chap in my opinion.
Now, image number 5 in the OP's link though, he looks proper creepy!

...remember trial by jury, innocent until beyond reasonable doubt folks. It's like a lynch mob in this thread lol

originally posted by: Lipton
What's sad is people are wringing their hands over the death and subsequent game of 'hide-the-body' of some meth-addled copper thief.

The only problem I see is that the state of California makes people defacto felons for defending their property, livelihood and lives. Here you have an example of the existence of a known thief being placed above that of the general population. I'll bet the only reason the body was drug all over the state is because Kauffman knew this and feared the righteous retribution from the state.

I don't typically have sympathy for thieves, and if I caught one on my property I would do what I had to do then call the meat wagon to come pick up. What's chilling about this story is the article mentions something about false imprisonment- which means he/they detained a LIVE thief. Then at some point where the threat of thieving was clearly not an issue, they kill him anyway. The cops were never called....except to help a lawyer dispose of the body. And at least 4 other people knew about the whole thing and kept it on the down low as well. Nobody on this thread is a bleeding heart for copper thieves.

How did he get away with a big grin like that for his mug shot.

LEO's know that facial recognition has great difficulty with smiling faces. That's ( supposedly) why you are not allowed to frown nor smile on your mug shot. Seeing that this was allowed, is suspect enough to believe that the corruption goes much deeper, than who they have currently arrested. I think we have seen just the tip of the iceberg.

a reply to: grainofsand

I too was booked on BS charges- mugshot, the whole nine. I tried to look as pleasant as possible, they even got onto me and told me not to smile. I damn sure didn't want to look mean or 'thug life' or something. So I can understand not wanting to look angry. But dang, this guy.... the word 'maniacal' comes to mind.

And you're right. Innocent until proven guilty.

a reply to: Violater1

Are there laws prohibiting smiling for the mugshot in some US states then? That is interesting.
Here in the UK there is no such law so my most recent police picture is a beaming wide happy smile as I mentioned above.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: grainofsand

I too was booked on BS charges- mugshot, the whole nine. I tried to look as pleasant as possible, they even got onto me and told me not to smile. I damn sure didn't want to look mean or 'thug life' or something. So I can understand not wanting to look angry. But dang, this guy.... the word 'maniacal' comes to mind.

And you're right. Innocent until proven guilty.

I refused their request and continued smiling, but cops here are usually professional and follow the law, and as there was no law forcing me to look grumpy for the mugshot I refused.
Now I've seen the responses in this thread, if I'm ever wanted by the police for some serious charge, I wonder if folk will take my smile to be that of a psycho-killer now?! Lol

a reply to: grainofsand
I don't think it's a 'law' that you can't smile in mugshots, but as Violator 1 pointed out it jacks with facial recognition software so they really don't want you doing it.

And when I got my mugshot I followed their orders and didn't smile, but I still tried to look as pleasant and innocent as possible (I WAS innocent, but I wanted to be sure and LOOK innocent).

In fact, the last time I went to get my driver's license renewed THEY got onto me for smiling! And it wasn't just the clerk, the computer was telling her that I wasn't me. Lmao! I just wanted to look cute for my pic!