Quote:
Originally Posted by chadritt
Not a lawyer so asking a layman question: Why would the motive for brown attacking the officer matter? Isnt the fact he attacked him all that would matter since the officer had no knowledge of the reason when the rest went down?
|
I think it'd be the key component of any defense theory. I have to take a step back though - just because Brown committed the robbery, that doesn't mean that this confrontation started because he committed that robbery and thought he was about to be arrested. Maybe the officer started the whole thing and the robbery truly had nothing to do with anything.
But, based on what we know how, the best defense theory would start with Brown attacking the officer. And he did have some theoretical motive to do so. Maybe there's one struggle over the gun in the car, a shot fired, and then Brown starts to flee, but because he's injured, the officer catches up with him, where there's another struggle, and a second shot. That could be a defense theory consistent with the evidence (of course we don't know all the evidence).
I guess my point would be, think of this police officer as a criminal defendant. If you're a criminal defendant, you get to put on a defense, with admissible evidence. A lot of times, defenses are just theoretical possibilities that are arguably consistent with the evidence. That's OK. It's the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that things happened the way they allege they did. The defense doesn't have to prove that their version is the correct one. I think that burden gets a little blurred and forgotten when the defendant is part of the "state'.