Quote:
Originally Posted by Subby
I think this is pretty binary. Either you believe that there is nothing an unarmed person could do to merit being shot a minimum of six times or you do.
|
I think there's something to that. If the person is unarmed, there is a segment of the population who will always believe the officer should be charged with murder. But that's not the law. Did you see the video I posted earlier? Unarmed man with his hands up shot 3-5 seconds after he surrendered. The feds and the court thought that wasn't even voluntary manslaughter - that there wasn't even probable cause for that crime. The only one pursuing it was one plucky county prosecutor. (not sure if prosecutors fall into the general suspicion of law enforcement being evil and racist and everything.) Murder requires a very specific intent. Even the intent required for voluntary manslaughter can be tough to establish where decisions are being made very quickly - that goes both for police incidents and regular self-defense cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subby
Hell Wilson had a taser. Why not use that after the first potentially lethal shot? Or second? Or third. Or fourth. Or fifth. Oh...too late.
|
Could be a manner for an expert witness to discuss at a civil trial or maybe a criminal trial. I'm apparently the only one in this thread who isn't an expert on tasers. But we do know that the shots did not all come in a row. People keep changing that fact to better fit their narrative, but it wasn't six consecutive shots, everybody agrees with that. It was at least two groups of shots, probably lasting a couple of seconds each.