Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma
But that's just it. The officer did not know he was a suspect in a robbery, so the robbery does nothing to affect the officer's perceived threat. It only goes to show what a bad guy Brown is. Like the promiscuous rape victim, except the alleged rapist doesn't know she's fast and loose.
Now, I'll grant that there could be a situation where there are words and Brown says something like, "Oh you think I robbed that convenience store?!?! WELL, I'LL SHOW YOU." I'd still say in that case the footage doesn't really go to the confrontation and only goes to Brown's character.
And of course, I know there are technical rules on admissibility of past sexual experiences--I noted the comparison wasn't perfect. I'm not writing a law review article here.
|
I agree on the perception of the officer, there's probably no relevance of the robbery to his perception at all (unless the officer knew generally of the robbery and then put two and two together after he tried to stop Brown).
But the police are saying, and the defense argument would certainly be, that Brown attacked the officer first. Why would Brown do that? It could be total bullshit, but the most logical explanation is that he thought the officer was coming to arrest him for the robbery, so Brown preemptively resisted that arrest, and that's why we had the physical confrontation at the car, and the struggle over the gun.
I could see a 403 argument from the state trying to keep the robbery out, arguing that even though the evidence is relevant, the limited probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the state's case. It's hard to weigh probative value v. unfair prejudice without knowing exactly what the defense theory would be. Obviously, any defense theory would have to tie that alleged car confrontation with whatever happened later nearby.