nmoore63 wrote:DBTrek wrote:nmoore63 wrote:
Unacceptable.
It is unacceptable, thus he’s not a cop anymore.
The jury says it wasn’t a crime, so we might wonder why they think that. I doubt it’s because the jury loves murderous cops, so there’s probably another rationale.
The government always gives a standard on itself easier than it does on the public.
I imagine the jury's guilty instructions were such because he was a cop.
If I did that in my home, under the same circumstances, I would be required to present an affirmative defense. NOT "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."
I see no reason to hold professionals to a lower standard than I would be held to.
What authority does a cop have to do anything in self-defense that you or I don't have?
Do you or I have legal authority to start yelling crazy-assed instructions to an obviously neutralized threat, while also yelling at him "Fuck up one more time on my crazy instructions, and I'm going to shoot you?"
I respect, of course, the jury's verdict. However, here's a thought experiment: What if the shooter had been a private citizen, initially acting in a way to defend his home, and we had the same video play out otherwise?
Cold-blooded murder.
The state and it's stasi don't have any legitimate authority to use deadly force than the most lowly bum on the street. NONE.