More LEOs behaving badly

I feel that lacking any contrary evidence you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who defended themselves, be it cop or civilian. There is no video evidence, but the story is corroborated by another officer. And I had a brother who was in a wheel chair and I can tell you he could roughhouse and hurt you with the thing. We used to tussle around and he would get right in there with us, myself and our other 4 brothers.

In the Zimmerman case, barring contrary evidence you have to accept his account of the incident. He claims he was in fear for his life and acted in self defense. End of story.

And I believe we rely too much on video "evidence" in this digital age. Video can be deceiving and the actions recorded misconstrued. With the Ersland case the video is what convicted the man. But it doesn't show the punk on the ground, you can't see what he was doing, all you see is Ersland empty his weapon into the guy. He claims, and this is what is important, that he believed the guy was getting up, he still had a backpack, and he believed that he had a gun and was still a threat. We can't read a mans mind, and in a situation like that it comes down to what was in his mind. And how many stories have we heard of trained soldiers who in the heat of battle empty their weapons and continue to "fire" an empty or jammed weapon? The man had just been shot at, one punk was still in the store, and he "believed", the key word here, that he was still a threat. Should have been the end of the story but he was convicted of murder.

Just as I am opposed to second guessing a civilian in that situation, I have to also be opposed to second guessing an officer. We don't know what was in his mind, he "believed" the man to be a threat and he reacted. Contrary to any evidence saying otherwise I say we have to accept his version of events.

 

Assault is assault, even if the weapon of choice is water, or any other harmless substance, including "Silly String" The lady will be convicted, unless she goes for Jury Nullification, with a Bleeding Heart Jury. She did commit an Assault, on the Officer, and he has every right to arrest her for that specific crime. Had she NOT sprayed him, with the substance, she would not be guilty of Assault. The State Assault Statute, likely does NOT differentiate between the substances used in the Simple Assault. Had it been a Harmful, or Deadly Substance then she could be charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon", and in most states this is a Higher Degree Felony, than Simple Assault. ..... YMMV.....

 

I think, but do not know, that the string constituted battery, not just assault which is committed by just threatening. Not too sure about that. Either way, she's a moron, and he might have over reacted. We don't know the whole story yet.

 

MM, the Officer was there to "Keep the Peace" and to arrest those, that "Breached the Peace".... That is the Job.... If he sees someone "Breaching the Peace" it is his "Duty" to make an arrest, and "Restore the Peace"... He is allowed to use the minimum required force, to make such an arrest, and "Restore the Peace" That also is the Job. In this case it certainly can be stated that this Officer "may" have used More than the "Required Minimum Force" to "Restore the Peace" HOWEVER, those judgements are for the Civil Courts to decide, AFTER the Fact, and not to be determined, during such "Restoration of the Peace of the Community". If there was excessive force Used, then the Officer needs to OWN That. This should be determined by a JURY, of the Citizenry, In Court. That is how our System of Government, should work. This protects the Officer from any "Rush to Judgement" by Agenda pushing Parties, and gives any such Defendants, a place to state their Grievances, against the Officer, where ALL the Facts can be brought forth, for a Jury of the Citizenry, to make a determination. I, for one, would gladly sit on such a Jury, and would have little sympathy for anyone, arrested for "Breaching the Peace" of my Community. .... If you do NOT want personal trouble, Stay Home... If you want to push an agenda, you do so at your OWN Risk.... YMMV....

Note: In a confrontation, where Assault occurs, it is generally presumed that the Person committing the First Assault, makes a "Breach of the Peace" and anyone who was assaulted in that Breach, is therefor defending their Personal Self, and therefor is NOT guilty of Assault, for such a defense.

 

Not yet, but headed that way.