Personal opinion, and I am not a lawyer, but just have minimal legal training in my past. Two points:
1. The legal system is >supposed< to be designed to never, ever, be “open and shut”. A legal proceeding is the government interfering with the life of a citizen. It is designed in such a way that it is required to be difficult for the government to take away life/liberty/property from a citizen. I learned this during a discussion with a defense attorney. We had asked him how he is able to stomach defending “horrible” people who have done heinous things. And it boils down to how much power, and the controls on that power, you want the government to have. This is why defense attorneys will vigorously defend even the most “horrid” criminals. Because it is their job to force the government to cross every T and dot every I before they can punish a citizen. So if you truly, at your core, believe in limited government then you should never declare a case “open and shut”. You should, in ALL cases, demand the state do absolutely every thing they have to do to prove their case before a verdict is met. Whether this be for a minor traffic infraction, all the way up to flying airplanes into buildings.
2. The exact reason we should hold the legal system to such an extremely high level of restraint is also the reason its enforcement members must also be held to this standard. So saying things like “he shouldn’t have been on drugs.” “That’s what happens when you resist” or anything else that desires to remove the burden of restraint from LE gives them more room to over step their bounds. We have to remember is the precedent that it sets “He shouldn’t have been on drugs.” Does this apply to having a couple of beers? Legal weed? We won’t even delve into what right the government has in telling me what I can do to my own body. “He shouldn’t have resisted”...so you are claiming there is >never< a reason to resist the police? If so then let’s go ahead and remove the 2nd, because you are claiming any resistance to the law earns you what you get. That is >literally< what the 2nd was written for...to resist when necessary.
My personal opinions as far as this case goes is simple. I do think the cop contributed to his death. It does appear that there were many times that aid could have been rendered. I don’t believe it murder, as in I don’t believe he intended to cause death. It is my hope that the prosecution does everything it possibly can to >prove< it’s case, and I hope that the defense attorney absolutely forces the prosecution to bring it’s A game. And if the state cannot prove its case then I will be satisfied with the outcome. If the state does prove its case, I will also be satisfied with the outcome. My personal feelings do not matter.
Disclaimer: I understand, fully, the crap level of garbage that the police have to deal with. I fully understand that there are terrible people out there doing terrible things, and police often find themselves having to wade into the muck and sludge of society day in and day out. I know their job is difficult. But it should be. They have in their power the ability to restrict the freedoms of citizens immediately. For any of us who actually value ones freedom and liberty, those charged with the capacity to restrict it >should< be wary of overstepping their reach.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk