John Scotus:
"If a policeman gets into a fight with a man who is unarmed and shoots and kills him, then in most cases the policeman will be punished quite severely. You simply cannot use lethal force against an unarmed man, even if he is beating you up. Now, many people in many jurisdictions are inclined to give the police a break on this issue, as generally, people in the US are pro-police. However, unless the policeman is able to prove that he honestly thought his life to be in danger or he would suffer great bodily harm, the policeman is in deep kimchi, as my father used to say. In the vast majority of cases, the policeman must have a reasonable belief that the man had a gun or a knife, and was intending to use it, in order to escape blame.
Imagine two men in a bar fight. One man gets the better of the other, and so the other man takes out a gun and shoots and kills him. This usually will result in a manslaughter if not a murder charge. Shooting an unarmed man is simply not done, as you rarely if ever have a reasonable expectation that he will kill you or cause you great bodily harm. Fear of getting beaten up or bruised is not enough to justify homicide. Take your lumps and have someone call an ambulance for you, but don’t draw a gun and expect that you will get off scot-free.
While we must decry the political grandstanding of President Obama and other Democratic rabble rousers, along with any tendency of some towards vigilantism, some conservatives have simply crossed the line on the matter of Trayvon Martin. The facts, as they are widely known, are that George Zimmerman called 911 about someone he thought was suspicious. The 911 operator–representing law enforcement–told him the police would handle it and advised him not to pursue or interact with the man. Zimmerman ignored this order...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
No comments:
Post a Comment