You are spreading some serious lies on this one, wtbob is correct[1] according to the DoJ investigation of the shooting[2]. This is separated from the report[3] on the department's behavior which created a situation where a justified shooting became a firestorm.
Continued use of the Ferguson shooting when there are other, blatant examples (read up on Albuquerque, NM) shows a disregard for the facts of the case. If talking about abuses by a department then Ferguson is a fine example, Officer Wilson is not.
1) "The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition."
Fine, specifically cite the mistruth, with factual, objective refutation.
1) "The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition."
The definition is bullshit and absent objective evidence is far too heavily tilted toward officer discretion. If the officer "feels" their life or anyone in the communities life is threatened by an individual, they have the right to execute the suspect. That's an absolutely subjective metric to end someones life, and should bring pause to anyone with a basic measure of common sense and justice.
> Fine, specifically cite the mistruth, with factual, objective refutation. 1) "The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition."
its in the report #2
> The definition is bullshit and absent objective evidence is far too heavily tilted toward officer discretion. If the officer "feels" their life or anyone in the communities life is threatened by an individual, they have the right to execute the suspect. That's an absolutely subjective metric to end someones life, and should bring pause to anyone with a basic measure of common sense and justice.
No, the definition isn't bullshit and is not absent object evidence. The DoJ was looking to convict him, and instead found he acted like any other police officer when a thug attacks him.
The report about the police department as whole is damning and shows some serious systemic problems, but the officer acted properly in the specific incident.
But, hey forget about actual heinous acts so you can go with the narrative.
If you continue to be under the impression he was killed because he was "jaywalking" then you believe a narrative and not actual evidence. You are basically Judge Gordon from the article since the facts of a case don't matter just a narrative put forward by people looking to push an agenda or, in this case, ratings.
If you continue to use descriptions like thug you expose your own biases. And you did not address the thrust of my argument: how can a dead citizen make his or her case against an officers testimony of their feelings?
You are seriously misstating the legal standard for use of deadly force. In order for someone to lawfully use deadly force in self defense, they have to possess a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat of death or gross bodily injury. As in, someone is already using deadly force or is threatening to. In certain circumstances and jurisdictions, there are additional requirements such as the duty to retreat. And there are rules like the fleeing felon rule that only apply in rare circumstances. But in no American jurisdiction is it sufficient justification to use deadly force merely because someone feels like a life is threatened.
Imminent and reasonable reduce to feeling rather easily. As an exercise, could you cite cases where reasonable and imminent were found to not be justified in case law?
