06-26-2020, 04:11 PM
(06-26-2020, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am assuming the video will clearly show the taser being fired twice.
But you know, for a fact, that the officer knew it was fired twice? You're making a definitive statement based on your own, just admitted, assumption. Also, say it was fired twice, how do you know that the officer was aware of this? The answer is you don't. Unless he stated he knew this when debriefed then there's no way to prove that he knew this.
Quote:I agree this is a false statement. You can use deadly force on a violent criminal who is a threat to others safety.
But unlike SSF I don't let my personal opiinion of the DA effect my opinion on the case. Instead I base my opinions on what I see of the facts and the law. In this case I don't think the officers were justified in using deadly force.
I don't have a personal opinion of the man, I have a professional one based on his public actions and the charges he filed. He might be a delightful person or a complete bastard, neither has anything to do with my opinion of his performance in these two cases. Also, I just gave a complete breakdown of why, legally, I think the DA screwed the pooch. This is an excellent example of the sanctimony and hypocrisy you engage in on a regular basis. "I'm speaking legally, SSF is speaking emotionally." Except no unbiased person reading my above post could come to that conclusion.
You "don't think" is a much better statement than "I know". However, even if you don't think deadly force was warranted there's a huge jump between that and second degree murder. If you assume the absolute worst in regards to this officer's actions then second degree murder is still a bridge too far to prove legally. That's why I used the Freddy Gray example as a perfect parallel. Mosby overcharged and everyone involved walked. The judge went so far as to say in court that she overcharged, albeit in a more circumspect manner than simply saying those words.
Quote:My opinion of what I think will happen to these officers is not just based on the law. It is based on my experience with juries. juries really don't care that much about the technical nuances of the law. Instead they want to do what they think is right.
If they care about the law they'll acquit the officer as well. Proving second degree murder in this case is virtually impossible. If the officer thought he had a valid reason for shooting Brooks then that right there precludes a second degree murder conviction. At that point your best hope, as a prosecutor, is the "depraved heart" angle, which is a very tough sell. A bench trial would be the smartest route for the defense, a jury trial is far too subject to public opinion. With the amount of people being doxed nowadays and protesters showing up at their home, I can't see many people willing to become a pariah, and be endlessly harassed, to acquit this officer.
