Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
So long as the officer acted -- even loosely -- within his training at the moment of use of deadly force? Then liability for death is a spurious legal thing with every moment of looting merely supporting a vision of potential harm being at hand.
Every day there's systemic violence and looting in the city, it merely paints a social picture. That picture is the sort of thing where it would be difficult to sell to anyone that "minding your own business" is the public urban norm and validates that an officer could be afraid for his life.
To wit? If you cannot release an officer's name due to a threat of violence against him? That immediately tells everyone what we're dealing with, here. Most folks would rationally perceive that as "not good" related to the area and its lack of impulse control.
People are taking to the streets when all the kid had to do was stay out of one.  |
The officer must be publicly prosecuted, or exonerated, in a transparent and perceived-to-be-impartial process. Releasing his name would be a first step in this process. It's not like no one knows who he is, after all. He'll need protection, but I think more anger, and thus more danger, are created by the defensive stonewalling.
If the community is treated AS IF their grievances deserve respect, it would help move them to what you would recognize as a more respectable state.