I think the judge isn’t buying self defense because in AR, you have to be in your home or unable to retreat further to claim self defense. Strange that it also works for policemen, but probably a good thing; they can’t shoot folks who complain about traffic tickets.
If the policeman has damaged his credibility by deliberately filing a false police report -
- his credibility is now no better than that of the two boys on the stand, and probably wose than other witnesses.
-the question is - just because a car is moving toward you, is it trying to run you down? That’s the key issue, and who are you supposed to believe? The lying cop? Hence all the discussion about angles, directions, etc. If a vehicle is parked in a particular direction, is the victim simply trying to get away, or actively aiming at the policeman? Or did he step out Hollywood style and face down a fleeing vehicle?
(In my uninformed and inexpert opinion, the fact they charged him suggests the police or prosecutor did not believe he was actually being targetted and instead was recklessly dangerous. )
Why should the defence lawyer not be fined? After all, the rules are clear. Apparently he tried multiple tmes to slip in references to the other witnesses’ credibility. He hoped to sway the jury “don’t listen to these punks - they’re juvies, so obviously they are lying.” (Of course, his client was the one who was apparently caught lying) That’s not how the system works. being caught with drugs, or being a thief, does not mean your credibility as a witness is shot. If they had previous perjury convictions, or changed their story - that’s relevant.
Similarly, why shouldn’t the victim’s past record be excluded. Nobody is saying the officer knew. Being a repeat thief does not justify deadly force. Being a repeat thief does not indicate the guy was trying to run over the officer. In fact, that he had a gun and yet did not try to shoot the cop, did not even show it, should point to the fact that the guy was simply trying to drive away; maybe the cop is lucky that information is excluded.
The question is not “should the policeman be allowed to shoot the car thief because he was a bad guy with a record?”
Trying to pull a fast one (which possibly caused a hung jury by introducing disallowed information) - deserving a serious fine.
So why the demand to not discuss self-defense? Maybe the ability to retreat (and the policeman’s failure to do so) had already been dealt with, if that’s the law there. As others mention, maybe the judge was tired of hearing a defense that had already thus been deemed “not applicable”; a simple ploy to keep telling the jury this excuse when it had been ruled against was an sneaky lawyer trick.
(The fact that the jury hung indicates that al the evidence presented at least persuaded some jurists that the cop did NOT behave correctly; some obviously thought his ations were so serious as to convict him and most likely send him to jail.)
Note that this is the core discussion of the Travon/Zimmerman case as well - if you actively go after the guy in some regard, can you claim self-defense about the result?
If the policeman steps out in front of a car Hollywood style, instead of letting it go; does it when he’s been told not to, so in violation of departmental guidelines - then can it qualify as self defense when he uses deadly force? (Assuming that’s what he did…)
As a matter of philosophy, this is a valid comparison.
But since I doubt Florida and Pennsylvania law are in all respects identical as regards self-defense, that’s as far as it should go.
Good points in your post, but you can’t have it both ways.
Either don’t consider past acts of anyone, or consider them for both.
Pennsylvania?
He was probably confused by a prior reference to PA law. His point is valid for AR too.
I’m going with this.
Only one of them is on trial, and only one of them can testify.
This happened in Arkansas. Nevertheless, your point holds.
If the past acts go directly to credibility (falsifying official legal documents) then the actions are relevant. Theft or drug use may or may not affect a person’s truthfulness, but showing someone has lied when they were making official statements about a criminal activity certainly does reflect on their truthfulness.
Just the same - whether a person is carrying drugs or a weapon or not does not prove they wanted to kill a policeman. It would be equally likely they were simply trying to get away. If the policeman was unaware the victim had these goods, then obviously it is not relevant as to whether he should shoot or not.
(whereas, if the perp waved a gun, then one would be less inclined to blame the policeman for using deadly force. A person can shoot at you while driving, whether you are standing in front of the car or not. He simply may not be lucky enough to hit you… But from the story, he did not display a weapon; therefore, irrelevant.)
I’d say it would give reason to fear that the kid might shoot at him, but we ain’t on the jury. 
Only if the cop was psychic. How was he supposed to know about the criminal record of a person he saw for the first time 20 seconds earlier?
If he had drugs and a weapon in the car, he may have planned to attack the cop.
But again, we aren’t on the jury.
And the cop knew about the drugs and weapons how, exactly?
There doesn’t seem to be much defense here for the cop. He went against departmental procedure and it resulted in an unnecessary death. Police are given broad powers over the general public, and following procedure is a vital part of handling this power responsibly. This result seems like an apt example of what can happen when this responsibility is not taken seriously.
He didn’t. It might sway the jury, obviously why it can’t be used.
So… it couldn’t give the cop reason to fear that the kid might shoot at him?
You edited my post to make a point and look cool.
Tacky.
carnivorousplant, meet carnivorousplant. He apparently disagrees with you.
It might give the jury some reason to think the kid would have attacked him.
Fair enough. You appeared to be arguing that it gave the cop some reason to believe that.