Time To Change Law, Re: Police Shootings?

[doorhinge]

@foolsguinea

…“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Officer Tightpants shot Mr. Turnipseed in cold blood for no other reason than that he didn’t want to put (the emotionally disturbed) Mr. Turnipseed in his car, as was his job and his duty. Officer Tightpants’s shift was almost over, he considered Mr. Turnipseed too smelly to want to deal with, and instead of taking him into custody and getting Mr. Turnipseed the help he needed, he shot him so the EMT’s would have to take him. This is how cheap life is in Officer Tightpants’s mind. This is a murder committed by a depraved and callous mind, and a betrayal of the trust the state placed in him.”

(The names are obviously made up, but strongly inspired by a case in St. Louis.)

(post shortened)

That’s one heck of an emotional opening argument from the prosecuting attorney. Of course, the defense will then present it’s opening argument, followed by a presentation of facts from both sides, cross-examinations from both sides, and closing statements from both sides. Then it will be the juries duty to decide if the prosecutor could actually prove any of his/her opening statement.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Shodan

In what way?

Since you go on to say -

I would agree with you and the cop should walk.

Regards,
Shodan

The distinction is important in a different type of case from the one you propose. In the situation you propose, the “motive” argument for guilt is really strong, but the “unlawful” argument for guilt is weak. In that case, you can’t convict because even though you have such a great narrative for the jury about motive (the thing DrDeth has been saying is make-or-break), a conviction really depends on whether the evidence supports self-defense or not. So here, we agree; it doesn’t matter whether or not you convince the jury that the cop wanted to kill a black person. Motive: yes, intent: yes, not self defense: no -> not guilty.

But then you’ve got the inverse situation. Say the “motive” argument for guilt is really weak, but the “unlawful” argument for guilt is really strong. We’ll just imagine the total opposite of the scenario you posit - say the cop is white, the victim is white, they’re from the same neighborhood and grew up together, the cop is a civic leader and a preacher and volunteers at animal shelters, and so on, BUT there are multiple witnesses who say the victim didn’t resist or do anything dangerous, and consistently tell a story that doesn’t support a conclusion that the cop was in reasonable fear of bodily harm. Here, DrDeth has been saying, you can’t get a conviction because you don’t have a good motive. What I’m saying is that you sure can get a conviction, because of this distinction. If you’re required to go up and convince the jury why, there won’t be a conviction. But you’re not; you can go up there and just use the facts to show that the shooting was not self defense and thus was unlawful. Motive: no, intent: yes, not self defense: yes -> guilty.

[Shodan]

I think I get you now - it is the discussion about motive vs. intent. In that case, I agree with you.

Regards,
Shodan