At 11:23 AM 3/3/2000 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
>
> They were *not* uniformed police. It was four white guys, piling
>out of a car, guns drawn, at 12:30am, advancing on this guy standing
>on his *own* front porch. What would go through your mind?
>
> I find it very had to believe this was 'self-defense' for the
>police.
>
To take this point further, suppose instead of 4 cops it was 4 guys from
the building. Suppose they organized a 'neighborhood watch' (after hearing
stories about rape & all), and see this guy they don't recognize and blow
him away. In the same trial, these guys wouldn't see daylight for 20 years.
But when cops do that, when they blow away the people they're supposed to
be protecting, that's just collateral damage.
Someone mentioned the jury bit, but the angle that is played to the jury is
this: it's a dangerous world out there...you don't want cops being afraid
to shoot people now, do you? You don't want cops to be afraid of legal
action do you? etc. etc.
Unfortunately this angle works with a lot of juries (people distrustful of
cops rarely make it onto juries). People prefer trigger happy cops (as long
as they're not the ones being shot). With all the FUD in the media, the
public (including juries) is kept very afraid and are quite willing to
sacrifice an occasional innocent civilian.
jay
