- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,295
- Reaction score
- 65,103
- Points
- 148
Here is part of an article from National Review on the Castile shooting. Full article and full video available in the link.
It should be noted that NR is conservative and would be expected to favor the police in our identity politics world.
"Yesterday afternoon, Minnesota officials finally released the full video of the traffic stop that cost Philando Castile his life. It’s a tough video to watch. I’m embedding it below, but beware, it is very raw: If you watch carefully, two salient facts should emerge. First, Philando Castile was quite literally following the police officer’s instructions when he was shot. The officer asked for his license and told him not to reach for his gun. Castile reached for his license while verbally assuring the officer that he was not reaching for his gun. The officer shot him anyway. The second fact overwhelmed the first. The officer panicked. His terror is palpable. The man went from conducting a relatively routine traffic stop to shrieking and firing in a matter of seconds. Part of this is understandable. Life can change in a flash, and when we’re in a state of ultimate distress, few of us can be as composed as SEAL Team Six. When I saw that palpable panic, I immediately knew why he was acquitted. The unwritten law trumped the statutes on the books. The unwritten law is simple: When an officer is afraid, he’s permitted to shoot. Juries tend to believe that proof of fear equals proof of innocence."
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-shooting-police-must-display-reasonable-fear
I'm not sure what the charge was, but if the charge required specific intent, then honest fear would be a valid defense. But I suspect the standard was something like "gross negligence", and for that, an unreasonable fear shouldn't get you off the hook.