Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,460
- 15,578
- 2,180
A 6'5 350 pound 'kid' who had just robbed a convenience store, attacking a cop in his car, reached for his gun while high as a kite?
None of which he was doing at the point he was fatally injured. At the point he was fatally injured, he was on his knees, with his hands up, screaming "I don't have a gun".
It would be a ridiculously simple matter to demonstrate reasonable doubt when the kid was shot seconds after assaulting a police officer and reaching for his gun. The standard is a reasonable fear for one's life. The kid's size, his violence, his attempt to wrestle away a fire arm would establish that to virtually any impartial jury.
As for what happened immediately preceding his death, the evidence is ambiguous. The witness accounts were either blatantly false (and recanted) or wildly contradictory. And the forensic evidence backs the shooting occurring during an attempt to surrender as much as it does the young man charging the officer.
Ambiguous evidence immediately preceding the shooting and overwhelming evidence of life threatening violence against a police officer seconds earlier? No prosecutor in the world would touch that one. It couldn't be won.
And the Feds aren't going to touch it either for the very same reason. The evidence simply doesn't support any charges against the officer.