Food for thought: I foresee a problem on the horizon. I know Im jumping ahead but I worry that when there is a case against #DarrenWilson it wont be about what most of you are focusing on - whether or not #MikeBrowns hands were up in surrender. It seems to be the the law (in Missouri) - regarding justification of the use of deadly force has more to do with if the officer reasonably believes deadly force is necessary. That sounds an awful lot like the standards for the Florida Stand Your Ground Laws - and is arguably even more vague. Which with an inevitable court case on the horizon makes me VERY worried. ____ Here is the excerpt of the law for you to review: 3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or (2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or (c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay. 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. ________ So it doesnt matter if Officer Wilson really was in any danger or if Mr. Brown committed a crime- all that matters is if he believed (translate felt like) he was in danger or that a crime was committed. Anyone else concerned? Is the law too vague? Personally I feel like it is. But lets discuss.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 00:48:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015