So I feel the need to explain some stuff... I do not condone the killing of unarmed children, however I support our police as well. When I look back upon all of the evidence in the case, there comes a time when a man has a right to defend himself and his well being. Allow me to explain exactly why there was no indictment in this case.... and why there should NOT have been an indictment in this case FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAW. In order to indict the officer the prosecution needs to prove the officer was not acting in reasonable self defense at the time of the shooting. In order to prove he was not acting in self defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt one of the following 3 things 1. Prosecution must prove that the defendant did not have sufficient reason to believe there was a threat to his well being. 2. Prosecution must prove that The defendant did not avail himself of all possible ways of avoiding the confrontation before shooting 3. The prosecution must prove that excessive force was applied (controversial issue) so allow me to go through clause by clause and explain why in this case, there was no indictment, and why that was LEGALLY the correct decision. 1. Physical evidence has shown that Mike Brown was shot running towards the officer. The officer had somewhat severe bruising to the face, and eye witnesses testified to a struggle over the officers weapon. When someone has already beaten you, attempted to steal your weapon and is now running towards you... it is logical to assume you have fear of what will become of you if you dont act immediately. Remember, the standard to which the prosecution needed to prove he DIDNT have good reason to fear for his life is beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. The officer didnt shoot until the boy was running at him. Once someone begins running at you, you are no longer legally responsible for escaping the situation. 3. Excessive force is interesting. People use the fact that 10 shots were fired to claim excessive force, however number of shots fired doesnt define exactly how excessive the force was. The officer maintains a right under Missouri law to neutralize a threat to the point in which it is no longer a threat. Officer Wilson fired until the target was fully neutralized, and excessive force was not applied as the officer has the full right to defend himself from a threatening attacker using whatever force required to end the confrontation. The grand jury simply couldnt indict. Then we combine these facts with the fact that the prosecutions case was centered around the eye witness testimonies of 8 people. Those testimonies proved unreliable and unable to stand up to scrutiiny. I am against killing.... I dont like murder...... but every man, woman, and child on this earth deserves the right to self defense
Posted on: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:35:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015