I think a basic question we have to ask is whether law enforcement should be held to a higher standard, the same standard, or a lower standard than ordinary citizens when determining the reasonableness of their use of deadly force.
I think in most states, the legal requirement is actually that they be held to the same standard (which I agree with), but those applying the standard when deciding on the legality of the shooting tend to give law enforcement officers every "benefit of the doubt" whereas, they often do not give ordinary citizens the benefit of the doubt, but proceed with an approach that the shooter is guilty until proven innocent. This effectively creates a double standard for evaluating officer involved shootings, which is what most citizens find repugnant.
I've published some papers on shooting event reconstructions and also served as an expert scientist for the plaintiffs suing law enforcement in the wake of bad shootings. It is reprehensible how deceptive law enforcement can be in the process of hiding evidence and refusing to comply with court ordered discovery in the process of covering up bad shootings. If a shooting was justified, then they should have no problem in quickly complying with court orders to provide the plaintiffs' attorneys with access to the firearms, the type of ammunition, radio and 911 transcripts and tapes, training records, and email records.
|