Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
That's what I think too... I don't know about guilty/not guilty verdicts because I wasn't on the jury, but what I do take issue with is the ruling being a "lawful killing" and no consequences are to be faced. It's now set a precedent for any lethal force to be considered "lawful" which is frightening. If they believed the officer to be innocent of any crime, they should have termed it an accidental killing or something similar. Lawful killing is a worrying phrase.
|
No, it has not set a precedent for
"any" lethal force to be considered lawful in future. There were obviously special mitigating circumstances in this case. None of us were at the trial, none of us know what evidence was presented, what information the jury was given nor what the mitigating circumstances were. So to claim there has been some kind of miscarriage of justice is wrong. None of us can say what should have happened because none of us are in charge of all the facts as they were in court.