It gets to be tiring to type "alleged" - just ask the 4th Estate.:uhoh:
If he said he was going to kill her and she was afraid for her life the "fight or flight" would have kicked in and since she wasn't armed or in a position to fight she took flight and ran for her life. I'm not saying this is what happened but it is a plausable explination to what appears to be a flight of panic.
Ok I get the "alleged" part. But with all the recent "cop impersonators" we have had in the past where ladies where told to call 911 if a cop was trying to pull them over if they didn't feel safe and keep driving to a "safer spot". One would think this would give the cops an excuss to use deadly force to stop a vehicle that won't stop, even better if they don't have a cell phone and just keep going as they are affraid.
So if a cop tells you to do something even if you are afraid he might kill you if you do what he says then that is ok.
If a cop tells you to jump off a cliff I suppose you have to do it.
Just because someone wears a badge doesn't make everything they say gospil so to speak. You would have to admit there are crooked cops, criminal cops, and cop impersonators. Only the defendent and the dead lady really know what was said and what happened. That is one reason cop cars have dash cams.....thats right he didn't have his on. Real convient now he is truely the only one that knows.
I feel better already...not safer but better.
If I understand the argument correctly, your point is that some cops are badguys, themselves, and therefore this cop must be a badguy. This was a uniformed officer in a marked cruiser. When a uniformed officer in a marked cruiser comes up to you when you're "operating a motor vehicle", and tells you to show him your license, yes, you have to do it. That's kind of different from, "jump off a cliff", I think. The dash cam wasn't on because he didn't expect a violent confrontation or any need to preserve evidence. He was "off-guard", which is why he made the mistake of sticking his arm in the car. Besides, his car was parked parallel to hers in a parking lot, not behind it on the highway, so it would have had pictures of a fence and bushes. Besides which, the Commonwealth's evidence is entirely consistent with the officer's story. They've got eight "eye witnesses" and four "ear witnesses" who pretty much saw and heard the same thing. There are slight discrepancies, but no real problem with the facts. And what happens in oughta-shoulda-coulda-woulda land really doesn't matter at this point, and all the speculation in the world about why the woman behaved the way she did don't amount to a hill'o beans.
Is there really some question about whether assaulting a police officer is a violent felony?