DocWalker
Regular Member
Sorry if it seemed I was avoiding answering your question. That was not the intent. I just could not conceive of any reason for a non-LEO to have shot once the immediate threat was over. OK, I did consider anger and a desire to "get even with" or "teach a lesson to", but rejected them because in my mind all non-LEOs should be above that. I know it is not true, just as I know it to be not true for all LEOs. Buit for the sake of discussion we need to keep things clear and clean.
But the fact of the matter was/is that he was, as the attornies love saying, at all times relevant to and during the incident, a cop. That changes the dynamic because he has certain duties/obligations/expectations to fulfil that non-LEOs do not. Perhaps that is one of the things that will need to be stressed by the defense in order to overcome the "instinctive conclusion" you mention.
Strange, isn't it - a goood defense resting on the need to demonstrate that the cop refused to shirk his duty and obligations?
stay safe.
correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the courts rule that LE has 'NO' duty to protect?