honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
A jury, lawyers, and judges only want to hear facts. Not conclusions. Only facts.
They use those facts to determine if an officer acted reasonably.
And yes it can be a tough call. That's why after those calls are made, a jury of your peers analyze them to determine if you conducted yourself in accordance of the law and acted reasonably.
Hypotheticals and pre-drawn conclusions have no place in a courtroom. That's why it's a beautiful, wonderful, warm, loving place of wonderfulness.
Travis
Travis,
Remember, she was on a Grand Jury once and they voted. Then, the mean old prosecutor made them rethink their vote, twice. Instead of being done with their civic duty and having the balls to stand by their vote, she and the others caved in, committed a miscarriage of justice, and then just gave the DA whatever they asked for.
Cowards don't care about facts or evidence; they just want to be left alone.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
