It is foolish for people to conflate the two refusals to indict LEOs in the recent deaths in Missouri and New York. I suspect that if I have to explain why, you would not listen anyway.
But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.
Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself. It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself. The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide. Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification. This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.
So there is your standard;
- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense. Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person. Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.
- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification. Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary. The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.
It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases. Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment