When a citizen kills another citizen in self defense, our legal procedures nearly reverse themselves. After all, self-defense is in one sense an admission of homicide with a worthy reason for doing so attached. The "confession" proves to the state the crime was committed. Now it's up to the citizen to prove their reason valid. Their experience at the scene may vary widely, and they may well be arrested on homicide charges immediately. Should the D.A. choose to press charges, neither a grand jury nor a trial jury will have a single member on it who has experienced violence outside of a film or TV screen.
By contrast, if a police officer kills a citizen in the line of duty, their actions are considered legitimate until investigation proves otherwise. While their weapon may be taken for lab testing, a sympathetic fellow officer will be quick to offer a backup weapon. The investigation on them will take a known format, allotting a certain amount of time on immediate leave and making a statement at a known later time. And every investigator looking into the officer's case will be knowledgeable of what it is to wear a badge and not know if they will return home that night.
That an officer's oath calls them to run towards the sound of the gunfire is a shield that only covers so much, and has been cracking for years under the beatings of public opinion. Ignorant though that opinion may be of the particulars, they know the scent of "rule for thee but not for me," and have been increasingly unwilling to abide such a thing.
By contrast, if a police officer kills a citizen in the line of duty, their actions are considered legitimate until investigation proves otherwise. While their weapon may be taken for lab testing, a sympathetic fellow officer will be quick to offer a backup weapon. The investigation on them will take a known format, allotting a certain amount of time on immediate leave and making a statement at a known later time. And every investigator looking into the officer's case will be knowledgeable of what it is to wear a badge and not know if they will return home that night.
That an officer's oath calls them to run towards the sound of the gunfire is a shield that only covers so much, and has been cracking for years under the beatings of public opinion. Ignorant though that opinion may be of the particulars, they know the scent of "rule for thee but not for me," and have been increasingly unwilling to abide such a thing.
RSS Feed
