Couldn’t a decent lawyer argue that all those things only happened because of the trauma of this initial interaction as well? Or would that be counterproductive?
You wouldn’t want anything about it in. You just want what the officer knew which is basically nothing about anything so it’s just shooting a fleeing subject in the back which is illegal unless you know them to be armed and dangerous.
Why would you think the law gave a shit about extenuating circumstances? Three Strikes laws and mandatory minimums show what the law thinks about people doing what is necessary to survive.
If they get a decent lawyer all that would be struck since the officer didn’t and couldn’t know that at the time.
Couldn’t a decent lawyer argue that all those things only happened because of the trauma of this initial interaction as well? Or would that be counterproductive?
You wouldn’t want anything about it in. You just want what the officer knew which is basically nothing about anything so it’s just shooting a fleeing subject in the back which is illegal unless you know them to be armed and dangerous.
Why would you think the law gave a shit about extenuating circumstances? Three Strikes laws and mandatory minimums show what the law thinks about people doing what is necessary to survive.