Antonio Martin, Black Teenager, Fatally Shot By Police 2 Miles From Ferguson: Report

[cynzke]

69. The Escape Clause!

Last edited Wed Dec 24, 2014, 10:46 AM - Edit history (2)

There doesn't have to be an actual gun. All the cop has to say is that he BELIEVED the suspect HAD a weapon and that his life was in danger. Now the police department can take actions against the cop, punish or fire him because of what led up to the shooting. Was there any justifiable reason (probable cause) to approach the suspect in the first place. If there was no legal reason to approach the suspect, then the officer precipitated the incident, prior to the moments preceding the shooting and that would violate protocol. But as soon as a suspect initiates any action the officer believes to endanger himself or others, the officer by law, may use lethal force even if it turns out the officer was wrong (no weapon). So cops don't have to plant a weapon to justify lethal force, but it certainly bolsters the cop's story. And following a lethal force incidence, a district attorney must decide whether the circumstance of the shooting fit within the law's definition of self-defense or to file some charge against the police officer. Because the law favors the police, DA's don't want to indict cases they can't clearly win. It ruins their record and costs taxpayers money. This explains why we see cases where the police department took the measures they legally could as an employer against the offending officer, including their strongest measure, termination, while no criminal charges were filed.

This article explains...."When is it legal for a cop to kill you?"

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder