Which is why I think she should be acquitted.
What I found interesting was the idea from her defense that even though she didn't mean to shoot him with her gun, she was justified in doing so because she was in fear of bodily harm to one or more officers who were half in and half out of the car trying to stop the perp from driving away. If he had managed to hit the gas and take off, he would have at the least dragged the cop if not run over him therefore giving her the right to fire in his defense.
? Originally Posted by HedonistForever
I kept asking myself "this is a street cop"? Come on man. Granted, I'm making a judgement based on nothing more than what I witnessed when she took the stand but then it all adds up ( to me at least ) how she could have been so flustered and incompetent enough not to know the difference between left and right and the weight of the weapons. She had no business being on the street other than to fill an equity quota? Originally Posted by HedonistForeverIf she wasn't competent enough to be out on the streets....than the Department should be held liable.
If perps did as instructed by the Police. Things like this would have zero chance in happening. A clear mistake on her part. A month suspension w/o pay should be the only punishment! Originally Posted by winn dixieShe already quit....after that testimony....ain't no Police Department in the whole country would hire her. I'd rather have Scooby Do as my partner.
Well what did LL predict?Was she convicted?
And after her testimony as well as her reaction on the video, she proved she had no business being on patrol and armed.
The department fucked up by letting her do both. I agree they should be held liable. And I'm sure they will in the civil suits.
But she straight up killed that kid. Mistake or not, she fucking killed him with a gun. I hope she doesn't have to spend too much time behind bar, but the law is the law. She ticked all the boxes for the crimes for which she was convicted. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider