If one follows the news reports. Police officers do not have the rights and protections afforded to all people who are in the United States. Media outlets put people on air that want the police officer to be publicly flogged and then hanged in the public square. The officer, on the other hand, cannot try their case in the public forum because anything they say can be used as evidence against them at trial.
Benjamin Crump is an attorney who hops around the country representing the families of African-Americans who die as a result of an Officer Involved Shooting (OIS). Mr. Crump became a self-anointed police use of force expert following the death of Treyvonne Martin by a person who was not ever a police officer. He then decried the fact that the jury in the case found the defendant not guilty after all of the evidence was presented to them. He makes his money getting settlements from municipalities resulting from the filing of civil litigation.
The current case du jour involves a woman shot by an Illinois deputy sheriff which was caught on a body camera. Rather than allow the court proceedings to determine his guild or innocence, the case is being tried by the court of public opinion. The fact that she was moving toward the officer holding a pot of boiling water and her statement that she was going to “rebuke him in the name of Jesus”, should not be considered in determining his guilt. There is no need to waste the time and resources of the court.
Boiling water, when thrown on a human, is likely to cause serious physical harm or death. As the distance between the officer and the woman is diminished, the more likely that the water will hit its target. The evidence, at trial, will determine whether the officer’s actions were appropriate as the officer has been charged with Murder.
The United States Supreme Court has provided guidelines for the assessment of force used by police in a case titled Graham v Connor. In its ruling, the Court said that the standard which must be applied is, “The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” That determination must be applied by a Court of Law, not the court of public opinion.
Law enforcement officers do not lose the rights given by the Constitution when they are administered their oath of office and, like all citizens, they should be held accountable for their actions. But that accountability should be in a venue where the rules of evidence apply and where the officer has the opportunity to present a vigorous defense to a trier of fact.
In many of these of cases, Prosecutors file criminal charges to appease their voting base because they need to be re-elected to the office that they hold, rather than the applicable law.
Most police unions will provide legal representation to their members, because the cost can be overwhelming. In a murder case involving a University of Cincinnati, Ohio police officer, his legal fees were $300,000. His $60,000 annual salary would not come close to covering that cost. That case resulted in two trials, both of which ended in a hung jury.
Law enforcement officers deserve the same presumption of innocence as everyone else because they are, just like everyone else, citizens who perform a difficult function.