“Stop with the summary Rodney-King-style verdicts until we know the whole story.”
But your piece is premised on “if she assaulted him.”
You have no idea whether she did or not. So how come your summary verdict is okay and others’ summary verdicts are not??????
Just askin’
Police are presumed to be a little above the impulses of the average person; their hands are largely tied, and it is understood throught their own training that this is the case. Much more so if we’re talking about a command-level officer.
This is easily understood in a courtroom where witnesses include a police officer and a violator (I know, I have been there.) The judge rightly gives deference to the account of the officer over the perpetrator. Otherwise, we would have no basis for truth in justice. Perhaps the cop is corrupt and a liar, but the stringent screening process to be a peace office is designed (hopefully) to weed out those with these types of character defects before he even gets to the point of dealing with the public.
Let me ask you this? What other perfect stranger would you call in the event of an impending life-threatening event, given you don’t have the legal or practical power to stop it? A random guy on the street, or a police officer?
As he/she/it believes, the word of a government employee is of more value and more trustworthy than the word of a random person on the street.
Hardly a conservative opinion.