No need to be in the court room. Bottom line in a nutshell the cop said he feared for his life so he opened up on the suspect when he moved his arm back to his rear. The jury can not prove the cop wrong and took his word for it. The cop walks.
I guess I missed were that was mentioned in either article I read, though I assumed that was his reason. But we have seen them convicted even though they state that as the reason.
> The jury can not prove the cop wrong and took his word for it. <
You’re right about that. But let’s assume that the cop really was in fear for his life. Should that be enough for an acquittal?
Let’s suppose I am taking my daily walk on the side of a country road. I have a permit, and I am carrying. A speeding car comes barreling down the road. And it’s weaving a bit. I am legitimately in fear for my life. That car could hit me.
Do I have a right to shoot at that car? I think not.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this. There are levels of fear. A guy has a gun and he’s raising it towards you. Yep, you should be in great fear for your life. Shoot if you must. A guy reaches for his waistband. No gun is seen. You could still be in fear for your life. But that fear is not at a shooting level, IMO.