[DoodleDawg]

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider "the facts and circumstances of each particular case," it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is "an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and ... is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

By that criteria there is no way that Babbitt should have been shot. But that criteria is employed very selectively when it comes to police shootings. The officer in question is given the benefit of the doubt all too frequently and the shooting ruled justified.

[JGPhila]

“The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’”

---

The DOJ analysis clearing Byrd reminds me of the analysis used by the DOJ to clear Hillary Clinton of criminal conduct related to her personal computer server used to store classified emails. In both cases, DOJ bends itself into a pretzel to say that the prosecutors could not prove their case, even though the statutes support bringing charges. It is as if the DOJ has a separate exoneration template used to clear high ranking officials.