“He was dealing with someone who didn’t have a front license plate”
And an arrest record of some 60 incidents.
And no drivers license.
And incoherent uncooperative demeanor.
And an open bottle of gin*.
And that bottle was at his feet.
And who attempted escape, possibly including vehicular assault.
The driver was, once again, not the angel some portray the perp as.
(* - The bottle was clearly marked “gin” and was clearly unsealed. The contents remain in doubt.)
Not one of those is a capital crime.
OTOH, while the indictment looks justified to me, the DA is way over the line is his public comments. He should try his case in the courtroom.
Police have to make tough decisions. In this particular case, I think the result was _wildly_ excessive, but suppose that the guy was drunk (open bottle of gin being a clue) and there were kids playing in the street and he drove off erratically. Now what would one do?
In any event, the prosecutor should have simply stated that based on the initial facts of the case presented, he decided to go for these charges and all of the facts would come out in a courtroom. Anything beyond that is PR which is very inappropriate for that office. But I suppose that constitutes “riot control” these days.
“The driver was, once again, not the angel some portray the perp as.”
I’m sure that someone will come up with a picture of him in a band uniform.
And a car that was registered to a female.