I admit I too have my own bias. I definitely knew nothing about this case prior to seeing a snippet on the news yesterday. I have no real opinion on her guilt or innocence. My initial impression was she must be young and unseasoned.
I haven’t learned the art of multi quotes or highlighting specifically what I was referring to in your message.
My DH is in law enforcement. So clearly I am pro law enforcement. I do find it astounding how law enforcement has been vilified in recent years. Certain organizations pushed for body cams, cops resisted and lost. Guess what those certain organizations have changed their tune and so have the beat cops. Why? Because more cops have been proven to be telling the truth and it’s no longer just the cops or the defendants word. But I digress.
My comment was based on;
. I'm sure every police officer in the country knows that they should always say they yelled "Show me your hands " whether they actually did or not.
Your statement leaves me speechless and once again disappointed for all the men and women who work tirelessly to serve their communities.
I suspected that was the part to which you objected, so let me explain why I say that.
First, let me give you some context. In my 27 year career as a lawyer, I questioned literally hundreds of witnesses. Every single one of them lied to me at least once. Simply put, witnesses lie - for a wide variety of reasons, but mostly because the truth jeopardizes them in some way. And the greater the negative consequences of telling the unvarnished truth, whether it be loss of their job, their freedom or their money, the more likely it is that they will lie. I don't have any reason to believe that police officers are less honest than other people, but I do know that they are people and all people lie.
How do I know that you (not you personally, but any witness) are lying ? Because the vast majority of the time (exceeding 99% of the time if I am questioning you on the stand and not at deposition), I already know the answer to my question before I ask it. I know everything you and every other witness has previously said about the topic. If there are documents involved, I know them inside and out, forward and backward -- better than you do. And I have sketched out for myself in advance, on paper, all the ways that you are going to try to evade, deflect, obfuscate, or otherwise not answer fully and truthfully. Then I have sketched out, for each one of those dodges, how I am going to follow up to make you say what you don't want to say, but which you and I both know is the truth.
Sometimes, confronting the witness this way is all it takes to get the truth. Other times, if they are particularly intelligent and recalcitrant, I will employ other methods. I have feigned ignorance or naivete in order to get people to drop their guard (the Lieutenant Columbo method). I have also done things to make them frustrated and angry, because angry people are more likely lose control (the "Few Good Men" method). I once deliberately mispronounced the witness' name over a dozen times, even after he corrected me, until he got so angry at me that he made a mistake and told the truth. I have deliberately nitpicked inconsequential errors in a witness' calculations and implied that they don't know how to do their job, to get them frustrated and angry before I move on to the important questions.
Now, with respect to this particular matter. You may think otherwise, but I don't believe police officers are stupid. I am fairly certain that every single officer in the country knows that if he or she has shot someone on the job, the smart thing to do is to say that the victim posed a threat to your life, so the shooting is considered justified. That means you say that you told them to show their hands, they wouldn't and you thought they were reaching for a weapon. Heck, I'll concede that 99% of the time it actually did happen exactly as the officer testified. But in that other 1% of the time, the officer is still going to say that it happened even if it didn't (unless he or she knows that there is dash cam or body cam evidence to the contrary). Why? Because: a) the consequences to the officer for actually telling the truth are severe and b) he or she is human and all humans will lie under those circumstances.
So I'm not biased against police officers. I'm biased against human beings.
P.S. - Let me add one more thing. You mention "all the men and women who work tirelessly to serve their communities" and I have no doubt that that is your experience with your husband and his colleagues. I personally know several people in law enforcement and they are dedicated public servants and decent people. But not everyone in law enforcement is. I once prosecuted a state trooper. He was the responding trooper in a fatal motorcycle crash on the highway. While at the scene, he stole several thousand dollars and gold jewelry from the deceased cyclist. He probably would have gotten away with it too, but the young man's parents knew that he always carried a lot of cash and had some distinctive gold jewelry. When they went to claim their son's body at the hospital, they asked where it was. Subsequently, the ambulance crew was questioned and they said the trooper took it. It was found hidden up under the seat in his cruiser. He took a plea deal, which resulted in a felony conviction, the loss of his job and his pension, and a year in prison.