|
kolby posted:https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1379883253327335434?s=20 They're trying to invoke the "he was no angel" defense - basically, show that the victim did something (anything) illegal, immoral, or in any way less than Eagle Scout behavior. Persons who are inclined to defend the police will then use this to show that the victim had it coming / deserved it / was not entitled to the same degree of protection under law as a "straight laced" citizen, etc. This defense is usually used in right wing media, but there's no reason not to try it in court. If the jury can be convinced that the victim was a petty criminal, on drugs, unruly, etc., they may be more inclined to let the attacker off. That's my guess as to why they'd push this angle.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:19 |
|