DA DOUBLE STANDARDS EMERGING RE: FIREARMS

Several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the NY Amadou Diallo Case that if a police officer merely believes s/he is in danger of being killed or seriously injured, s/he can use lethal force, even if the suspect proves to be unarmed.  Ever since that ruling, police officers have used the, “I Believed”, defense to convince the Grand Jury not to indict them.  In fact, the DA’s instruct the jurors before the police officer takes the stand, that if the officer truly believed s/he was in imminent danger, it would be a valid defense.  So the jurors almost always come back with no indictment, meaning the use of deadly force was justified in the killing of an unarmed suspect.  Some cops deserve an Academy Award for their performance on the stand.  They always tear-up, grovelling and insisting they truly believed they were in imminent danger, because they are prepared well ahead of their Grand Jury appearance to assert that exact defense and show fake contrition.

The problem is that nobody can establish what went on in a police officer’s mind, so such, “evidence”, is only established by the word of the police officer alone.  I’ve always considered the Diallo Ruling to be a license to kill, and ever since the Diallo Ruling, cops have been cleared of criminal wrongdoing, even if they broke into the wrong house with a search warrant and killed the innocent resident in bed who was reaching for a gun!

So here’s the problem we need to address:  If a private citizen kills an unarmed person during an encounter that might mirror what a police officer experiences, they don’t get the same consideration by the DA, who never prepares the Grand Jury ahead of the suspect’s testimony, as they do in officer-involved shootings.  That is a clear violation of the constitutional principle of equal justice for all.

I bring this up because during these violent and destructive protest riots, private citizens have been arrested for merely pulling a gun when they truly believed they were in imminent danger of death or serious injury.  These citizens are being charged with menacing, brandishing and even assault for using a firearm to defend themselves.

In a local Medford, Oregon case, a man was arguing with, “protesters’, when one of the protesters hurled a full water bottle at his head and hit him, knocking his head back (it’s on video) and nearly knocking his eye glasses off.  I know from 45 years specializing in Accident Disability Insurance that even a mild blow to the head can trigger a fatal Aneurysm.  In response, the man produced a legally-owned firearm and pointed it at the person responsible.  It is still unclear whether the bottle throw was witnessed by police, but the man has been arrested and indicted by a Grand Jury for menacing and possibly other charges, while apparently no charges were filed against the bottle thrower!

Then we have the couple in St. Louis, who were at home and saw their iron entry gate being destroyed by rioters.  They were in fear that the rioters would come onto their property and harm them, so they stood outside their home, the husband armed with an AR-15 and the wife a handgun.  Now the highly suspect local DA there is considering assault charges against the couple, while apparently no charges have been made against those who destroyed their property and threatened them.

So we clearly have a double standard operating, and it needs to be corrected.  Right now, these DAs are looking like they are complicit with the rioters and biased against citizens forced to defend themselves, and if I were a DA, that is the very last impression I’d want to be giving, because that is an excellent way for a DA to get his/her ass shot off!

I have also read several articles that claim notorious anti-American financier, George Soros, has been bankrolling the campaigns for various, “like-minded”, district attorneys.  If true, that means those DAs are compromised, unethical and totally unreliable.  If the citizens are forced to organize and defend themselves because the police cannot protect them, then these errant DA’s will be treated no differently than the rioters themselves — and I don’t think they’ve considered that quite yet.

Obviously, these DAs need an attitude adjustment.

Carl F. Worden

%d bloggers like this: