Why can American police officers use lethal force without the certainty of a real threat ("fearing for their lives" being enough even if no weapon is ever seen) while European police officers only use lethal force when absolutely necessary?
It's definitely a cultural difference. In the US, our officer has the right to defend themselves or others using deadly force in situations where a European officer would have to take the chance of injury/death because of their legal guidelines.The doctrine here is to “stop the threat”. I'll gather it is in Europe too, but they add, l using lethal force when absolute necessary.” The inseams example they cite in the article here relates to Ferguson and the shooting of Michae Brown Why do American cops kill so many compared to European cops? It's an incorrect analysis on many levels. A jury adjudicated this based on the evidence and exonerated Officer Wilson.Basically, had the officer “issued more verbal warnings”, warning shots (where are THOSE lethal bullets going?), and “aiming for non/vital body parts” is a thoroughly stupid idea. This would have resulted in Officer Wilson being buried instead of Michale Brown. That is unacceptable; our law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves.Philander Castillo is an example of an officer overreacting, resulting if lethal force before is was justified. He screwed up and someone died. That happens, unfortunately.American and Europe are different cultures, population and have different problems. We expect you obey the police here, and if you resist, you can't expect the kid gloves treatment Europe requires of their officers.The article does note at the end the other factors, (mental health, gang culture,socioeconomic differences) and it's a good idea to try to address the other issues that lead to the violent confrontation. But once it's there to that confrontation, I want our officers to be able to effectively and efficiently defend themselves.
In America, can you use lethal force to defend your life? If so, what about when it's a cop shooting at you?
Police and civilians have the same criteria for when they can use lethal force, which is when a reasonable person would fear death or serious injury would befall them or another person if they did not use lethal force. However, criminals generally are not allowed to claim self defense during the commission of a crime, nor can another person claim self defense on behalf of the criminal.As a result, you could potentially shoot a police officer in self-defense and be fully protected, it happens periodically, but generally requires that you didn't know they were a police officer, and they caused reasonable fear in you by, for example, by breaking down your door at 3 a.m. without announcing who they were.In general, a reasonable person would not fear death or serious injury from a police officer through normal interactions with them. The police do not hurt or kill people who are obeying the law and following instructions as a general rule, and so you cannot claim self defense during a situation where you were refusing to obey police orders, as that is illegal.Ultimately, a jury will decide if your self defense claims hold water in most instances, so you need to convince them that the claim was legitimate, which is extremely difficult in shootings of police officers. Of course, the exact criteria depend on the state you live in, and how their laws are written, and what their process for claiming self-defense is.Key point about American law to emphasize though. The question is not whether *you* felt like you were at risk of death or serious injury, but rather whether a “reasonable person” would have in the same situation. Reasonable people generally don't believe in shooting police officers as a necessary aspect of self-defense (except in extraordinary situations), so most claims like this will be dead on arrival.
Ferguson Grand Jury Decision (November 2014): What do people think about the argument that Officer Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown, and that when you disregard race, it becomes clear that he was justified?
How was he not justified?Brown had just robbed a store, beat the owner, and was attacking the officer. The people who say he was 30 feet away are immediately proven wrong from the burns around the gunshot wounds, which only occur at under 3 feet away from the barrel of the gun, so Brown was within 3 feet of the officer when he was shot.Also, I get tired of hearing people call him a kid. He was 18 years old, robbing a store, attacking people. He stepped up to the big boy table when he did that.Officer Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown, because Brown had committed multiple crimes leading up to the event, was attacking Officer Wilson when he was shot, and Officer Wilson had ample reason to fear for life, limb, or eyesight (the justifications for a shooting are reasonable fear of losing life, limb, or eyesight)The fact that Brown is a black guy does not matter. The fact the he is black does not make him any less a criminal. The fact that he is black does not make it okay to attack an officer. The fact that he's black makes absolutely no difference in the case. It's somehow become a norm for people to play the "racist" card on anyone who does anything against a black person. It's quite sickening. Michael Brown is/was a criminal, and he received the correct consequences for his actions
What is hearsay and why can't it be used in a court?
Hearsay is when you say that somebody told you something. It cannot be verified, so it's not admissible in court. Otherwise, you would be able to say anything you wanted to in order to win your case.
Why are grand jury indictments rare in police killings?
There are structural barriers that make it difficult to indict a policeman; Just some;Grand Juries are mostly concerned with corruption, If the officer was carrying out his/her duty, there is little implied reason to indict.There is close corroboration between police and prosecutors.police are the ones that give evidence to prosecutors.SCOTUS gives broad latitude to police in using deadly force.DAs do NOT want to be seen by police as inhibiting police activities....DISCLAIMER - I'm not in the legal profession.EDIT: I read your link where Major ClintGreenwood said "...As prosecutor he considers people that claim he sided with police are buffoons..." -- but, what is missing (especially with the Milo Range simulator) is the effect of what shooting that bullet is going to have on the community where you shoot it. There is a joke that's becoming too old; Every bullet has a lawyer's name on it.... I wonder how many policeman (or civilians) and soldiers wished they could take a bullet back that they pulled a trigger on. I also wonder what happens to police in the Milo Simulator when they make a bad shot/killing? Do they laugh about it? Make jokes about it? Forget about it? That is an important detail left out in this article about these "simulators". If a police officer shoots someone erroneously in a simulator, they should (IMO) be placed on leave for two weeks, gone through psychological exam about what happened, and not be put on the street until the situation is resolved.The Milo Simulator is all about when and when not to pull the trigger, but like all equipment, it depends on how it's used;Target Practice: Racism and Police Shootings Are No Game