One Attorney’s Opinion re Police Shooting of Knifewoman
My opinion, in this case, is better expressed by another:
As far as the law is concerned, a knife-wielding assailant name Bryant, a minor female, was shot and killed by a police officer in Ohio in the midst of her aggravated assault and attempted murder of another teenager.
Police are not only allowed, but required, to use lethal force to protect the life of the innocent. The number of times the police arrive on time, while the murderess is in the act, and have opportunity to stop her, is so rare as to be miraculous.
Police body camera footage leaves no room for interpretation, and no foothold for any accusations of racism.
The footage also shows that the officer acted with commendable speed and accuracy. He handled his weapon correctly, assessed the situation rapidly, shot accurately, followed procedure precisely. He is a credit to his training.
The officer stopped the knife-attack in mid-swing. Such a thing if unheard-of outside of fiction.
The news media, and the White House press secretary, have determined to glorify violent Black criminals.
We have seen mob rule successfully override common sense, common courtesy, and the protections of legal procedure. Voices are publicly calling for the dismantling of the police, and the abolition of trial by jury. This is mere anarchy.
Please note that the First Amendment does not protect, as free speech, speech used to incite immediate violence, nor criminal conspiracy, nor are “true threats” that is, threats of death or grievous bodily harm not meant as hyperbole. In the wording of the court in United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976), a true threat is a threat that “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.”
In the current social-media organized mob violence environment of modern America, for example, publishing an image of the police officer with the words YOU’RE NEXT arguably constitute a true threat, and is not protected speech.