Few if any journalists or pundits on the nightly news have bothered to mention Graham v. Connor, which is the law of the land regarding how to evaluate a police use of force. They are too busy convicting the Ferguson officer without seeing the results of the investigations. Media description and commentary on the law of the land would be useful.
Graham v. Connor states that the legal question is, was the use of force "objectively reasonable" under the facts and circumstances of the incident? To answer that question, one must stand in the shoes of a hypothetical reasonable officer at the scene, with the same training and experience as the involved officer. "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation... The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."
Let's be clear. The shooting death of anyone is a tragedy. Police officers are the only people in society who are legally empowered and trained to use force on someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime in the name of the state. Our life-and-death decision-making is not perfect. Usually we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. As this is written, in the Ferguson case we just don't know yet. Neither do Rev. Sharpton and Mr. Family Lawyer. Neither do the journalists and pundits.
"Unarmed" suspects and un-brained media really ought to learn how to behave.
Greg Meyer is a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain, a member of the POLICE advisory board, and a frequent use-of-force expert in civil and criminal litigation cases.