> (I mean, the
>guy's not only not going to jail, he not going to lose
>money, just not get money that he otherwise might win.
>And it's unfortunate that he was paralyzed, but if he
>grabbed for a cop's gun, I mean, how stupid can you
>get? ANd is it excessive force to shoot someone who
>grabs for your gun?)
If he grabbed the cop's gun he would have been guilty of a criminal offense, but you say he hasn't been convicted of any offense. Presumably you arrive at the conclusion that he did grab at the cop's gun by the logical process of 'guilty unless proved innocent'?
>I bet that's how it comes out, but I would not
>describe that as the "end of Miranda," which was not
>meant to protect civil plaintiffs, at least
>originally. Does this mean that I'm getting more
>conservative?
Perhaps not more conservative, perhaps you have simply never grasped the concept of innocent unless proved innocent.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas