>
> 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.
Well, you can be "guilty" in the sense that you committed the elements of the crime, but innocent in that you were either (a) acquitted, or (b) never prosecuted. I think, though I am not sure, that he the plaintiff here was never prosecuted for going for the cop's gun. (If he had been acquitted, he'd have a very powerful case, and the matter would probably have been settled.)
Presumably you arrive
> at the conclusion that he did grab at the cop's gun
> by the logical process of 'guilty unless proved
> innocent'?
>
No, I didn't say he'd grabbed the cop's gun. i have no opinion on the matter. I said that if he did, it was a dumb thing to do, and if he did, it probably wasn't excessive force to shoot him, at least as a matter of law.
> >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.
>
The guy's a plaintiff. He's not a criminal defendant. His innocence of a crime is not an issue. Even if he did it, what's at issue is not whether ge committed a crime, but whether the cops used excessive force.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com