> 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.)
Which is only to concede my point. You are saying that if he had been tried and proved his innocence, he would have a stronger case. But since he hasn't been tried, the law will be free to assume he is guilty. So his case is flawed unless he can prove his innocence.
That is the very essence of the doctrine of guilty until 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.
You're right, what's at issue is whether the cops attempted to murder him. Obviously if they did he would be entitled to some compensation, which is the nearest thing to justice he can dream of.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas