a reply to: SR1TX
The reason that I'm not a lawyer is because I never wanted to be, and too many are too difficult to work with in a productive manner (I know this,
because I work directly with AUSAs now on a daily basis...not that this will mean anything to you, I'm sure). Oh, and I didn't go to law school and
pass the bar exam. Those are a few reasons, too.
And I'm not a paralegal anymore--I thought that was pretty damn clear at this point.
Now, if you have noted ANYTHING that I have said about the "searches" line (the one that I specifically cited as the only one possibly relevant to the
situation), you would understand that what I have said is that it would be relatively easy to argue that it would not apply to this instance because
it would be claimed by either/both officer(s) that, at that point in time, they were still responding to the call and not actively searching for
someone. You'll also note that it would be arguable that, since the noted searches specified in the manual are hands-on, outside-of-the-cruiser type
of searches, that the officers felt that this was not an instance where turning on the cameras was a necessity (barring any provable training that
They may be flimsy arguments, but remember, I worked with defense attorneys before, so I understand the ridiculousness that some will immerse
themselves into in order to try and wiggle a client out of a charge. Nowhere, not at one point, have I made the claim that the cited paragraph of the
SOP absolutely does not apply to them.
Has either made a statement saying that, at that specific moment, they had been searching for the suspect? That's a serious question (and if the
answer is "yes," can you provide a source to validate that answer?). Because if one of them (probably Harrity at his point) made the comment that they
were searching for the alleged rape at the time of Damond's approach to their vehicle, that would go a long way in negating an argument against the
SOP applying to this incident.
See how that works? I'm open to both possibilities because both are possible, dependent upon evidence. A lawyer, on the other hand, would subscribe to
only one side and run with it. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.
edit on 27-7-2017 by SlapMonkey because: clarity