The Importance of Context

ZHawke wrote: www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-...ly-force-law-n261256

Twice in one day Z? Have mercy, please . . .

In an interview last week with NBC News, Roger Goldman, Callis Family Professor of Law emeritus at St. Louis University Law School, said that under the current statute, "if I'm representing the police officer, I'm arguing that Missouri law allows an officer to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon even if he is not a danger to the public or fellow officers."

And if Roger Goldman tries to make that argument in a court of law, the prosecutor is going to stand up, object, and cite Tennessee v Gardner and Graham v Conner, which will be upheld by the judge even if the MO legislature decides to do nothing with the AG's request.

What Roger Goldman would really do in this situation is provide to the jury ample evidence that Wilson's actions complies with not only the low standard contained in MO law, but also with the much higher standard established by these two SCOTUS decisions because the prosecutor is going to try and argue that these higher standards weren't met, not try to ignore their existence and hope he gets away with it.

Edited to add: That's why I have such disdain for anything national from NBC. They, like Gruber, think I'm an idiot that won't critically examine what I'm told . . .

Edited a 2nd time to add: And notice where I pulled that from, the bottom of the article. Like I said, I scan the top and the bottom before deciding if anything in the middle is worthy of further attention.

PrintSmith wrote: And if Roger Goldman tries to make that argument in a court of law, the prosecutor is going to stand up, object, and cite Tennessee v Gardner and Graham v Conner, which will be upheld by the judge even if the MO legislature decides to do nothing with the AG's request.

And that, in a nutshell, is what I believe is the "snag" with regard to the current MO law and the fact the MO AG is calling for the law to be reformed.

It's a solution searching for a non-existent problem, a molehill trying to be turned into a mountain, sleight of hand misdirection at its highest level, a prime example of an elected official making it look like they're doing important work while not actually accomplishing anything worthwhile in the process.

PrintSmith wrote: It's a solution searching for a non-existent problem, a molehill trying to be turned into a mountain, sleight of hand misdirection at its highest level, a prime example of an elected official making it look like they're doing important work while not actually accomplishing anything worthwhile in the process.

I disagree. The AG saw a problem with current MO law, and is asking the legislature to address that problem. Sorta like Obama's immigration reform, IMO. Virtually everyone agrees there needs to be some kind of immigration reform Congress needs to get off its "collective" ass and get it done.

If indeed there is an issue, and I'm not conceding that there is at this point, it is an administrative one, not an operational one. Operationally the law doesn't have to be altered in order to be properly applied in the court system. As you properly noted earlier, the SCOTUS decision sets the standard that must be met irrespective of what the MO statutes contain, so whether the MO legislature indulges the AG or not isn't really germane.

And don't worry too much about immigration right now. I'm sure the next Congress will have something for the president to veto in short order.

PrintSmith wrote: If indeed there is an issue, and I'm not conceding that there is at this point, it is an administrative one, not an operational one. Operationally the law doesn't have to be altered in order to be properly applied in the court system. As you properly noted earlier, the SCOTUS decision sets the standard that must be met irrespective of what the MO statutes contain, so whether the MO legislature indulges the AG or not isn't really germane.

And don't worry too much about immigration right now. I'm sure the next Congress will have something for the president to veto in short order.

SCOTUS set the standard that "must be met". That's the issue - the standard is not being "met".

What case has been decided in which the standard set by SCOTUS hasn't been met in MO Z?

PrintSmith wrote: What case has been decided in which the standard set by SCOTUS hasn't been met in MO Z?

From the article.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said Wednesday night that state lawmakers should bring the statute into line with an important Supreme Court ruling.

The standard set by MO does not meet the standard set by SCOTUS. The MO AG is urging that it be brought into line with the constitutionality standard set by SCOTUS. What more do you want?

As I earlier noted, that is perhaps an administrative issue but not an operational one in that the courts will conform to the application proscribed by the SCOTUS ruling irrespective of what the text of the MO law states. And while tidying up the MO statutes to conform to that ruling would demonstrate written conformity with that ruling, what is more important is functional conformity with the ruling, which is going to happen in MO courts regardless of whether the law is updated or not.