Right, Privilege, Law and Lebron James Tweet Let Us Reopen Makhia Bryant Case For Justice

A heart must quiver and lungs shutter, to think, so despicable of practical public assumption, that for one second the police officer was absolved of liability to the criminal deprivation of the civil rights of the child that he murdered. Oh, but an innocent one, yet detrimental, a mistake that succeeds the ever-present reality of negligence or other forms of police misconduct, on the part of ignorant public observance, potentially, a similar fault of the officer, and it is important to note, here, Ma’khia Bryant is a victim and not a suspect [1], [2], for all intent and purpose. How is it not an easy witness, to review a moment of intensity and confusion, that one would assume the actions of the officer to be justified, because there was a weapon possessed by the victim and that the victim was in the act of apparent assault onto another person? Another person was at risk to injury, by the hands and weapon of the victim, of course, but and nonetheless, the problem is constitutional, both on the federal and state levels, at least, about that instance of emotive instinct that brought the officer to discharge his weapon into the back of the victim. In any case, this is a brief opinion on the matter of a fatal Columbus City Ohio police involved shooting event that has caused controversy over like scenarios, but this issue is different, what is better of this opinion.

--[1] Dictionary.law.com considers a ‘Prime Suspect’ to be one that has been duly given ‘Miranda warnings’, plus to recognize and comprehend those rights. (Hill and Hill 2021). --[2] Furthermore, “a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials”. (Inc. 2021).

A national law firm addresses the liability of police in the state of Ohio:

Practically, to reach a full comprehension of the matter at hand, one should ponder the legal respect of these terms and their appropriate relevant legal placement: Felon, Suspect, Offense, Escape, Apprehend, Seizure. Whatever the case, the argument can be made for both kinds of force or for excessive force alone, in this instance of officer involved shooting.

“the Supreme Court has held that ‘use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable…It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape”. (Downey 2018).

“Even though Leonid admitted that ‘he behaved in a disorderly manner by refusing to immediately obey the police officers and by approaching one of them’ this does not give the officers license to use disproportionate force to subdue him.” (Downey 2018).

“The unnecessary use of force would be the application of force where there is no justification for its use, while an excessive use of force would be the application of more force than required where use of force is necessary.” (Downey 2018).

Legally, Section 2921.44 of the Ohio Revised Code in Title 29 Crimes-Procedure and Chapter 2921 of Offenses Against Justice And Public Administration recognizes some forms of Dereliction of Duty as this:

(A-2) “Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance” (Commission 2015).

“(E) No public servant shall recklessly fail to perform a duty expressly imposed by law with respect to the public servant's office, or recklessly do any act expressly forbidden by law with respect to the public servant's office.” (Commission 2015).

“(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of dereliction of duty, a misdemeanor of the second degree”. (Commission 2015).

On a glossed observance, the actions of the officer may seem legitimate, because he attempted to prevent apparent imminent injury infliction upon the other person by the victim. However, the officer never established any reasonableness [3], in his decision to defend the other person against the victim. He never ascertained, considerably, the orientation and context of the situation and individuals involved nor established any appropriate relationship on the scene—even though, he attempted to establish a relationship, initially—when he involved himself. In the way the events unfolded, there could have been no appropriate determination, about the identity of the “offender”; the apparent assault could have been defensive and the knife could have been a defensive device, by any superficial observation and so the officer did not have the ‘power to do so alone’ (see above A-2) but the assistive tool is inadequate because of its deadly force capacity and the actual effect it caused. Another caveat of significance is the new law enacted by the state of Ohio that respects a ‘stand your ground’ doctrine—Therefore, the victim had no duty to retreat from the threat of other persons’, if there was a perceived offensive threat, on her part (Brookbank 2021). Thus, the forced power imposed onto the victim was excessive upon deployment and abusive. Simply, had he not intervened, by the weight of the former clause, he would have been non-liable to Section 2921.44, because he was under no obligation to act upon the victim. In fact, it was against his best of interests, to engage the victim with deadly force. The case of this community engagement avails itself to scrutiny of department policy and practice, as well the federal clause for police misconduct, with regard to the sanction of deadly force, particularly.

--[3] (N.a. 1988)

To address department policy, the argument on any level can be that this officer acted lawful, with regard to Columbus Use of Force Police Division Directive, because Section 2A subsection 3b considers threats of harm or injury to others to be legitimate cause to use force (Columbus Police Department 2020). However, it should have been made clear, already, that the officer could have not assessed of any appropriate measure who the aggressor was (perpetrator of crime) nor who the victim was or if all parties were victims. Therefore, the real duty of care obliged of the officer was intervention of non-lethal force or intervention without any physical force, but rather to observe and ascertain better, for the care of the total community. Otherwise, the officer is guilty of selective enforcement [4]—a defense that is not accepted in Ohio law, nonetheless, a federal civil rights violation [5]—of the law, because he imposed prejudicious force of ignorant will and endangered the entire community. Seriously, the use of force imposed onto the victim by the powerful will of the officer, it may violate department policy section 2A subsection 4 (Columbus Police Department 2020). The statement regards ‘punitive force’ which is a possible reason for the course of action embarked onto by the officer, when he discharged his firearm into the victim. It is probable, given the course of action, that the officer shot the victim because she would not comply with his commands, simply. Apparently, the officer judged and convicted the victim ‘under the color of law’ and then seized her state right to ‘stand her ground’ and her life. Section 2A subsection 8a lends itself to survival of encounter to be requisite of necessity to techniques employed against ‘resistance and aggression’ which begs the reveal, the officer was not in any danger.

--[4] (State V Jones 2018) and (State V Michel 2009) --[5] “(A) No public servant, under color of the public servant's office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.” (The Legislative Service Commission 2021). See Also. 2921.52.

Subsequentially, the policy statements of the Columbus police department continue to Section 2B. In subsection 1, there is consideration about legitimate ‘deadly force’, id est. “when the involved personnel have reason to believe the response is objectively reasonable to protect themselves or others from the imminent threat of death or serious physical harm” (Columbus Police Department 2020). It should be clear, by now that the ‘reason’ of the actions of the officer is in doubt, about the legitimacy of his. He was not in any position to select one for protection over the other, an abuse of power, for sure. In subsection 4, there is a requisition of tact that involves verbal warning that is specific to deadly force, and the officer failed this requirement (Columbus Police Department 2020), with no special consideration given to her mental state [6], id est. the obviousness of her oblivion to his presence and her engagement in such an intense potential moment of fight or flight, herself, she had no time to gain orientation to the presence of the officer nor to any immediate commands.

--[6] See Section 2A subsections 6a & b & c (Columbus Police Department 2020). These sections concern force of reasonable capacity and does not signify lethal or deadly force, compared to any kind of physical force that can be utilized to stop the threat of a suspect.

The emotional impact of the decision to shoot first and ask questions later caused harm, surely, for all parties involved, but the father most incredibly, as he is whom witnessed his young child be murdered of shots to the back by the person there to help keep everyone safe, and to be so helpless but to look on and cry out in distressed horror. The actions of the officer violated this department policy, drastically, the Section 2B subsection 6 which speaks to an order of police protocol and practice that compels operative protection to the 'total community' (Columbus Police Department 2020). He caused more harm than good, with his intervention method. There could have been no clear determination, anyway, whether any offense had taken place and of which body was the offender. Discharge of his firearm into the public was reckless and abandoned, and it had put at risks other members of the community of being violently assaulted by the bullets of the ‘peace officer’. It could be insinuated, by some, that he did not care of the outcome, because of the racial stigma associated with the race of the parties involved. With many bystanders in the way of harm and one person side by side of the victim, entangled in a struggle, the discharge of his weapon was a complete disregard of the general welfare of all those people present.

Critically, this video of the fatal shooting, it reviews a fear that torments the soul, emotion and culture, id est., of so many United Statesians, even, beyond the mere misconduct on the part of this one officer of the individual circumstance. Across the board, is the quality of disciplinary review taken care to, as part of the process of policy administration? When misconduct does happen, are there not any corrective and disciplinary procedural processes that do work, without the requisition of public grievance? This matter, at hand, highlights arguments of community safety, where police are involved and citizen privileges come to question. . In a place that encourages defense of self, property or others, through the social modalities of concealed or revealed weapons carry which are rights bestowed upon the general public, the security engagements with individuals that utilize such rights must be touched on of delicate hands and respected, because there is a need for police to understand their parameters of enforcement authorization and respect them; police officers should not shoot upon mere site of a gun (or any weapon), where inappropriate, because such is unconstitutional, in effect of the 1st and 2nd amendments, if not any other. The fact that dignity and life are taken, through frequent and evidential police misconduct, it presents challenges to the integrity of public security rights and practices, across the nation.

Consequentially, about the actions of the officer in question, regardless of his intentions of the moment, the good opinion is that the officer is guilty of misconduct, through negligence of his “duty to protect the community they serve, its citizens and their property” ( OSBA Committees & Sections 2015), in the state criminal and federal civil capacities. He should be tried for criminal transgression, sued for damages and issued a permanent relief of professional police charge, in the name of liberty and justice, also, but for the sake of the betterment of police efficiency and safer communities. This opinion is influenced through the comparative reason of political expectation and ethical consideration, a determinative deduction of duty, principle and valuation of life.

This footage is graphic and may cause emotional disturbance.

Is this the appropriate way to engage an armed situation?

Lebron James Deletes Tweet About Police Officer Who Shot Ma'khia Bryant.

Bibliography

OSBA Committees & Sections. 2015. Law Facts: Your Rights if Questioned, Stopped or Arrested by the Police. Febuary 2015. Accessed May 1, 2021.

Brookbank, Sarah. 2021. What is the 'stand your ground' law that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed? January 5. Accessed May 1, 2021.

Columbus Police Department. 2020. "Division of Police." Columbus.gov. December 30. Accessed May 1, 2021.

Commission, The Legislative Service. 2015. Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules. March 23. Accessed May 2021, 2021.

Downey, Daniel T. 2018. Police Liability In Ohio: Police Officer Use of Force Claims. September 20. Accessed May 1, 2021. Lorman.com.

Hill, Kathleen, and Gerald Hill. 2021. Prime Suspect. Accessed May 2, 2021. Dictionary.law.com.

Inc., US Legal Forms. 2021. Suspect Law And Legal Definition . Accessed May 2, 2021. Uslegal.com.

N.a. 1988. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Case Study, N.A.: Justia.

State V Jones. 2018. Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-94 (IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, April 16).

State V Michel. 2009. C. A. No. 24072 (IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Febuary 4).

The Legislative Service Commission. 2021. Ohio Laws and Adminstrative Rules. April 12. Accessed May 1, 2021.