My suggestion has always been: It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer did anything wrong.
That is for courts not for general discussions. In a general discussion, each party has to support their claims. So are you ever going to actually support your claims?
That is exactly how presumption of innocent works.
No that isn't how it works.
That is a different, and independent, question of if the officer did something wrong. "Deserved" doesn't even have any legal meaning. It's an opinion word.
But that is the question I'm asking. You said the victim deserved to be killed.
The officer does not have to justify his actions unless there is some evidence to believe his actions were criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. In no case does people protesting in the street fulfill that requirement.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is for the courts not for general discussions. And not even for whether or not someone is arrested and charged. It appears that you don't know how to have a conversation.
So long as there is no evidence the actions were criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, the officer need not mount a defense, although they may voluntarily do so. They automatically "win" when a reasonable doubt still exists.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is for courts.
That's simple due process.
Then you have to show it.
For at least the third time, it doesn't mean the officer was right. It means he was not wrong. I've said it exactly like that three times. The officer only has to remain "not wrong". They do not have to prove they are right.
In this conversation, for you to show he was "not wrong", you would have to show he was right. If you can only show he was not wrong, then please go ahead.
No, I don't. Just because you have a right to question some act doesn't mean that the person has to defend themselves. That's exactly what due process is. Fault has to be proven, and without that proof then defense is optional.
And with the proof? Is defense still optional?
I did several messages ago. I know you read it, because you replied to the specific statement. The law only requires a reasonable suspicion. It doesn't require that you personally agree.
What was my reply?
That's exactly how the burden of proof works. You're claiming the officer engaged in a crime. You have to prove it.
That's not how it works in conversations.
It appears that you're confused about what we're doing here. We are not judges or members of a jury, we are two anonymous people having a conversation about an incident. How conversations generally work is that each side has to actually state their positions and defend it but so far, you've stated several positions and not defended any of them instead declaring that you don't have to do anything at all.
You began by implying that he deserved to have been killed but didn't back that up. You declared that he was violent without actual evidence. You then went on to say that police accounts should just be accepted at face value and that America wasn't a proper society. You also implied that if someone had ever plead guilty to a crime, they should never get the benefit of doubt. The funniest part I think was when you declared California to be the standard rather than searching for evidence.
Anyway, since you don't seem ready to have a conversation or don't know how to, I'll just end this here.