Because I work in the criminal justice system, some readers ask me why I don’t generally comment on high profile shooting cases that are in the news. I guess I owe them, and you, an explanation.
In the past I worked as a police prosecutor, prosecuting misdemeanor cases. I was a cop for longer than that, and I’ve been an expert witness for the courts since 1979, the one of those three jobs that I’m still doing. As a prosecutor, I was taught what any law student is taught in law school and what every cop is taught in the police academy: We don’t discuss our cases in the press! It will all come out in court!
Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a lot of politically-driven cases where the accusers violate that treaty and use the press as a bludgeon, giving them a theory of the case which paints the defendant as a monster. When one side violates the treaty, the other side is no longer bound by it. I personally believe defense lawyers who don’t speak for their clients when those clients are being falsely demonized are failing to represent their clients in the Court of Public Opinion.
When the defense side needs to be presented to the public under such exigent circumstances I believe it’s the job of the defense lawyers to do that, not people like me. I certainly don’t comment on cases where I’m personally involved until court matters are concluded. But I try not to comment on ongoing cases where I’m not involved, for one simple reason: not being involved, I don’t know the whole story and won’t until the facts come out at trial.
Once the case has been adjudicated, I see it as fair game and am happy to analyze it based on what I know about the dynamics of violent encounters and how they are processed by the system. By then, we have all the facts to discuss and learn from and hopefully keep tragic outcomes from being repeated.