At least that's what the intro to Law and Order states.
In the real world it's not that straight forward when, the police and the offender are one and the same.
If you're following the Randall "Wes" Kendrick trial you'll notice that often it is hard to tell "who is who" since on more than a dozen occasions the witness for the prosecution turned out to be a better witness for the defense.
Yesterday the state called Mike Campagna to take the stand. You might recall that Campagna was once training director at CMPD, and took the fall for trying to help Chief Monroe pass the state's BLET exam. Two weeks after someone leaked a plan to gather test questions in an effort to help Chief Monroe pass exam, Campagna was transferred to the watch commander's office (basically time out).
WCNC's report of the "highly inappropriate" event is here.
Campagna's been around a long time, but he doesn't have the sort of reputation that says honest and above reproach. The fact that Campagna would scheme a plan to help Chief Monroe pass the exam and then take the fall for the plan, points to a less than perfect witness who might be inclined to back the chief even when doing so would be untruthful.
It makes you wonder sometimes if "The People" (the state, aka Roy Cooper) have thrown this case out the window and are just going through the motions.
It is clear from the evidence submitted so far that there is far more than reasonable doubt about the voluntary manslaughter charge.
Which may be why the "Outsider Agitators" have flocked to Ferguson again leaving Charlotte in the rearview mirror, and essentially declaring Jonathan Ferrell a "low impact martyr" with only his family and a small group of supporters rallying at Marshall Park each day.
At this point in the trial, so few things are in question it makes you question why the case ever saw the light of day. Obviously the reason the video was held from the public is that it shows Jonathan Ferrell on the attack. The evidence shows the Kerrick was "back peddling" not for just a few feet but for a great distance.
So the question is the "level" of response. If following the CMPD directives on use of force it is very clear that the difference between lethal and non-lethal is pretty tight. Further more there is no guarantee that using a taser or impact weapon would not have been lethal.
The entire case may come down to the fine line between Active Aggression and Aggravated Active Aggression. Did Officer Kerrick in the few seconds he had to react make the right call, given that a Taser had failed to subdue the attacker and that the attacker was in a head down full on charge?