Fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A good defense lawyer would never, EVER argue that, especially in this case, because;

1. You can’t possibly defend killing someone for some act that a person might commit at some future point, and

2. Unless his partner did a runner and went for a doughnut, the likelihood of Brooks tasering cop, then walking up to take his weapon approaches nil.

Boru

Like it or not, a defense lawyer's job is to serve the client. Their job is to create, at least in legal terminology in America "reasonable doubt", to get the jury to acquit or get a lesser charge conviction. The shooting officer was charged with 11 counts. It is no given unfortunately, that a jury will convict him of the most severe charge. The defense lawyer's job is to get him off, or get him the least time.  

Nobody is going to argue that Brown didn't end up dead. But I have heard this defense before reported in news. 

Not saying in this case this defense will work, but I wouldn't be surprised if their defense lawyers brought it up. Jury selection matters, and all they need is one MAGA fan on that jury to at a minimum create a hung jury.

I’m well aware of what a defense lawyer’s job entails, so please be good enough not to lecture me on it.

I agree that a lawyer might make such a defense as you outlined, but a ‘good’ lawyer wouldn’t do so. Why? Because, at the very least, s/he’d be laughed out of court.

If such a defense had an ice lolly’s chance in Hell of working, it would allow the murder of anyone, any where, at any time.

Judge: ‘Why did your client shoot Mr. Brian James in the face with a bazooka?’

Lawyer: ‘Because he feared that Mr. James might someday drive a bus load of toddlers off a cliff.’

Judge: ‘Case dismissed.’

Boru

(‘Brooks’, not ‘Brown’.)