I know these aren't going to trial, but still a very relevant supreme court ruling way back in 1989, Graham v. Conner
Short summary:
It was involving a black man (Graham) having a diabetic reaction, going into a store to get orange juice for his sugar levels, realizing the line was too long to wait for, then leaving to go back into a car with his friend as the driver. A nearby police officer from his perspective sees Graham go into a store then leaving shortly after with a driver waiting. He thinks a robbery was just committed and pulled them over. Backup is called, Graham starts having a reaction to his sugar levels and appears drunk. The officers detain him and in the process, injure his shoulder, breaks his foot, etc. They realize that there was no crime committed and let them go. Graham sues the police for excessive force and racism. He loses, appeals all the way to supreme court with the question: Must Graham’s claim that the police used excessive force be examined under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard? (as opposed to a "good faith of the officer" or the reverse "racist cops beat the shit out of some black guy" )
The court ruled that yes it must be under the fourth amendment. This established the idea of "the reasonable officer" and the Graham Standard: Would a reasonable officer have used this much force in this instance? Graham goes back to the lower court and sues again for excessive force under the idea of a reasonable officer. He then
loses the case for excessive force.
This is the "officer gets acquitted for shooting an unarmed black kid" rule. Because as a juror, you are instructed "You cannot base the officers actions on hindsight, racism, etc. You have to look at the exact moment of the shooting, not the moments that led up to the shooting." And juries rule in favor of the officer. because when you ask: Would a reasonable officer have acted the way he acted in this situation? In Graham v Conner, Yes. The officer knew nothing of the orange juice, if he was diabetic, if the driver was lying, etc. So they detained him and "used proper force."
In the case of a black kid with a toy gun or sometimes nothing getting killed? Yes, a reasonable officer would shoot the black kid. He doesn't know he has a gun. He only sees the kid holding what looks like a gun or reaching for his waist thinking it was a gun.
So lets ask the question, would a reasonable officer have done what these officers did? You can't look at "he didn't have the gun" or "these were ICE officers and the killed man is a protestor." you have to look at the exact moment of the shooting. The officer saw this man reaching for what he thinks is a gun, and shoots him fearing for his live or the safety of others. With these videos, you are seeing a billion different angels with slow downs and all the info that works completely fine in hindsight. These officers dont know any of that. They see a man resisting, sees what appears to be a gun and fire away.
You can carbon copy this directly into the Renee Good case. It doesn't matter if she was trying to just get away, if she was trying to run him over, if this was ICE versus protestors,
even when people learned the officer was struck by a car previously, and even if she did or did not hit the officer. You have to look at it from the perspective of the officer. He seeing a woman driving her car at him and did what any reasonable officer would do, which is to shoot the person who they think is attempting to run them over or kill them.
The most important thing to remember is that any time a police officer is acquitted for killing someone, just know that its because back in the 80's, a black man was beat to shit by cops, appeals all the way to the supreme court, and wins his supreme court case which gave the police their defense for killing people in these types of shootings. And the black man got nothing but beat to shit.
