Smith’s audacious declaration didn’t come without a caveat, but his primary assertion sent shockwaves. He explicitly stated, “I saw the video on numerous occasions… don’t expect him to be prosecuted. He was completely justified.” This wasn’t a casual remark; it was a firm, unequivocal endorsement of the officer’s actions from a legal standpoint, a position he hammered home with absolute conviction. The tragic circumstances involved Good attempting to drive her SUV away from officers, a move that the agent seemingly interpreted as a direct threat. The outcome was swift and devastating: Good was shot three times in the face. Smith’s analysis hinges on this critical interpretation – that the officer, faced with what he perceived as a vehicle weaponized against him, acted within the bounds of the law to defend himself or others. To many, the image of a woman shot multiple times in the face for attempting to flee is inherently indefensible, but Smith’s legal lens painted a starkly different picture. He implied that, regardless of public sentiment or the tragic loss of life, the cold, hard letter of the law would likely shield the agent from criminal charges. This legal shield, however, only raises more questions for those seeking justice and accountability.
Continue reading…
