Despite his staunch legal defense, Smith wasn’t entirely immune to the human cost of the incident. While he maintained the officer was legally justified, a critical “but” emerged, shifting the focus from statutes to ethics. “From a humanitarian perspective, however, why did you have to do that?” he questioned, revealing a profound internal conflict. This wasn’t just a rhetorical inquiry; it was a direct challenge to the officer’s method, even if the act itself was deemed lawful. Smith provocatively suggested viable alternatives, arguing that if the officer “could move out of the way,” then “that means you could have shot the tires.” This commentary introduced a stark distinction between what is permissible by law and what is necessary or humane. He acknowledged Good’s wrongful attempt to drive off, directly linking it to her ultimate demise, but simultaneously underscored the possibility of a less lethal outcome. The implications of Smith’s “humanitarian perspective” are staggering: could a life have been spared, even if the law grants leeway for deadly force? This uncomfortable juxtaposition of legal impunity and moral failing leaves an unsettling feeling, begging the question of whether our legal frameworks truly align with our societal values.
Continue reading…
