OCR Text |
Show I Courts and Officers ;, i THE. recent tragedy in which a police officer gave-his- life Jn the -causeofLdutyservesia : recall a decision given in one of the lower courts j a few weeks ago. In this case it was held that i men who fired upon police officers were justified . in that they had every reason to believe that they were being held up. We wonder if the same defense would have !' . won freedom for the slayer of Detective C B. Hamby if his death had not precluded the need oLxitiali . In the first case, an officer in uniform commanded com-manded the suspects to halt. The court, however, how-ever, held that there was justification for doubt in the minds of the men who opened fire on the officers. If there was justification for this doubt, then it naturally follows that the slayer of Hamby might have pretended that he felt he was about to be held up, which under the court ruling would justify his shooting. The fact of the matter is that the lower court set a bad precedent In the first case. It failed to place the proper value on the lives of - police officers and it declined to punish men who Could have no legal right to go about armed in the hours of the night. The death of Hamby is a severe lesson, but it should serve as a warning to couls inclined to sanction the carrying of capons. " rt)nIytov V inj bad aim evented a tragedy in the first case. The duel was as serious and determined as the one in which Detective Hamby and his slayer were killed. It is high time for the courts to regard the carrying of weapons as1 evidence tending to shift the burden of responsibility responsi-bility from the police officer to the accused. 1 |