More details are coming out on the NYPD shooting of a soon-to-be-wed man.

First of all, it’s amazing to me how some reports include the fact that the man’s car hit an officer and then a police vehicle, but others — especially ones focusing on the protests — leave that out to make it look like the police have no evidence on their side. Same with ignoring the fact the shooting was right outside a strip club (ahem, “nightclub”) after a bachelor’s party while never failing to talk about his impending, more wholesome-sounding marriage.

Also, here’s an explanation from NRO’s John Derbyshire (based on a story first run in the New York Post and mainly ignored in the MSM — though the AP has a somewhat similar account here) that fits all the solid available evidence:

“From things [one plainclothes cop] had heard and seen in the club, he believed a gun crime — perhaps a drive-by shooting — was about to be committed…He challenged the stationary car containing the three suspects, putting a foot up on the hood, flashing his badge, and pointing his gun at the driver, shouting: ‘Police! Turn off your car! Let me see your hands!’ The driver — who was the one shot dead — responded by trying to run down the officer, then backing into a following, unmarked, police van. The officer fired; one bullet went right through the car, out the rear window, towards the officers behind the car. Assuming they were being fired on from inside the car, those officers returned fire.”

Not sure how shooting into a moving vehicle works in terms of police procedure (particularly when officers are on the other side), but this certainly implies the man driving the car was no victim.

On a side note, there’s a lot of talk about prosecuting the cops. There’s no dispute that such a prosecution would be difficult, but I disagree with some on why.

A friend of mine recently suggested the law is stacked in favor of police, using as evidence that few cops are convicted or even professionally sanctioned in shootings. I’d argue much of this is due to the cops simply having followed the proper procedures. That is, of course, the simplest explanation.

I’d also say the law is fair and consistent with the laws applied to everyone else in America (not as sure about department sanctions, as I’d guess they differ from place to place). According to a story about a different shooting:

“[To convict, prosecutors must] convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer had no justifiable fear that his life was in danger during the few seconds in which he decided to fire his weapon.”

Well, according to the law police (and everyone else) can kill if there’s a mortal threat. Also, to convict someone criminally you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he violated the law. So there’s no special protection here.

(The exception is SWAT teams, which have a pretty wide latitude in shooting suspects during raids. Even when the officers don’t ID themselves as such, disoriented, innocent homeowners who shoot at them can end up prosecuted.)

I think there are two reasons that, in practice as opposed to by law, it’s difficult to convict cops. For one, these situations are incredibly murky, and if the guy on the other side of the cop’s gun is dead, the police officer’s side is the only one told with clarity. Even if someone is unarmed, it’s easy (as it should be) to buy the logic he was acting like he had a gun — e.g., the cop says a guy reached into his pocket. You don’t and shouldn’t have to wait for someone to open fire before protecting yourself, making reasonable doubt easy to achieve.

Two, jury bias makes it difficult to convict an officer. Most people are taught to trust police, and if a story sounds plausible they’re unlikely to convict.

So no matter how this turns out, I have strong doubts we’ll see any officers convicted.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.