> Kind of like the case of police routinely shooting unarmed blacks and getting off scot-free? That's not quite the same. Murder didn't need precedent, however

> Kind of like the case of police routinely shooting unarmed blacks and getting off scot-free? That's not quite the same. Murder didn't need precedent, however, establishing some framework for grading police incidents retroactively does. What gets in the way of that is existing laws which protect police officers wholesale. If you're trying overturn an entire existing law for a new framework, that's a bit outside the bounds of precedent because you're not longer talking about interpretation.