Hi, I'm not in any cases right now but I have a unique question. Just like how cases establish jurisprudence does circumstances and police action also constitute a legal jurisprudence.
For instance a recent case happened where 3 cops beat up a man who was having a verbal debate with his girlfriend about a sandwich. They were found by their police chief to have acted appropriately by beating him near death.
Does that create a legal defense when a criminal is in court for a violent attack to be able to say "in these cases the police have found beating someone to near death over a sandwich is reasonable"
Same goes for shooting 15 shots into a car in a mans driveway shooting him at least once whereby the police chief claims police acted accordingly. Does that mean if I suspect someone is a possible thief that I can fire at least 15 rounds because the police have established a reasonable understanding that even suspected car thief, even if it's the owner, must be shot before ascertaining proper ID, and if he fails to walk into the gunfire it clearly means he was refusing to comply.
Are these cases actually things I could defend actions of my peers with because they're "reasonable" when my peers and police do it?
Is this something I can use if I was an attorney in a case against a client for the exact same circumstances?