+1*****I know nothing about this story. I'm just discussing how language is used here.******
I asked this as this phrase is used in 2 different ways. (I'm not saying what is the actual definition, words and idioms are often misused)
1: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, wait for all the evidence to come out and then decide.
2: Give the "benefit of the doubt" can mean, a favorable judgement due to lack of condemning evidence.
1 is reasonable, 2 is extremely dangerous.
Giving people the "benefit of the doubt" due to the job they hold is how priests got away with molesting kids, teachers get away with abusing students, doctors get away with botching surgeries, soldiers get away with killing innocent civilians and police get away with unjustified shootings.
No, I think he deserves a fair trial like the rest of us. Will it even get to that point? Probably not.
I'm not condemning him either, but I can say what I think based on the limited information.
I get what you're saying, it's just not coming out very clearly. He deserves the same arrest/bail/arraignment/trial/judgment/punishment as anyone else. But LE generally get the "benefit-of-the-doubt" that they were acting in the scope of their job duties and, because of their profession, they have a better sense of judgment. They get sent home on administrative leave and investigated by their own department by friends that already have preconceived ideas about what happened and couldn't condemn a friend even if all evidence said differently.
I wouldn't classify myself pro- or anti-cop, but I know it would be hard for me to objectively judge one of my friends. I consider all my friends to be good, caring people of sound mind and judgement, otherwise they wouldn't be my friend. If they ran you over with their car, I would give them the benefit of the doubt until all facts were present. Unfortunately, as long as my friends and I are conducting the investigation, there's a chance that we'll only be looking for the evidence that exonerates him.