Unanimity: 100 % of voters believe the presumption of legality for police shootings threatens the rule of law. No opposition, no hesitation.
The vote is carried entirely by women and by voters with no declared gender, all in the same direction; men are not represented in this round. On age, the 18-24s and the 45-54s reach the same unanimous verdict.
The thread's single contribution lays out the full legal reasoning, and it rests on one principle: under the rule of law, everyone must be equal before it, police included.
Its demonstration turns on the order of operations. If a shooting is deemed legal before any investigation has been carried out, establishing the truth becomes harder: the presumption does not merely protect the officer, it changes what the investigation is supposed to establish.
The consequence described is twofold. Victims and their families may feel that justice protects police officers more than citizens, and public trust in institutions is diminished as a result.
In this round, debate and vote therefore say exactly the same thing, which is rare on so sensitive a subject. The absence of contradiction does not mean the topic fails to divide. It means nobody came to argue the opposite position.