Posted: 3/6/2016 5:22:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote History Quoted:
In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, and there was no reason to believe he had any weapon other than a long gun, which probably wasn't in his waistband.
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot".
I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do".
The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that.
99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up.
When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO.
I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should.
You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it?
As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer?
If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post.
Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon.
It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times.
There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions.
Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..."
In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, and there was no reason to believe he had any weapon other than a long gun, which probably wasn't in his waistband.
|
|