Quote:
Originally Posted by Subby
I think this is pretty binary. Either you believe that there is nothing an unarmed person could do to merit being shot a minimum of six times or you do.
Hell Wilson had a taser. Why not use that after the first potentially lethal shot? Or second? Or third. Or fourth. Or fifth. Oh...too late.
|
Thank you Subby, I've been saying this for 3 pages now. Though one the revolver is out, the Use of Force Continuum is already at max.
Still, I can't picture the scenario where lethal force is required or even within general policy here. Even if we accept the officer's version of events - that he was being "charged" by the suspect (of which there is NO corroboration of these events while multiple eyewitnesses and even the autopsy report suggests differently), that's not a justification for lethal force. The officer still had chemical, blunt impact and a taser available. Escalation to lethal force against an unarmed suspect at range is not acceptable practice. And if the suspect was so dangerous, where is the call for backup prior to getting out of the car?
What has been presented by the police is riddled with holes, doesn't make much sense and their other statements of which turned out to be false (like the number of shots fired) don't help matters either. Maybe they have a good explanation for all of this, but so far it hasn't been forthcoming. Instead, they've focused on character assassination and their response to the crowds and media have not just been tone-deaf but should be treated as criminal actions. It all stinks to high heaven.
And BTW, for all the "adrenaline made him do it" excuses, that doesn't hold up in court. You're still accountable for your actions, especially when you're a trained police officer. Or you should be, but it doesn't work out in practice due to the thin blue line which extends all the way through prosecutors and judges.