Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan
I'm not sure what the exact escalation is. It sounds like you're in the know in that regard, so I'll defer to you on that.
With that said, IF a 6'4", 300 lb. person who you have an altercation with and then pursue turns around and charges you, I have a hard time putting myself in a position to judge you if you choose to use lethal force in that instance. If he doesn't use lethal force in that instance, that cop is going to end up hurt very badly if not killed. Putting myself in that situation, I'd definitely fear for my life.
If the kid just threw his hands up and was shot down, of course it's wrong.
|
Escalation of force is the guiding principle by which determinations are made on what to use in a situation. Officers have other means at their disposal to subdue a suspect. In a situation like this - with an obviously unarmed subject - a taser is appropriate, not a gun. A taser will bring down anything short of a buffalo. It'll bring down a 300 pound man. Officers are tased so they know what happens for this very reason.
Tasers have cartridges with a range of 15 to 35 feet - plenty enough range to bring down the subject before he gets to the officer even if he's charging at full speed. In short, if he could raise his weapon and fire at least 6 times (probably more, it's likely a couple missed) at a subject, then he had plenty of time to draw the taser and bring him down.
So drawing his firearm? I can't figure that one out. And Cartman makes a good point - if there was a struggle for the gun and then the subject ran, where was his call for backup? That would be the FIRST thing you'd do.
There's a lot here that simply doesn't make sense in isolation. Maybe there's a plausible explanation. But right now the most likely one seems to be the way the force is run.