Quote:
Originally Posted by PIMking
apparently the young man that is dead was part of a robbery prior to this and is on film.
if the story about pushing and fighting over the weapon is true then the cop had the right to defend himself. However, shooting the kid over and over again isn't right.
|
Police don't shoot to wound. They are correctly trained to keep engaging until the threat has been neutralized. It is very well documented that people can keep attacking even after sustaining multiple gunshot wounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
Just my opinion, but if someone is armed with a weapon and poses an immediate danger to the police or civilians lethal force can be considered a logical possibility. If he didn't have a weapon and wasn't an immediate threat a neutralizing weapon such as a tazer or rubber bullet would be preferable. Tough to tell really as none of us were there and the facts are so all over the place currently, I'm glad there wasn't a civil war or a historically violent event from this. My hope is that the justice system progresses and actually judges based on justice and not bias.
|
If he was trying to grab the officer's gun, the last thing the officer should do is allow free and open access to it by going for a cross drawn Taser. It is also entirely possible that the officer was not issued with a Taser.
But it's all moot anyway since an active assault and attempts to gain access to the officer's weapon automatically moves the encounter to deadly force on the continuum of force scale, armed assailant or not.