Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Well, no, the risk to the public is not zero, because letting a violent individual who has just committed several crimes go in a residential neighborhood does carry some potential risk to the public. Maybe we all agree that the risk is acceptable. There's also the broader policy choice that we're going to let criminals go if they run from the police, and presumably try to track them down later. Unclear if the thinking is that they'll cooperate at that later time, or what.
It's fine if that's the policy we want. Also okay if, as you suggest, the policy is only to shoot him if he's suspected of murder (or multiple murders was I guess what you were suggesting). Sure, that's a decision we can make as a society about how we want law enforcement to behave. Just have to be okay with the notion that in that situation, that guy is going to be running around your neighborhood with a taser, among other consequences.
|
Well, yes, it is very close to zero. A burned out taser is about as dangerous as a squirt gun. It might have had 3 charges I guess but it's non lethal according to cops so not a big threat. And zero threat beyond 10 feet. The guy was sleeping in his car when the cops found him. It's a pretty big leap to assume he'd harm anyone not trying to arrest him.
Policy choice? The only choice these guys had was to go back to the gym and work on their PT...the one cop was about 30 feet behind in a 50 foot chase. The policy is already to contain them and track them down like police do all the time. It's why they have back up cops, choppers, night vision, and dogs. It doesn't seem like there is a policy discussion to be had here. Just don't shoot people in the back.