Quote:
Originally Posted by Ped
It all boils down to when you think an officer is justified in using deadly force. I've seen a lot of arguments that he got violent, that he resisted arrest, and that he attempted to use a police office's weapon against them. All of that is true.
But what's also true is he was shot in the back while fleeing. If he was shot during the actual resistance, during trying to injure an officer, maybe you could argue it was justify. i wouldn't, because there ways to shoot someone lessen the risk of death, but I can understand why some people would.
But once the guy turns and runs? The immediate danger is over. If a guy is holding someone hostage and the snipers are there, and he's threatening to kill the hostage and pointing the gun, they might shoot him if they get a chance, if they determine that he's an immediate risk. But if he drops the gun and turns and runs, they're not shooting him in the back or the head. They're goign to capture him. The immediate threat is over.
Maybe this guy goes to trial and gets acquitted. That doesn't make what he did okay, just like other acquittals haven't exactly made someone suddenly innocent. If he is acquitted, it's just further proof of issues with the entire system (imo). Not just the legal system, but training and recruitment and everything else people are looking at to say "This isn't right."
|
It's not a matter of you or I "thinking" if deadly force was justified. It's if his training deemed it justifiable.
We are also assuming once he runs he is no longer a threat. Desperate people (and fleeing police is an act of desperation) do desperate things, does this end when he runs, hops a fence and hides? Or does his escape start with a car jacking and spiral from there?
This article is much more clear and detailed then I ever could be. The "Awful but Lawful" reality of this incident will be for the courts to handle.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ul/3189478001/
Quote:
Atlanta police officers, according to the department's standard operating procedures, are prohibited from using force unless it is "reasonable and necessary to affect an arrest, prevent an escape, necessarily restrict the movement of a prisoner, defend the officer or another from physical assault, or to accomplish other lawful objectives."
In regards to use of lethal or nonlethal weapons, the Atlanta Police Department's policy references Georgia law, which allows for use of force when a person “reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.”
If a person is suspected of a felony, the department's policy allows for use of deadly force, but only if the officer “reasonably believes” that the suspect is in possession of a deadly weapon or object that is likely to result in serious injury, or if the officer believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the themselves or others.
Additionally, deadly force is allowed if there is probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime that either caused or threatened serious injury or if the officer believes that if the suspect’s escape would threaten serious injury to others.
Contributing: Will Peebles, Savannah Morning News |
Also the noted that the officer who fired the shots has had numerous complaints against him
https://www.wsj.com/articles/atlanta...ts-11592328241
He also was involed in a cover up of a previous officer shooting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-garrett-rolfe