Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
This is where I come to it as well. I realize there's some charged language leading to people hunkering down in their positions, but in my mind:
- once the man stabbed the dog and then charged at officers with the nice, the shooting became a justified use of force
- what happened before that and the effectiveness of how it was handled should be up for debate
Sure, according to a witness, he hit someone with the stick, so there was the potential of being a threat. But, I also see the argument for why he wasn't an immediate threat to anyone in the surrounding area sitting in the middle of a police-blocked area on his knees.
I'm not going to say it was a right or wrong use of force by the police, but I will say I don't understand why it was the right use of force at that exact moment, and I'm sure others don't either (and I'm sure, despite any protestations and justifications on a keyboard, only the officers involved have a clear picture of why that is). So, I think it's a fair thing to question.
|
The rubber bullet shots certainly do seem like "**** waiting around for this ****, let's get this done, he's had enough time to comply", to me, but I'm no expert. And whether those initial rubber bullet shots were justified or not they definitely seemed to be the catalyst for the impending fatal confrontation.