Quote:Not all police, but you have to admit it happens.

 

Regardless if the kid was guilty of stealing $50 cigars or not the shooting stinks. Why did the police wait almost a week to release this information if was an open and closed clean shooting? 

 

Why would anyone do anything of such magnitude without having their T's crossed and I's dotted?  Another factor may have been that their resources were overwhelmed, with, you know, a week long riot.

 

I don't understand all this outrage.  Even if this cop acted in the most egregious manner and was a stone cold murderer and executed him while he was blind folded and on his knees, how does this happen?  It's not like the cop was acquitted of anything.  It was only days afterwards.  What did the community want?  A trial, conviction, and execution by that evening?  I shake my head that so many in this country lack all common sense.

 

As far as the militarization of the police, what would you expect to happen after a night of destruction?  The initial protests weren't met with militarization.  It wasn't until the protests became non peaceful that police began to arm themselves, and rightfully so.  The police are citizens of the United States, just like you and I.  They have the right to arm themselves and protect themselves from possible violence from a destructive mob.  It's not like the police began using lethal force on the mob.  If you support the 2nd amendment and the right of private citizens to carry armed in public if they so wish, then you'd be a hypocrite to not support police who do the same thing.

 

Police use-of-force training teaches all police officers to stay one level of force above what a subject presents them.  If a person is resistant, he may get tackled or sprayed, and in certain situations, tazed.  If a person is assaultive, he may be punched, batoned, tazed, or whatever short of lethal means.  If a subject has the means, opportunity, and intent to cause serious bodily harm to an officer or someone else, then lethal force is permited.  Means doesn't necessarily mean having a weapon, it can be a situation where an officer is confronted by someone much physically superior, outnumbered, or where the officer is physically exhausted and can no longer fight.  Opportunity means a cop can't shoot someone with a knife that's behind bars, but someone with a knife that's 20 feet away has the opportunity.  Opportunity also involves when the officer is outmatched, outnumbered, or exhausted.  And intent is when a reasonable officer believes that should a subject achieve means and opportunity, then his life would be in danger.

 

In this case, a 300 pound man that has cornered an officer into a car and is fighting with him almost meets all criterion.  A 300 pound man already has means by his size.  In this case he also had opportunity by getting on top of an officer in a cruiser.  The only thing that has to be proven in order for this to be a good shoot is the intent.  If it can be proven that the man reached for his gun, intent is proven.  If the man harmed the officer, intent is proven.  I think in this case, all three were met.  If in the immediacy of the deadly force encounter the subject hopped off him when the first shot was discharged and then was shot in the back, its still a good shoot.  The subject would have to had been far enough away from the officer where he no longer had opportunity to cause him any further harm.  In real life, you can't put an officer in a deadly force scenario and then when he draws his gun, suddenly give up and not expect the possibility of being shot (the shooting being completely subjective to whether that individual officer still felt he was threatened or not.)

---