Police shooting!!

[DocWalker]

response in bold

So the amount of injury is what determains malace? Good one.

Fear, shortness of breath, adreniline, and darkness are not reasons to kill or cause injury to unarmed people.

Training....man you crack me up. If the use this argument then the Chief of Police needs to be fired for putting untrained armed cops on the street.

There is no excuse for shooting in this situation...PERIOD. If a civilian would have been arrested in the same situation than so should they. They could have used a tasor, or other less than leathal force in this situation. They could have backed off as seen in some high speed car chases, there are documented cases of cops letting bad guys go if the risk is to high that civilians might get hurt. Here is one example.

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/police-call-chase-driver-goes-mad-highway-charge/2020889/

It has been held that police have no duty to protect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

So if the police have no duty to protect then they cetainly shouldn't harm the public.

Why your blind willingness to give the trigger happy thugs a pass?

Why do you have a double standard between the average citizen and cops?

No one forces someone into a carrer as a cop so and I do believe that these shooters shouldn't be cops. They don't have the courage to do the job.

 

[DocWalker]

what makes you think I would like stict military ROE.... I said three things on the subject

1) military ROE is not relevant to civilian law.
2) I do not set policy for military ROE
3) I know nothing about international law

what of this implies I favor a police of strict ROE? I think it's stupid you have to wait to be fired at before returning fire... I'm aware of no civilian jurisdiction anywhere that requires that insanity of anyone. I think it should be perfectly acceptable to prevent injury to yourself.

I think you're making a giant strawman out of what I'm saying.....

I must taken what you said to mean you approve of the military having a ROE that prevents them from firing until fired at. I'm sorry if I took it wrong.

If you are saying your in favor of a strict ROE for police does that mean you are for or agianst cops shooting and either killing or injuring unarmed citizens?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I must taken what you said to mean you approve of the military having a ROE that prevents them from firing until fired at. I'm sorry if I took it wrong.

If you are saying your in favor of a strict ROE for police does that mean you are for or agianst cops shooting and either killing or injuring unarmed citizens?

my auto correct changed the word "policy" to "police"

as far as the question you're presenting a false delimna... I am not for the cops just going out and shooting unarmed people for the hell of it....

if as in this case they justifiably fire upon the fleeing suspect and causes non-life threatening injuries to by standers then I think it should be a civil matter. if the officers knowingly acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the public then yes they should be criminally charged....... or if they acted with malice or in bad faith... I've never said cops should be immune from being charged or that they can just kill whoever they want with no reason...

 

[DocWalker]

my auto correct changed the word "policy" to "police"

as far as the question you're presenting a false delimna... I am not for the cops just going out and shooting unarmed people for the hell of it....

if as in this case they justifiably fire upon the fleeing suspect and causes non-life threatening injuries to by standers then I think it should be a civil matter. if the officers knowingly acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the public then yes they should be criminally charged....... or if they acted with malice or in bad faith... I've never said cops should be immune from being charged or that they can just kill whoever they want with no reason...

This is were you and me disagree....

I don't see how the officers were justifed in firing. The person wasn't a immediate threat. The cops said they thought he was a threat. Is this all the officers have to say to get away with homicide? (you don't have to have malice to kill people).

Would you be for cops shooting drunk drivers? At least a drunk driver has a deadly weapon...

I see this as either poorly trained and scared cops that shouldn't be cops screwing up or cops that just don't care and feel immune to killing surfs.

 

[Deanimator]

How often was shooting bystanders an issue when they were using DA revolvers?

A LOT.

They've got a LONG and well earned reputation for both bad judgment and bad marksmanship.