Submitted by Legal Alien on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 13:40
my issue is with the use of a gun. And, fine, if that's the state of affairs these days, then fine, shoot away. (edited for poor sarcasm) Then I don't understand how things are these days, and I'm behind the times.
After talking with a lawyer, one statement he made was that the police seem to be trained very well to shoot. Did this officer have a tazer? I have seen large people well over 300# drop and flop like fish after being hit by a tazer. At what point was there not an option to use a tazer?
In the middle of lunch. Many kids all around. What if the officer missed? What if some innocent bystander child was hit, and killed?
My point is that there are options other than shooting to kill.
Just so I'm clear, I don't have a problem with the officer defending himself, or even that he felt he had to use his gun. No problem there. No problem with the fact he killed the attacker.
One of the original statements was that he was innocent. Innocent of what? What is in question? The fact is that he killed a kid. Justifiably too. But the kid doesn't get to appeal, judge, jury and executioner was a single action trigger pull.
No disputing his character
my issue is with the use of a gun. And, fine, if that's the state of affairs these days, then fine, shoot away. (edited for poor sarcasm) Then I don't understand how things are these days, and I'm behind the times.
After talking with a lawyer, one statement he made was that the police seem to be trained very well to shoot. Did this officer have a tazer? I have seen large people well over 300# drop and flop like fish after being hit by a tazer. At what point was there not an option to use a tazer?
In the middle of lunch. Many kids all around. What if the officer missed? What if some innocent bystander child was hit, and killed?
My point is that there are options other than shooting to kill.
Just so I'm clear, I don't have a problem with the officer defending himself, or even that he felt he had to use his gun. No problem there. No problem with the fact he killed the attacker.
One of the original statements was that he was innocent. Innocent of what? What is in question? The fact is that he killed a kid. Justifiably too. But the kid doesn't get to appeal, judge, jury and executioner was a single action trigger pull.
Diablo