http://video.foxnews.com/v/3856568790001
The reporter asked the ex-cop if the police officers who reportedly shot an innocent bystander did anything wrong and he says "No, absolutely...". He may be right and he may be wrong on that point. You need to ask some questions: Are the police suddenly no longer responsible for each and every shot they fire? Was the threat perceived as being so great that it overrode the precaution not to fire with innocents in the line of the shots?
They are responsible for each and every shot they take and its not time to spray and pray when something like that happens but nonetheless it may have been time to shoot. If the imminent threat was so great to others (the officers and or the public) that it was necessary to fire immediately and the threat posed by police bullets was less than that posed by a guy armed with a hatchet, then they may have been justified even when innocents were in background of the line of fire. Regardless, I think you safely can bet that when the woman files a lawsuit she will win a substantial amount of compensation or the city will just make a settlement with her.
One other thing of note, listen to the part about the police officers all posing for photographs for which a supposed photographer had asked them to pose. Okay, they made a rookie mistake and stopped paying attention to their surroundings but maybe it was more than that. Maybe the photographer was in on the attack and set them up by diverting their attention. I am not alleging that was the case but bringing up the point that I have not heard one mention of that possibility from the police but I hope they are investigating it.
All the best,
Glenn B
The reporter asked the ex-cop if the police officers who reportedly shot an innocent bystander did anything wrong and he says "No, absolutely...". He may be right and he may be wrong on that point. You need to ask some questions: Are the police suddenly no longer responsible for each and every shot they fire? Was the threat perceived as being so great that it overrode the precaution not to fire with innocents in the line of the shots?
They are responsible for each and every shot they take and its not time to spray and pray when something like that happens but nonetheless it may have been time to shoot. If the imminent threat was so great to others (the officers and or the public) that it was necessary to fire immediately and the threat posed by police bullets was less than that posed by a guy armed with a hatchet, then they may have been justified even when innocents were in background of the line of fire. Regardless, I think you safely can bet that when the woman files a lawsuit she will win a substantial amount of compensation or the city will just make a settlement with her.
One other thing of note, listen to the part about the police officers all posing for photographs for which a supposed photographer had asked them to pose. Okay, they made a rookie mistake and stopped paying attention to their surroundings but maybe it was more than that. Maybe the photographer was in on the attack and set them up by diverting their attention. I am not alleging that was the case but bringing up the point that I have not heard one mention of that possibility from the police but I hope they are investigating it.
All the best,
Glenn B
1 comment:
They only hit one! They are improving.
Post a Comment