12-05-2006, 12:58 AM
He was a violent robbery suspect. Big difference.
There's a lot to this story that has not been mentioned yet.
Fortunately there is no shortage of people who will leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
WHAT was taken is irrelevant. It's HOW it was taken that is important.
Personally, I don't care if it's milk money, PS3s, or the cure for cancer. Robbery is robbery, and assaulting someone while robbing them is a felony in almost every state.
There's no excuse for police to shoot and kill someone who's unarmed, especially cops that are part of a special unit like this.
Excuse? Maybe, maybe not.
One might correctly infer from your statement that you've already made up your mind that the police shot and killed an unarmed man. At least you seem to believe he was unarmed.
First, it's not only excusable, but it's absolutely justifiable to shoot someone if you have reason to *believe* that a suspect is armed, and that he or she poses a threat of death or great bodily harm. That's the way it is.
Did the police have reason to believe he was a threat? That has yet to be explained.
Police are paid to apprehend the bad guys and protect the good guys. They accept and take risks to do so. They are *not* paid to be shot at, wounded, or killed, despite what many civilians prefer to believe. Sadly, it does go with the territory.
And while there are various levels of training and skill required depending on a particular assignment, cops are still mere humans, possessing humans skills, strengths, and failings.
So far, few if any police possess the power of super speed thought, or being able to slow down time. This would give them plenty of time to assess a situation and make absolutely the right call. Such powers might even give stupid people the opportunity to make the right call.
But when you are faced with seconds or even split seconds to make a decision as to whether your like or the life of others in in jeopardy, it's a different story.
Many people would like to think that it's easy-- just wait for the bad guy to shoot at you, duck, and shoot the gun out of his hand. Easy.
BS. It just doesn't work like that. If a suspect makes a threatening move or what appears to be a threatening move, his welfare needs to be in jeopardy. The end.
He needs to be stopped. If he dies, that's his problem.
Most people have absolutely no concept of reaction time, and the consequences of being slow to fire, or all the dynamics that take place in a deadly force confrontation. These are different from even most military scenarios.
Just a couple of days ago, a Bay Area police officer was making a traffic stop and was shot as he got out of his car. The suspect was wanted for a weapons violation and yet he still got the first shots off, hospitalizing the cop for a few days.
In a near perfect world, he would have seen the gun, the blood lust and constricted pupils in the assailant's eyes, and shot first, debilitating the crook.
The world is nowhere near perfect.
One side of my brain says everyone who thinks that s shoot/no shoot situation is easy to assess, should be in one.
The other side knows there would be a lot of dead critics.
There's a lot to this story that has not been mentioned yet.
Fortunately there is no shortage of people who will leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
WHAT was taken is irrelevant. It's HOW it was taken that is important.
Personally, I don't care if it's milk money, PS3s, or the cure for cancer. Robbery is robbery, and assaulting someone while robbing them is a felony in almost every state.
There's no excuse for police to shoot and kill someone who's unarmed, especially cops that are part of a special unit like this.
Excuse? Maybe, maybe not.
One might correctly infer from your statement that you've already made up your mind that the police shot and killed an unarmed man. At least you seem to believe he was unarmed.
First, it's not only excusable, but it's absolutely justifiable to shoot someone if you have reason to *believe* that a suspect is armed, and that he or she poses a threat of death or great bodily harm. That's the way it is.
Did the police have reason to believe he was a threat? That has yet to be explained.
Police are paid to apprehend the bad guys and protect the good guys. They accept and take risks to do so. They are *not* paid to be shot at, wounded, or killed, despite what many civilians prefer to believe. Sadly, it does go with the territory.
And while there are various levels of training and skill required depending on a particular assignment, cops are still mere humans, possessing humans skills, strengths, and failings.
So far, few if any police possess the power of super speed thought, or being able to slow down time. This would give them plenty of time to assess a situation and make absolutely the right call. Such powers might even give stupid people the opportunity to make the right call.
But when you are faced with seconds or even split seconds to make a decision as to whether your like or the life of others in in jeopardy, it's a different story.
Many people would like to think that it's easy-- just wait for the bad guy to shoot at you, duck, and shoot the gun out of his hand. Easy.
BS. It just doesn't work like that. If a suspect makes a threatening move or what appears to be a threatening move, his welfare needs to be in jeopardy. The end.
He needs to be stopped. If he dies, that's his problem.
Most people have absolutely no concept of reaction time, and the consequences of being slow to fire, or all the dynamics that take place in a deadly force confrontation. These are different from even most military scenarios.
Just a couple of days ago, a Bay Area police officer was making a traffic stop and was shot as he got out of his car. The suspect was wanted for a weapons violation and yet he still got the first shots off, hospitalizing the cop for a few days.
In a near perfect world, he would have seen the gun, the blood lust and constricted pupils in the assailant's eyes, and shot first, debilitating the crook.
The world is nowhere near perfect.
One side of my brain says everyone who thinks that s shoot/no shoot situation is easy to assess, should be in one.
The other side knows there would be a lot of dead critics.
