manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
I agree- GOOD for the judge in deciding this case that way. Even criminals have constitutional rights.. not the least of which should be to be arrested by someone with adequate firearms training.. and not made a cripple for the remainder of his life. The thief was wrong for stealing, but the cop was even more wrong for "jumping the gun"- excuse the pun..
The cop is lucky the guy didn't get killed!! Except that now, this poor jerk has to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair for petit theft.. And that punishment, IMHO, really does not seem to fit the crime.
Excellent article, by the way.
So ... you expect the cops to just willy nilly say "halt" and expect a possibly armed assailant to not fire ... ever?
Yes- it is not "willy nilly" as you describe it to be- and anyone and everyone should be considered a "possibly armed" suspect.. Not an assailant. An assailant is someone who assaulted someone else..
Also, police are trained to not shoot people who are not presenting them with some type of deadly force.. They arent allowed to shoot someone based on a "possibility" of having a deadly weapon- only when they actually SEE that weapon, and the person is presenting it in a way that causes the officer to think that the person is going to use it to harm him or someone else. I was base security when I was in the Navy and have had police training that is similar to regular police training, so I am telling you this as a fact. Deadly force cannot be used unless there is an actual threat of it.
so let me see if i have this right.....it is night ....you catch me from behind ... stealing stuff with things in my hands....you are a cop....you yell police halt.....i tunrn and begin to rais my hands with the stuff in them....by the time i turn to face you my hands are 1/2 way up and i still have stuff in them.....
tell me do you shoot me or wait till i shoot you.....