He is in many cases defending the public.
In this case, an arrest has been made, the cop has been charged, a grand jury will convene, and if the cop is indicted, a jury will decide his fate.
Is there a problem here?
Or, should we just return to lynching based on internet outrage?
If that's the case, no argument here.
However, I think our cops are too easy on the trigger. Not this case only, most of them.
Why shoot to kill anyways. Wounding him would prevent many other things.
How do you shoot to wound?
Have you ever actually seen what a bullet does?
This ain't Roy Rogers, where you just "wing 'em with a flesh wound".
Most likely that was a .40 caliber HP.
A hit in the elbow or wrist can blow enough arteries and veins to bleed a guy out.
Shoot to wound is a hippy dream.
I have seen it way too many times. I felt it two times.
Sure, you can bleed out from one wound. From eight you bleed much faster. Was it necessary?
Was it necessary?
I don't know, I wasn't there.
Would the cop have been reprimanded for letting him get away, if he had done nothing?
Is there a policy in place on when and why you shoot at a man who has physically resisted arrest?
Did the man say something we cannot hear, like a threat?
We do not have the information to make a decision, that is why we have grand juries and juries.
The cop may have only been arrested to protect him and placate the public.
We do not know these things.
What we do know, is the guy was a deadbeat dad not paying his child support.
I won't grieve for him.