The Purley King
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2014
- Messages
- 4,295
It’s a fair opinion, there was an element of “just do as instructed “ about it.Don't really know enough about this case to comment but something about your post irked me. Reads like 'fecked about and found out' or the usual 'should have followed the police instructions'
Ramming the car would only be relevant to the shooting if the shot was taken while doing so and an officer was inside. That would make all the gun and gangster stuff mentioned irrelevant.
If the shot was fired because the officer thought he had a gun and shot to prevent an officer being shot, the personal stuff would be relevant only if he knew it at the time like you said, but also he'd have to have a reason to believe he'd drawn the gun, not just guessed so based on speculation or 'at some point he has to make a decision' if he's refusing to comply.
That on its own wouldn’t justify shooting him, but in combination with other things that perhaps the police knew in advance might mean an officer doesn’t take a chance when observing erratic behaviour that could potentially end up with that officer getting shot.
Hopefully everything is made public during the trial and we can learn about what actually happened.
I’m siding with the police based on what has been made public thus far but I’m sure more will come out during the trial.