http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/09/24/3333131/sc-trooper-charged-with-felony.html
I wonder what the report would have been if the officer had his dash cam off!
If they come home and think they might have some problems like PTSD or other mental problems, they are scared to report it because they wouldn't get these types of jobs and they'd be prohibited from having guns, so there are a lot are starting out with mental problems that they're hiding.
Awareness is definitely going up, the black and ethnic community and the police have had a difficult relationship for many years, but many crimes have been 'justified' or swept under the rug
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17213/jon_burge_torture_chicago_has_not_paid_for_his_crimes
Here they said the officer fired several shots. I heard he shot him 17 times. Even if it was defence, that needs to be looked at.
The officer did what he was trained to do: stop the threat. When a suspect raises the level of force to a lethal level, the officer is completely justified in using lethal force. The 17 rounds is the entire magazine. The biggest complaint about firing all of the shots is that he apparently only hit with 6-7 of them, but in a gunfight accuracy is usually terrible. In reality, trying to wound someone shooting at you is unreasonable.
Reading back I've worded it poorly. Your response addresses part of what I was trying to say. Is 6-7/17 a normal rate? If not, the officer needs to be retrained. Are 6-7 hits needed? For instance, after being shot say 3 times, is an individual still dangerous? If not, that needs to be looked at. I'm thinking about danger to others nearby etc. If the kid did shoot first, and by all accounts he did, I have no problem with lethal force. This just sounds excessive.
The accuracy rate depends on how close they were at the time of the shooting, light, environmental factors, etc. Most officers will never fire their weapons in the line of duty so when they do end up using it, they have little to no experience doing it and their reactions are unpredictable. Even the best shooters won't be nearly as effective when they're being shot at.
Also the shooter (cop) has adrenaline pumping as well. The spacing in terms of time between shots would be much shorter than most people think. The perp may have been struck six or 7 times but not hit six or seven times consecutively.
I see them describing two different things. Lethal force can result in a killing but doesn't guarantee it. In this instance it did. Nothing about balls, at least for me.
Any force can be lethal. When they say "lethal force" they mean "attacking someone with the intention to kill". Don't have the balls to admit it.
lethal force = two words
Yeah that's the reason.
Its one of many terms that cops and legal people use. It would rather silly to expect them to use "murder" in a legal case where a cop legally shoots someone to death because they were in the process of pulling out a gun, so they use lethal force instead. Its a perfectly acceptable phrase when used in its appropriate context.
No it isn't because Americans use it and therefore it is bad, very bad
So they don't have balls to say kill and at the exact same time it is militaristic. There's a first.
Not even slightly. Collateral damage.
I have no idea what you are saying now.
Neither does he
What could go wrong?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/17/missouri-governor-state-of-emergency-ferguson
