![]() It is important to remember that we out here get to view a situation with the benefit of hindsight and time. In addition, most officer involved shootings are investigated by an independent outside agency that has no dog in the fight and to maintain its own credibility, calls it how it sees it. In those cases where the officer's actions were truly out of policy or unlawful, departments are usually swift to act not only because it is the right thing to do, but because they must do so to protect themselves from civilly from claims of negligent supervision and negligent retention. But just because you may disagree philosophically with what occurred doesn't mean it was inappropriate. Most use of force incidents are ugly and brutal, but that doesn't mean they aren't justified and lawful. In such cases, the laws of every state authorize the use of deadly force by officers to defend themselves. More often than not such people were attempting to run the officers over with vehicles, or stab them with edged or pointed weapons, or strike them with blunt objects, or utilizing a myriad of other items or levels of force which have a likelihood of inflicting great bodily injury or death. ![]() People, especially the press, like to use those words when the person shot did not have a firearm. I have to take exception to use of the term "unarmed victims." We are experiencing more and more shootings by police of unarmed victims and firearms training and policies are, naturally, a concern.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |