There’s always something happening. If it’s not one thing then it’s something else. For those of you who don’t know, I spent twenty three years as a Reserve Deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, most of that time as a Detective with Child Abuse, otherwise known as Special Victims.
One of the things that we learned while in the Academy was about the level of force to be applied based on the amount of risk to the officer. Whatever the recommended response was, it was hammered into us that you do not shoot at a fleeing suspect. Period. You shoot to kill only if you are in imminent danger and you fear for your life with no other recourse available (and that you can articulate the reasons why you did what you did).
If you should try to ameliorate what happened by modifying the events or by fabricating evidence, all you end up doing is to dig a deeper hole for yourself. Look what happened to Nixon. He could have skirted around the ‘Watergate’ issue but when he got caught telling lies about the ‘tapes’, it proved to be his undoing. In retrospect he could have freely admitted that he was somewhat lax in supervising his people and fire some of them and in a couple of months it would have all gone away. But that was then and this is now.
This one won’t go away and will most likely result in the review of police department procedures across the country as to when deadly force can be applied. I have heard this said so many times and it is so true. It can take years for a police department, wherever it is, to build up a good relationship with the community is it designated to protect – but it takes only seconds to bring it crashing down.
Some people are now clamoring for the mandatory use of mini-video-cams with which to monitor the police. This is a duel edged sword that defense attorneys detest when the video clearly shows that it was their client who was at fault. How many cop movies or TV shows have you seen where the lead investigator orders his subordinates to collect all of the nearby video evidence? I can visualize a time in the not too distant future when all of our movements are recorded in one form or another (and at what point does it all stop) and the police are used only to arrest someone after the video evidence of a crime, if it is indeed a crime, is transmitted to the local police station for them to act upon.
Why not? It has been demonstrated that eye witness reports are not completely reliable and can many times be twisted around by clever attorneys.
Sounds like a sci-fi movie? Maybe I’ll do a spec script on it.
I saw the video on TV. The cop shot the running suspect in the back several times.
Police are taught to use their weapon if threatened. The suspect was running away.
The cop should have called for backup and followed the suspect.
He could have shot him in the legs but police are trained to hit the abdomen because it is a big target. The cop made a bad choice and perhaps his training was inadequate.
Now he will be tried for murder. What a sad blow for the honest policemen who protect us.
sid krimsky
To shoot or not to shoot, is saying to have a gun or not to have a gun. Here I see that it is not the real subject. Safety is the simple truth that we all over look so easily, I need a gun to be safe or to be safe there should be no guns. If you are reading this, in the moment of now not past or future are you not safe right now sitting in your chair reading? Fear based thinking, that’s all it is.