OracleHCR wrote:It is horrible that anybody loses their life in a situation like this. The bottom line is if he hadn't committed any crimes, he in all likelihood would not have lost his life. Without knowing more than the basics of what has been reported, I know he broke at least 3 laws. Brandishing a firearm, resisting arrest and possession of a firearm. The guy had a felony conviction and was a registered sexual predator. He wasn't allowed to own any kind of firearm.
police officers jobs are to literally deal with EXACTLY those types of people
its a very simplistic thing to say 'well if he wasn't committing crimes'
thats like saying if a doctor killed someone in surgery 'well if he didn't smoke and have a tumor i had to remove i wouldn't have killed him'
all the things you're saying are true, none of it is relevant to using deadly force
It's not simplistic. It is the truth. Your scenario with the doctor is completely off base. That is apples to oranges.
They came into the situation knowing he had allegedly broken one law by brandishing a firearm. Right away they had to be cautious knowing he probably possessed a weapon. Then he compounded the threat by resisting arrest. Of course they were twitchy and any threatening movement by him at that point could only lead to deadly force. You don't shoot to wound. If you discharge your weapon at someone, you shoot to kill. The felony possession of a firearm is probably what led to him resisting arrest. He was going to jail no matter what.
The Minnesota shooting screams bad traffic stop procedure. If it is made known that the stopped person has a permitted, concealed firearm on his person, it seems like a bad idea for both parties that the person reach somewhere that the officer can't see. Shouldn't, for the safety of everyone, the person be asked to exit the vehicle so the office can watch all actions? It doesn't seem unjust/a violation of rights.
dakshdar wrote:The Minnesota shooting screams bad traffic stop procedure. If it is made known that the stopped person has a permitted, concealed firearm on his person, it seems like a bad idea for both parties that the person reach somewhere that the officer can't see. Shouldn't, for the safety of everyone, the person be asked to exit the vehicle so the office can watch all actions? It doesn't seem unjust/a violation of rights.
Yeah. If I get stopped for some reason, I'm keeping my hands in plain sight and letting the officer know that my firearm is holstered beside my seat.
After seeing the video of the guy shooting at the cops, I would not be surprised to hear that these criminals were Fort Hood soldiers. The movement and his stance as he fired is very military like.
