did any of the officers state he fired on them?
I didn't see it or any reports that claimed they did.
I didn't post the vid, nor a link to it, as I was unsure as to whether or not that is appropriate.
If you look at the pic below, which I grabbed from the vid, it is clear that Mr. Blevins was not firing at the officers giving chase, nor did he turn the gun towards them. That vid shot is the exact moment before the first shot was fired.
Obviously, I have no idea when the officer made up his mind to shoot. It might have been moments before - I don't know what the time frame is on situations such as this. Mr. Blevins did in fact turn his head around, towards the officers moments before the first shot, but it is obvious he was just looking to see how much ground he had gained.
ps#1 - my link is invisible and should be in that ^ blank space
ps#2 - is there no way to up images to this forum?
You DO NOT use a Taser on a guy with a gun - especially if he has already used that gun against others!
Second, the police DO NOT have to wait to be fired upon to use deadly force!!! While CA seems intent on changing the law to require that - and worse - this is still NOT the standard anywhere in the US where "reasonable" is the standard for the use of force.
KK1968, how many armed suspects have you squared off against? How many instances of men drawing guns on you have you had to make the split-second decision to shoot or not to shoot? How many agonizing months or years have you had to wait as legal scholars debate the reasonableness of your action in a 1/2 a second, and still these experts will not be capable of coming to a unanimous decision?
Everything I have seen or read indicates this is a good shooting. Or, as "good" as a shooting can be since it's likely the officer(s) involved will be haunted by it for the rest of their lives as a result.
Answer, more than enough to say I wouldn't have emptied my magazine into this kid's back.
So, police can kill people with impunity.
Government officials can rob the people blind with impunity.
That doesn't mean they should every chance they get.
So, you've been in law enforcement? And, you have enough time on to say without qualification that you would NOT have done as this officer did? Interesting. I have been at this for nearly 3 decades and I cannot say I would or would not have done as he did. I CAN say that his actions appear to be legally justified. Though, it seems the standard for too many these days is that the police need to have actually been wounded before they can fire back ... there was a riot in SF some months back when the police shot a guy who was actively shooting at them, but since the suspect did not hit any officers, the protesters thought it was inappropriate.Answer, more than enough to say I wouldn't have emptied my magazine into this kid's back.
These are bizarre times we live in. Why anyone would want to be a cop today is beyond me ... that's also one of the many reasons why agencies cannot fill the ranks. We shall reap what we sow.
Huh ... I don't see where ANYONE ever said that.So, police can kill people with impunity.
Where'd that one come from? And what's THAT got to do with anything?Government officials can rob the people blind with impunity.
An armed subject with a demonstrated criminal use of a firearm risking the lives of others drawing the firearm in the clear presence of advancing officers, that's not "every" chance, that's nearly textbook good cause.That doesn't mean they should every chance they get.
And, how many rounds are "justified" when shooting someone with a gun? An armed suspect is still a danger, even on the ground. Not to mention that given observation and reaction time, a delay of 1 1/2 seconds to stop shooting is not entirely unreasonable.
But, I'll let the experts hash that all out. But, as you will likely hear over the next year or so, there will be mixed decisions on how many shots should have been fired, when they should have started shooting and when they should have stopped ... even whether they should have shot or not. This ongoing evaluation will be conducted by so-called legal and use of force experts through the use of legal statutes and court precedent, the evaluation of forensics and cameras, and the benefit of hindsight (which will hardly be a universal truth) ... and the officers had only a split second to conduct the same evaluation absent the hindsight. Easy, right?
When someone's conduct appears to pose an imminent risk of death or great bodily injury, you simply fire until the threat is stopped. If three officers fire six shots before the suspects stops and is no longer a threat, that's just what happens. Again, and as has been repeated many times over by law enforcement, deaths like this would not occur if the public would simply comply and not resist arrest. How hard is that? Really - how hard is that?
I would like to point something else out here.
As far back as time has recorded, every society has reserved unto itself, the right to regulate the quality of life within that society. It has done this by (among other things) passing laws telling its citizens what acts, which are deemed antisocial or unsafe, are prohibited. In anticipation that some people will not be in compliance, every society had employed some form of police and empowered them to enforce those laws by arresting law breakers. In doing so, it has passed additional laws authorizing the police to use force in arresting law breakers who resist and has told the police they will not be deemed as the aggressors when the do so, nor will they lose their right of self defense. To further clarify this, over that past 242 years, our courts have reviewed these laws when they were in dispute and clarified what officers can and cannot do.
Nonetheless, as of late it seems like every time an officer makes an arrest or uses force, the position of a significant portion of society and the media is that he is a criminal who has somehow abused his authority and should be sent to prison. No one bothers to see what authority they as a society and the law have authorized the officer to exercise in this matter. Instead, in judging the matter they insist on substituting their own personal philosophy (which varies from person to person) for the consistency of the law. It's like telling the officers, "I know that in the police academy and your law classes we said you were authorized to do this, but you should have know we really didn't mean it, and now we're going to punish you for being stupid enough to believe us in the first place."
This crap has to stop.
Most of the time I see people showing videos of officers apparently acting completely within the law and their training, yet demanding they be tried and sent to prison in the name of justice for simply doing their jobs. Just for once I would love to see someone who makes a complaint about a police officer get up and actually say - Here's what the officer did, here's the law he violated and then articulate exactly how he violated the law, establishing the elements of the crime and demonstrating how he know this to be true. It's rarely going to happen because most people have no idea the law says or what we as a society had authorized the police to do on our behalf.