HERE in this thread is exactly where the spin has manifested in a way so typical of most all police homicides.
Your denial of no spin is unobjective and seeded in rationalizing.
Let me make this very clear, the poor soul was doing something stupid and foolish and I've no idea why he was running with his not-silver-at-all piece.
That doesn't mean a high capacity magazine should have been emptied into his back.
And yes, for a 911 caller to be so specific (and wrong in this case apparently) about the color and caliber of an alleged shooter's ordinance, is peculiar and I'd like to hear that 911 call. Wouldn't you?
If that report is untrue and no such call exists, I can assure you I've heard more than enough about this homicide.
Are they still looking for the shooter with a silver gun?
aren't you here beyond ad hominen over petty trivial nomenclature?
I don't know about Highwayman but I'm not. It is a pretty good way to tell when people are talking about when it comes to firearms.
I am an Active Shooter response instructor. I spent a lot of time the last few years prior to my retirement speaking to public schools about the police response. I cautioned them that while the euphemisms utilized such language as "neutralize" and "secure" with regards to the shooter or incident, the reality was that we were responding to kill someone.
In short, we are trained to shoot for center mass and to keep shooting until the threat is done and over. There is nothing nice, kind or PC about it. That's simply the facts of it. In the vide, most the shots occurred in a span of 2 seconds. That's TWO seconds. ALL the shooting appeared to have been done in less than four. Given input and reaction times of the brain and muscle response that is not at all surprising even if the suspect was falling or down. Also, understand that DOWN does NOT mean "out." A downed man with a gun can still kill. And, sorry Ejay, they don't pay the police to be suicidal. They are not paid enough to run the risk of losing their own life and the life of their comrades so that some armed suspect might survive over them. The bottom line is that the officer intends to go home at the end of his shift.
This is two separate issues.I like the idea of citizen review boards and the ceasing of false statements and misinfo almost every time leo kills somebody.
First, there is no standard for a citizen's review board. No universal one, anyway. They vary in scope and responsibility all over the country and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within a state. The problem with them is that they are often made up of political activists with little or no training in the law or police work, and fail to comprehend the most basic precepts of officer safety and the use of force. I don't have a problem with oversight and review, but I DO have a problem with an officer who has otherwise failed to violate the law or policy being castigated by a political body beholden to a political constituency.
Second, usually the ONLY voice in a LEO shooting is the one screaming for the officer's head. By law, most agencies cannot speak to a personnel matter such as a shooting. They can speak of caution and what might have happened, but releasing facts and details too soon can violate the law and the due process rights of the officers and others involved. Therefore, for quite some time only one voice is most often heard regarding the facts: the one with an axe to grind.
CA is debating a change in the law that will remove "reasonableness" replacing it with "necessary." This is predicted to have the end result of allowing for officers who adhered to policy and the standard of the law to be prosecuted, sued, and terminated based solely upon a subjective analysis after the fact without the need to take into consideration what the officer knew or believed at the time. Arguably, one can make an argument that most any use of force was NOT "necessary" simply because there is almost always something else that COULD have been done, even if it might not have been viable, practical or successful. The text of the actual law leaves a great deal of wiggle room that is, quite frankly, terrifying.
Yep, there will be fewer police shootings, but there will also be fewer contacts and arrests. But, then again, this is CA where we seek to decriminalize crime at every turn. Ab109, Prop 47, Prop 57, and now a bill that will effectively toss the felony murder rule and allow folks convicted under that rule out of prison.
My wife retires in nearly 3 1/2 years and we're gone ... someplace that makes sense, I hope.