well perhaps having an itchy trigger finger is grounds for finding a new line of work
If an itchy trigger finger were the issue then sure. Since its not in this case there is no need to find new work.
Using 20/20 hindsight to form a conclusion and then critique officer actions based on that information is not compatible. This is why there is always
a disconnect on some of these issues between law enforcement actions and what civilians think those actions should have been.
Keep in mind - Until you read this article you did not know what was going on inside the apartment. You did not know how many people were in the
apartment. You did not know how many suspects are present. You don't know how many / what type of weapons are present. You don't know if people are
dead inside the apartment. You don't know if people are still a alive in the apartment. You have apartments in the area that have people inside
them. Those people could possibly be involved. Those people could possibly become hostages. Those people could possibly become victims.
You see people bursting out of the apartment, with one covered in blood followed by a second person running behind him.
You have a split second - Are the people running at you suspects? Victims? Are they armed? If they are how much time do you have to respond before
Even if a person is armed with a knife, its considered a deadly force encounter. The rule set by the courts in general is the 21 to 26 ft rule. A
person armed with a knife has the ability to close the 21 - 26 foot gap and engage the officer before they could draw their weapon. Statistics show
even if the officer is able to draw and engage, they usually suffer knife injuries in the process since its a point blank confrontation.
I have no issues with people holding police accountable. I have no issues with people demanding investigations into law enforcement actions.
I do have issues when people read an article and draw their own conclusions on how an officer should have responded. Truth of the matter is had it not
been for the article after the fact, nobody in this thread, including myself, could describe what occurred because we were not there.
Another Example -
A few years back an off duty officer was at the mall with his family. While shopping you start hearing people scream followed by loud pops. As
people started to scramble out of the way this officer draws his weapon and holds his position. He sees a guy running in his direction who is not
armed. He sees a guy running behind him, also in civilian clothes, armed with a gun.
The off duty officer engages the armed individual shooting and killing him.
The problem -
The guy being chased was actually committing an armed robbery of the jewelry store. The civilian with the gun turned out to be an off duty officer.
He struggled with the suspect, whose weapon discharged in the process. He was able to break away from the off duty officer and started to run for the
door. The off duty officer gave pursuit, where he was shot and killed by the other off duty officer.
Preventable? No one could answer that with certainty.
The information was not present until after the fact when the media got all the info.
Do you engage the individual who is armed in a mall where they are but loads of people around?
My point is not one person can say what they would have done and mean it / acted on it until they are in the same situation.
edit on 11-4-2014
by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)