It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And he didn't perform a deadly act first, he performed a THREATENING ACT there is a difference.
I could beat a cop to death with my bare hands that doesn't mean if I throw my fists up at a cop they can shoot me because it could be deadly.
If that man was taking full on swings at the officer, then sure maybe I would consider that using deadly force.
All he did was raise the weapon to show he was willing to attack, which clearly means he has to be stopped it doesn't mean use deadly force.
I don't expect the cop to try to use non lethal force, but I expect them to know when to stop using force. Which this officer CLEARLY had trouble doing.
What about the rest of them?
Originally posted by KaiserSoze
Escalation, de-escalation of force training dictates the K-9 should have been deployed before using deadly force. The dog handler choose to kill a person rather than risk his K-9.
That would clearly be a poor use of resources. Do you have any idea what those dogs are worth? They are expensive to begin with, add all of the training and they can be over $50,000. What do a few bullets and some extra paperwork cost? A public servant displaying sound economic judgement, in a life threatening situation none the less, impressive. Manslaughter? Lighten up a bit.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by MCJustJ
Sorry I was replying to the story eyeswide had me read...Not the original OP...