The way the officers around the subject, restrained or not, reacted, it appears that this was accidental as opposed to murder. Whether it was negligent, is for the boards and possibly a jury to decide. I feel comfortable saying however that this was not a cold-blooded murder as much as a hyper, young officer that made a horrible and possibly negligent mistake.
No, they don’t. What makes you say that? 
And just how would you propose to keep order without police and courts?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Just pretend it’s a socialistic society and he was dealing with it from a non-hierarchal position. Just like the “Old West”.
Or, conversely, nothing like it at all. that old west mentality was driven by heirarchies, not the lack thereof
According to this link, the officer who was involved in the shooting has resigned to avoid being interviewed by police internal affairs investigators about the incident.
No it wasn’t. It was individual power absent any control. It was the exact opposite of a hierarchical society.
The second rule of gun safety* is “Don’t point it if you don’t intend to shoot what you’re pointing it at.”
The cop either broke this rule blatantly or he meant to shoot him.
*The first rule of gun safety is “Every gun is ALWAYS loaded.”
Maybe someone in the legal community can advise but I don’t understand how a shooting doesn’t immediately involve an investigation which would START with an interview.
I don’t think that applies to police. There are situations where guns are drawn and aimed but without a finger on the trigger.
That doesn’t mean you HAVE to shoot the person/object you’re aiming at. It just means that you have to be willing to do so. If the threat isn’t such that you feel justified in shooting, then don’t aim the thing. Don’t even take it out of the holster. If you shoot someone, then have an “Oh my god! I just accidentally shot him!” reaction, then you were not justified in having that gun out of its holster. Period.
Here’s a page that also has a couple more views:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/01/07/execution-style/
The idiot bystanders who kept on approaching the police certainly didn’t help the situation.
I think this belongs in another thread but I disagree. Power over any other is a hierarchy - whether it be by force of law or by force of weaponry (and I’m not convinced there is much difference)
I agree and was going to mention this under the heading of “not helpful”.
Really? Murder?
What evidence of intent is there?
Oh, I absolutely agree that there was sufficient probable cause to arrest the officer immediately, if the other officers had been so minded.
There’s no requirement that they arrest him, but there were grounds to if they wanted.
Every person has the right to remain silent.
Now, the cops can threaten to fire him if he doesn’t cooperate with investigators, and appparently he’s responded by resigning. But he’s first and foremost a citizen, and can’t be compelled to answer any questions.
At this point, of course, the cops should arrest him.
That’s not correct.
Consider approaching a man holding a gun in his hand. Presumably you agree that your hypothetical officer is justified in having his gun out?
Now the officer yells at him to drop the weapon. The man does so.
The officer immediately holsters his weapon? No… of course not. The man could still grab up the weapon and shoot.
I’m wondering what authority you draw upon for your blanket statement “Period.” Which law enforcement agency has that guidance as part of its procedures? Which experts in the field recommend your approach?
Yeah, this doesn’t sit right with me. Why isn’t he facing a proper criminal investigation?
I should point out that in Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court said that requiring an officer to answer questions under penalty of dismissal is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, unless he’s told that his statements won’t be used againt him in a criminal proceeding.
I know it’s not all that famous, but there’s a little saying that starts out, “You have the right to remain silent…” Ever hear it?
Okay, you have a point. I still don’t like it. Different standards for different groups make me uncomfortable and that’s what I was working off of. The non-law-enforcement rules of gun safety include the “don’t pull on something you aren’t going to shoot, if necessary” number.
Yes, but that’s not really the point. I haven’t seen any mention that the officer is facing a criminal investigation for his actions. So far I’ve only read about an internal investigation made by the police, which he clearly is within his rights to not participate in. But surely, if a civilian had accidentally discharged a weapon and killed someone there would be some sort of criminal investigation, no?