“So he has a glowing object in his hand.” Where in the world did you find this evidence? You made assumptions based on assumptions. You would never make it as a homicide investigator. Which I was up until the time I retired.
Being shot in the back or top of the head or bottom of the foot or wherever doesn’t prove (or even imply) anything on its own. Shot in back = murder is a completely false equation.
“but if it was in fact in a light colored case …” Do you think all guns are black? Have you never seen a stainless steel or nickel plated gun? Hell, you can even get pink guns now.
All the internet experts, most which have zero training or experience, are reaching conclusions based on the evidence they see on TV or read on the net. How about letting the investigation play out? I know, the cops can’t be trusted to investigate themselves. That’s why normal procedure is to have an outside agency to the investigation. If you are of the belief that all cops cover for each other, who do you propose does the investigation?
“It would be highly desirable to avoid the application of lethal force except when there is absolutely no alternative that would protect officers and ensure public safety.”
Sure, it would be desirable. But who determines when there is absolutely no alternative? People looking at slow motion video from the comfort of their chair? If I am pursuing a criminal suspect through backyards in the dark, what alternatives do I have if he turns at me with an object in his hand and holds it out in my direction? Run away? Ask if that’s a gun? Be certain that its a gun by my own observations before I defend myself? Be certain that it a real gun? Be certain that its loaded? The decision must be made and acted upon in split seconds or less.
With all due respect to Stanger, his statement containing the phrase “if in fact” gives me pause. That’s a mighty big “if”. Huge, even. Suppose I said, “If, in fact, he turned toward the officers with the object in his hand and held out towards them…” If, if, if.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v Connor held that “As in other Fourth Amendment contexts… the “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” The Court also cautioned, “The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
Read the decision. Understand it. It is the law of the land and I don’t foresee it being overturned in my lifetime. Also, go to the website noted by Flyer. The ignorance about what goes on in deadly force encounters is nothing short of staggering. No subject that I’ve seen discussed on the Dope has more uninformed opinions.
Yes, there are bad shootings where the cops should go to jail (and sometimes, do) and cover ups have and will continue to happen. I have no sympathy at all for those cops. They are a disgrace to the profession. But I submit the vast majority of police shootings are legally and morally justified. Given the number of police - citizen contacts, use of force incidents and especially use of deadly force incidents the smaller subset of questionable deadly force encounters are, indeed, very infrequent.
Finally, I reject the idea that cops are paid to put the safety of criminal suspects before their own. They are not. They are paid to take reasonable risks and they do so every day.