hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
and had it been the attacker in the vehicle?
You're weighing one group of people's safety against that of another. That's emotional thinking rather than logical. Thereby putting more emphasis on the safety of the "innocent victims" rather than those charged with risking their lives to find a dangerous man when in reality one life is not more or less important than another.
Considering tensions and potential threats there was no possible "win" to this situation. We can play the "what if" game all day long after the fact, but that is only helpful in planning PREVENTATIVE measures for the future, not judging AARs. The truth of the matter is we're simply debating over TWO ends of a stick.
Couple of innocent citizens die unintentionally by LEOs VS a couple of LEOs potentially dying at the hands of the criminal. There's no way for them to know ahead of time who was in the vehicle and whether or not they posed a threat. They made a decision and now must HOPEFULLY face due process for that decision. At the time, in their minds, it was either take a shot and risk it being the wrong person, or Don't and possibly risk being shot at.
I don't think anyone here could/would have conducted themselves in any manner contradictory to that of those officers in THEIR situation at that time. Although many of us may have been more judiciary with our marksmanship, I doubt anyone would have made a different decision otherwise.
You've read what I know.
A vehicle "creeping up on and past" at low speed a group (of unknown size) of police officers working this investigation in the dark with their lights turned off, while ignoring verbal commands of those officers ONCE it was noticed. There could be a level of "startle factor" involved, but who knows?!?
Crossing that with what the MEDIA says, how do ANYONE of us know what's true and what isn't? We DON'T. We're merely filling in the gaps of information with our own biased in combination with media reports which are known to be 100% truthful and unbiased.
IMO, officers protect themselves at all costs. Their is often little ethics involved in their actions. So could a bit of that psychology be tarnishing the information I've been given by a close officer? Absolutely. Do any of us know that for sure? No. All I can do is vouch for the integrity of those I've talked to as far as standing up for what's ethically right even if it means his job. That doesn't inherently mean that he's not willing to go to SOME lengths to defend his brothers in blue like all others.
At the same time, we also know the media of ANY variety is RARELY 100% truthful, accurate, unbiased, and NOT misleading.
Hence, WE DON'T KNOW. It's up to each person what one wants to believe while NONE of it is 100% reliable sourcing. It is what it is. NOT justification for condemning a man. Believing otherwise is "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty" just as we gun owners CONSTANLY suggest we are victims of by LEOs.
According to the women who were shot, they received no notice or warning. Yet you'll absolutely dismiss their word and take the LEOs' word for gospel. If these women committed actions that warranted being shot at, what were they charged with? Or are police allowed to shoot at someone that has committed no crime? Is it standard procedure for the police department to replace a vehicle of someone they shot so quickly or are they trying to head off the PR and legal nightmare?