"If the guy pulled out a pocketknife and approaches him, game over," Giacalone said Sunday. Joseph Giacalone, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired New York City Police Department sergeant, said it's justifiable to use deadly force even in a crowded store if the attacker has a weapon. “On-duty officers have other weapons: batons, Tasers, not to mention radios to call for backup," he said. Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former police officer, noted that off-duty officers usually do not have other tools for de-escalation at hand. The department also has been examining whether officers involved in shootings did all they could to defuse tense situations before they used force. The LAPD in 2017 changed its use-of-force policy to require officers to try, whenever possible, to defuse tense encounters before using deadly force - a decades-old concept known as de-escalation. He has every right to defend himself under those circumstances.” “The justification based on this has really jumped way off the scale. “What type of person punches a parent and knocks them out carrying a baby?” he said. The injury makes him a victim of a serious violent felony - one that would likely have made him disoriented, groggy and launched his brain into a “fight or flight” mode - as opposed to a misdemeanor battery in which the injury was not as significant, Obayashi said. “The shooter has to feel like they’re about to be attacked and there was no less drastic alternative.” If the officer was knocked unconscious during the attack, as his attorney alleges, it could justify the use of deadly force, said Ed Obayashi, a Plumas County sheriff’s deputy and use-of-force advisor to the California Assn. “The real question will be whether a reasonable person in the situation of the shooter would have believed he was under attack, threatened with death or serious bodily injury,” he said. Off-duty police, like private citizens with firearm permits in California, are legally allowed to fire their guns in self-defense in the event of an imminent attack if they’re unable to retreat from the situation, said Jody Armour, a law professor at USC. Much will depend on what the video shows, they say, and whether the investigation finds the officer felt an imminent threat to himself or others. Can you always know that in the middle of such an event? Hello no.Ĭarrying (or even owning) a firearm brings with it a lot of responsibility. The reference incident here shows us the "hidden facts" that can change everything, such as the fact that the assailant was mentally diminished. I do not like the huge increase in harm for accidental outcomes. Sam Colt made them equal" part of firearms. But, as I have said before, sometimes trouble finds you anyway.Īll of us here who use and are familiar with firearms must agree that they change the equation. In my current life, I try like hell to avoid trouble. I had to deal with this 40 years ago when I was in the USMC. We bring to situations our biases, prior training, visual clues - and unfortunately all overwhelmed by adrenaline. In real life, situations can be extremely ambiguous. In my mind's eye, I try to give myself criteria for drawing a gun. I have never drawn my firearm, nor needed to do so. Incidents such as this tragedy remind me yet again of the chance of reading a situation wrong and over reacting. There is no good to come from these incidents. Is he completely in the wrong? Well, read the two interpretations above and tell me.Īs I said before, someone other than the police needs to investigate police shootings. Do I "think" (based on a lack of information) that the LEO over-reacted? Sure sounds like it. Would this have all been better if the LEO had not drawn a weapon? Hell Yes. Two completely reasonable persons could easily be as divergent as this. _LEO: "I saw a large, muscular male, who had just knocked me down, struggling to move towards me, ignoring his parents, out of control, obviously dangerous, ignoring my commands as a police officer." _Parents: "We see him this way all the time- he is easy to calm down - just let us do our job (very reasonable and based on experience) But in a tense situation, I can easily imagine two very different interpretations of the same facts: I am not an enemy of people with mental disorders - it is one of life's greatest tragedies. One thing I saw often was that the parents saw "as normal" many things that an outside observer would tell you was "dangerous". I myself have been in the presence of mentally disturbed people living with their parents. So his assertions that the man/child was under control are just as suspect to me as the statements to the contrary. ![]() This is part of the "stories don't line up" problem.īut I do not place that much confidence in the statements of the attorney suing for $10 million - sorry. ![]() Hmm, we allow teenagers into the US Military.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |