صَامَّنُحْ(=DK=) wrote:I just don't see how you can justify not bringing to trial any incident that results in a dead body with six bullets lodged in it. I'm not implying anything about the cop's innocence or guilt, but it seems ridiculous that this isn't at least being indicted. If the main concern is saving time/money, it can be assured that the rioting will be much costlier in the end.
Sorry this is late in the thread, but it warrants a response.
The simplified facts are that there was a large man walking in the middle of the street. A police officer while trying to detain this person was violently attacked. At some point in the altercation the large man decided to run / give up. The officer, responded with deadly force and killed the man.
Question 1. Was something wrong done by the officer?
Question 2. If yes, Were there extenuating circumstances that would cause the wrong doing and mitigate his culpability?
Clearly the use of deadly force was not justified in hindsight in this case.
HOWEVER, a number of telltale signs indicate that in the heat of the high stress moment, the officer reverted to his training and followed what he believed was proper procedure. It was THAT procedure and partially the incompetence of the officer that lead to the death of this man.
A stupid man created a dangerous, high stress confrontation with an armed police officer. During this confrontation, the police officer has the right and the duty to protect himself with any and all means including, in this case, the use of deadly force. When the suspect disengaged to run or give up, the situation changed. The officer no longer had that right or duty to protect himself with violence.
BUT at that critical moment, when better trained, better disciplined individuals would take a moment to take stock of the situation and come to the conclusion we've reached in hindsight, this officer proceeded as if the threat were still imminent and ongoing. His training told him that this threat was life threatening and following procedure he expended rounds into an assailant until he felt it was safe to stop.
In the heat of being attacked his mind shut down and training took over. The difference between think and react made all the difference in the world to these men and this community.
Not many can remain calm in that moment of combat. We train our law enforcement in a repetitious fashion to instill reaction when the mind shuts down from fear. The body knows what to do. We do the same to our soldiers.
IN THIS CASE ONLY!! In the end it is clear that when you play chicken with armed men, sometimes you lose. It is also clear that this officer does not have the self discipline to be responsible for his actions under such duress and should be relieved from the police force to find a less stressful occupation.
Finally to address your question directly Sam, "indicting" someone is accusing them of a crime. It is clear that no criminal act was committed by the officer and indicting the deceased would serve no purpose. What you want is an investigation by an uninterested third party or persons. That is EXACTLY what a Grand Jury is.
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
“You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”
"Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing."
