[vkou]

> it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

Then why are the seven LAPD officers that shot at the pickup truck during their manhunt for Dorner not serving ten-to-twenty?

Because if me and six of my closest friends shot up a random, non-threatening truck with two women in it, there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't convict us, and there's not a prosecutor in the world who would decline to press charges.

They are only held to the same standards as the rest of us in theory. In practice, the bar is so low, it's practically nonexistant.

[Alupis]

I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

They did not just get together and shoot up a non-threatening truck with two women in it, as you say. That's what we would say in hindsight, given the facts as-discovered after the incident.

The question you should be asking, but didn't, is why the first officer that opened fire is not in trouble for an obvious (in hindsight) wrong call. I would hazard to guess qualified immunity played into that officer's case. Perhaps that is where you should focus.... not on the number of rounds used.

[vkou]

> I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

In no universe were they justified in their manhunt for a 250lb man to open fire at a pickup truck of the wrong model and color, driven by two women.

The first rule of using firearms, regardless of whether you shoot one round, or one hundred and five, is that you need to know what the hell you're shooting at before you do it. Are you saying that they opened fire without having any idea who they were shooting at? What kind of reasonable person would do so? One that is blind? One that has zero regard for human life?

That's not a lapse in judgement, that's not a 'whoopsie daisies', that's not grounds for a civil suit, that's a felony if done by anyone without a badge. A hanging offense if someone were killed over it.

[Alupis]

What I'm saying is clearly a jury (if this went to court, I don't know and will not research further since it's irrelevant) had facts and knowledge that you do not. Specifically, the knowledge possessed by the officers at the moment this happened.

We have the benefit of knowing all the facts now, after the event occurred. We are privy to information the officers did not have at that moment - specifically that it was an unarmed vehicle without the suspect inside.

Very often the outrage from these events centers around post-event facts that were not known at the time the event happened. This is why it often appears like LEO's get "off" without punishment when the reality is they acted reasonably given the information they had at the moment.

Perhaps it should be discussed if the call was actually reasonable or not. That's fine. What's not fine is pretending 107 rounds fired means anything at all... it doesn't.

So no, despite what TV wants you to think, there are not gangs with badges driving around shooting up random trucks for funsies. That's just not reality.

> The first rule of using firearms

To be pedantic, this is not the first rule of firearms.

[vkou]

So, let me get this straight.

If the police are looking for a dangerous suspect in my town, I, as a civilian, can feel free to start shooting up any vehicle that is of the same type as that of the suspect?

And I should be in the clear, as long as I can reasonably argue that I don't know who I was shooting at?

Is this the society you think we live in? One where the prosecutor will not charge me, because, aw shucks, he can't prove that I knew what I was doing when I started blasting?

[Alupis]

No, that is not even remotely close to what was said. Perhaps you should read it before responding further.