|
|
|
|
|
|
by Alupis
1355 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?