probably my anti cop bias showing, but all those shots after the kid went down shows excessive force. dont really know. but hey, after this year? not ever going to be a big supporter of "lae enforcement" again.
The optics are bad, but I'm not sure it shows excessive force. It's easy to say that from the comfort of your couch, but once lethal forced is engaged within the OODA loop (observe / orient / decide / act), it takes time to process through that loop again to determine when to stop. We should consider 2 things here, (1) was the decision to engage in lethal force supported by the evidence on hand at the time of the incident as well as by the individual's actions. I would say that the answer to that part is yes. (2) is was lethal force ceased in an appropriate, and timely manner according to when the threat was clearly no longer actionable? That is a tough one, and likely one that will earn a payout to the family. Not because it was excessive force, but because it just looks bad regardless of whether or not the expectations that made the optics yucky are reasonable. A little force on force training will change your thoughts on this rather quickly if you're being honest with yourself.
my police experience was only when i was in the service, and the excessive force would be from all the shots after he went down. yes, easy to say when you are not in the action. i also used to agree with tried by twelve rather than carried by six. but after a lifetime of bad dealings with police rather than good dealings, and what has been happening with demonstrations this past year where officers have shown where they stand, i certainly will not just give them the benefit of the doubt. quits sure all involved will be acquitted of any wrong doing, but not in my mind. sorry, that is just how it is now. defend them all you want.
on the flip side, i sure hope this doesnt become another geo floyd type case.
probably my anti cop bias showing, but all those shots after the kid went down shows excessive force. dont really know. but hey, after this year? not ever going to be a big supporter of "lae enforcement" again.
The optics are bad, but I'm not sure it shows excessive force. It's easy to say that from the comfort of your couch, but once lethal forced is engaged within the OODA loop (observe / orient / decide / act), it takes time to process through that loop again to determine when to stop. We should consider 2 things here, (1) was the decision to engage in lethal force supported by the evidence on hand at the time of the incident as well as by the individual's actions. I would say that the answer to that part is yes. (2) is was lethal force ceased in an appropriate, and timely manner according to when the threat was clearly no longer actionable? That is a tough one, and likely one that will earn a payout to the family. Not because it was excessive force, but because it just looks bad regardless of whether or not the expectations that made the optics yucky are reasonable. A little force on force training will change your thoughts on this rather quickly if you're being honest with yourself.
my police experience was only when i was in the service, and the excessive force would be from all the shots after he went down. yes, easy to say when you are not in the action. i also used to agree with tried by twelve rather than carried by six. but after a lifetime of bad dealings with police rather than good dealings, and what has been happening with demonstrations this past year where officers have shown where they stand, i certainly will not just give them the benefit of the doubt. quits sure all involved will be acquitted of any wrong doing, but not in my mind. sorry, that is just how it is now. defend them all you want.
on the flip side, i sure hope this doesnt become another geo floyd type case.