re: Marksville City Marshals......Breaking two officers charged with murder

Serving a warrant?

And wind up killing a child......

You could turn that around too...


Refusing to be served a warrant?


And you get your kid killed in the process...

quote:

---

My problem is with what you aren't saying or seemingly taking into account.

---

What facts am I leaving out? ETA: Legit asking, not being a smartass.

quote:

---

Blindly making excuses? Can I turn that around and say you're blindly attacking since you can't open your mind at all?

---

There is no excuse for shooting a child, much less shooting them multiple times. Period.

quote:

---

Probably because we've given law enforcement far far too much leeway when it comes to using deadly force.

---

If you were a cop wouldn't you be on edge?

quote:

---

When a cop(or anyone else for that matter) draws a weapon and starts firing, they take responsibility for the consequences of what happens. Bottom line is these cops did not aquire a proper sight picture and instead went Wild West with their pistols.

---

Let me help you here. A police officer may fire his/her weapon when that officer determines that someone has put his/her life is in danger. As a police officer or any other citizen, you can defend yourself through any means possible if you can articulate that you were likely to suffer severe bodily harm if you didn't stop the threat.

If the driver was ramming the police car, the officer(s) were likely under attack by a deadly weapon. Not all the facts are public but the officers will be judged by the reasonable person test. In other words, would the reasonable person have acted in similar fashion to protect life?

You state that officers must take responsibility for their actions for each bullet fired. This is true. However, if that vehicle did ram the police car, the officers didn't create the deadly force situation. If police are only allowed to defend themselves or others when they are 100% sure to hit their targets, there will be a shite ton more crime and violence on our streets than there already is. Maybe you've watched too many action movies but the odds of striking a moving target at more than 3-5 feet is extremely low. That doesn't change the fact that if you are at risk to die or become disabled, you're allowed to defend yourself as needed.

quote:

---

There is no excuse for shooting a child, much less shooting them multiple times. Period.

---

Yes there is. Say I'm on patrol and someone starts shooting at me from 10 feet. I've been hit at least once that I'm aware of. I draw and return fire. 3 of my 4 rounds hit the suspect. One round misses and strikes a child 100 feet away that I did not see.

This event, while tragic and horrific, will not result in me being found guilty criminally or civilly.

quote:

---

what facts am I leaving out? ETA: Legit asking, not being

---

In judging this particular shooting, I don't know that you're omitting any facts, and I seriously doubt that you are.

I just don't think it's all that worthwhile to talk about this particular incident without considering the dominant paradigm in law enforcement, which seems to be "perceive a threat, neutralize the threat even if it could be avoided". It is way too easy to imagine seeing a video of this incident which shows them firing when they could have simply gotten out of the way and then two weeks later reading a story saying they are absolved completely because they feared for their lives.

quote:

---

Accept your warrant and your kid is still alive.

---

You do realize a child is a person. What mistake did he make to warrant death?

Havent read much about the case. Are they alleging that the child's father was the driver who they were pursuing?