Sometimes, the issues of the day are SO far screwed that it's impossible to even start with the problems. Every sentence that is publicized has problems that are so numerous and intrinsic that by the time you've unpacked, analyzed, and disposed of the issues in just that one sentence, you've lost the thread of the overall point and problem
(
Read more... )
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
As for the DNA from the weapon and holster and the private detectives findings, it really makes little difference whether bell actually had the gun, or the officer merely believed, in the confusion of the struggle, based on a pull at his holster that bell had the gun. It's still a "good shoot". Under the law, it doesn't matter whether you actually are in danger for your life, it matters that you have reason to believe that you are. The officer whose gun bell may have grabbed did, and therefore the officer that pulled the trigger did too. The only malfeasance was on the part of the deceased.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I do agree that the lapel cameras are a good idea that does seem to work, although I would submit that it solves the problem 2 ways. 1) it lets the officer know they're on film, and 2) it lets the suspect know they're on film. It's nice when technology offers solutions to age-old problems :)
As for the second shooting... I am not going to be taking the effort to look into that now.
Reply
Leave a comment