Don't even try to blame this on the law enforcement.
The shooter claims the guy held up a gun. Obviously, he didn't. But assuming he DID: how did this cop get a 1-shot kill at that range without a scope? If he was using a scope, he could have seen there was no gun. If he wasn't using a scope, it's very unlikely at that range you could tell if someone was holding a gun up or a cell phone in the dark. The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street.
"The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun."
So, yeah, I'm totally fine with blaming the trigger-happy cop that killed this innocent father of 2. As it turns out, the cop will not be charged at all.
One cynical guess: it will happen eventually, and we didn't hear about the previous 99 times when a police officer shot out the porchlight next to some unarmed and confused man who pulls a sandwich.
> The shooter claims the guy held up a gun.
Remember that what he "sees" isn't what's there, it's what his brain tells him is there. And I'm willing to bet that police officers in the US who constantly see, fear, and think of people holding guns, will end up "seeing" guns a lot more times than there actually are guns there, and more so than officers in countries with much smaller gun threat [Citation needed :) ]. And if that's the case then that is just one more scary side effect of the US gun climate.
> The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street.
Which is why he (or anyone else from the look of it) wasn't in immediate danger and should probably be charged with the killing.
Of course the guys who made false claims should also be in trouble, but just because they were wrong, doesn't mean the law enforcement wasn't ALSO wrong.
What more do you want? A picture? A video?
I want police officers to assess if there is any danger before shooting. The guy they shot was not even the guy who made the call, they had no proof that it was the same guy. I just want police officers to think about the current situation before shooting. If he had no weapon drawn, he was not a threat and there was no reason to shoot.
Rules of engagement that don't immediately mean an innocent person winds up dead?
Can you honestly not see this?
Direct observation of the threat. Period.
> someone was armed and dangerous
That's a rumor at that point (just like ANY call). They need to assess it themselves. Arriving at a scene and assuming anyone they see is this someone also seems pretty irresponsible.
It seems crazy to me that soldiers operating in a theater of war are held to a higher standard for use of lethal force than officers of the law interacting with U.S. citizens.
Should be charged with a murder. 25-life.
This is why in many places the law makes it simple: solicitation/incitement carries the same sentence as the crime itself. Unsure if that's usually the case in the US.
Incitement of violence and other similar crimes are a very specific, tempered response.
So you're saying if one would order a hitman for 25k to hit someone and he executes it but police finds it out the person who ordered the hit should not be to blame?
What's wrong with you?
I'm so sick of people defending the swatter. THERE IS NO DEFENSE. NONE.
I'm arguing that the cop ALSO behaved in a way that is criminally incompetent. But blaming the officer isn't somehow saying the swatters aren't responsible. Blame and responsibility isn't shifted from one party to the other.
Edit: > a tiny bit the kids fault.
I DON'T agree with this: but what I disagree most with is the attempt to divide the responsibility. It doesn't need to be divided. Two crimes were commited. Treat them separately. The kid is 100% responsible for his action, and the cop is 100% responsible for his actions.
It's pretty clear that without the actions of one, the person wouldn't have ended up dead. So why try to divide it?
> The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that they didn’t fire because they didn’t see a gun. At least one officer said that when he saw Finch dropping his hands to his waistband and pull them back up he remembered thinking, “that’s not a good idea. . . don’t be lifting, tugging at your waistband.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop is a good read.
Another example of how horrifyingly bad this sort of "everyone's a threat" training is can be seen in the disturbing video of Daniel Shaver's execution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...
It's hard to watch.
1 Death is basically damn fucking LUCK.
No it doesn't. But contemporary american law enforcement training sure appears to.
'Pantywaist machismo'
All the trappings of machismo without any sense of duty or bravery.
If these scumbags had tried this in, say, London, chances are the victim would still be alive today.
Let's just agree that someone having committed a crime doesn't mean the next person in the chain of events isn't responsible. People saying the cops should have done differently aren't in any way saying that the people placing the call aren't responsible. It's a false dichotomy.
Oh, yes, there are definitely those who believe the person making the call should get a fine for wasting police time at worst.