I do not mean all eight of them as mentioned in this article but do mean at least the two who shot at the two innocent women. There reportedly were over one hundred bullet holes in the pick-up truck and both of the female occupants of the vehicle were injured, one of them critically. Why?
So a truck drove by lights out that they reportedly believed looked like Dorner's; they seem to think that is all it takes to be able to start shooting and putting peoples lives at risk. Well, they had better be able to convince folks that they had at least that much reason to justifiably fear for their lives but for the life of me I do not see how with what has been presented thus far. Note though that Dorner's truck was a gray Nissan Titan and not very similar to the blue Toyota Tacoma that the women were driving. Well, in my opinion, at least the vehicles were not similar enough that they should have proven to look the same to the eyes of police officers. Mind you, officers who are taught how identify vehicles, are taught how to observe, and are trained and retrained to make assessments before firing their weapons. Furthermore, one would think it would have been standard operating procedure, for a police department
supposedly as professional as the LAPD, to have supplied those officers with pictures, or at an exacting description, of the alleged cop killer's truck before being sent out to guard another cops home so that such a case of mistaken identity likely would not result in exactly what happened.
This has been called a case of mistaken identity and indeed it was such so much so as to possibly be a criminal act of reckless endangerment. It also appears to me as it most probably must be an absolute breach of regulations, the law, and protocol on the part of the two officers who fired at the women’s' truck. Police officers, just like non-law enforcement folks, can only legally be justified in using deadly force (such as firing their weapons) if they in essence have probable or reasonable cause (varies by state) to believe that they are facing an imminent threat of death or of serious bodily injury. Even if the vehicle driven by both women had been identical to Dorner's, which it most definitely was not, the vehicle driving by them with lights off should not have been enough cause for the officers to have fired on it. Why - because they had not identified the driver of it. But he truth is that the vehicle was very different in appearance. The truth is that the officers were looking for Dorner but evidently, at least to me with my limited knowledge, fired knowingly at two subjects in the women’s' truck judging by how the bullet holes are positioned.
As far as I am concerned, based upon my 32 years of law enforcement experience, my having fired my handgun twice in the line of duty and once while off duty (fully justifiable all three times) and my having been a firearms and tactics instructor for 14 years while on the job, I think this was quite likely a bad shooting based upon the information that has appeared about it. Of course, as with anyone else I believe may have been involved in a crime, I insist on waiting until all the evidence is made known before condemning anyone. Yet, this looks to have been questionable enough, indeed more than enough, so that charges should have been filed against these officers at the very minimum for reckless endangerment and then the courts could have ironed it out. Something tells me though that charges will never be filed against them regardless of if they were unjustified in shooting at that truck and its occupants. We don't live in the America I grew up in anymore - that is for sure but one thing remains the same - the us against them status of the police, prosecutors and other government officials who all too often stick together regardless of justice and the rights of the citizenry being trod upon by those wearing a badge.
All the best,
Glenn B
No comments:
Post a Comment