You are reading a single comment by @🅑🅐🅣🅣 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
It's fascinating that this issue is absolutely clear to so many people, but in completely opposite directions. I can't work out if that's a sign that the answer really isn't obvious or that people are just bringing their own biases to it really hard.
Can I ask what you think the purpose of armed officers is if not to confront people who might have lethal weapons and/or have possibly recently been involved in violent crime?
ffm
@🅑🅐🅣🅣
What in hot hell judge dredd is this thread. Anyone defendng a street side execution of anybody should be ashamed. The verdict was arrived at because Blake convinced the jury he shot to stop (and protect) and killed by accident, which – as others have attested to here given proximity, training and proficiency of AFOs – is unlikely.
Car was identified as connected to a violent gun crime, but driver was not identified. Officers took a risk to assume therefore that Kaba (unidentified) was in some way a threat due to associated likelihood for presence of a firearm. IMO the risk that the FA officers took was unacceptable given that there are multiple other protocols to deal with the sort of situation the officers found themselves in (where a vehicle is being driven away, not at officer).
And no, stopping someone with lethal force to avoid a chase is not an acceptable action. The litmus for this is if the officer had been found to have shot him in the head deliberately the jury would have likely returned a different verdict.
Guns dont kill people, etc etc.