OK, heres the problem I have with the initial shooting of Michael Brown. It appears from most I witness accounts, including the officer involved, that some sort of struggle took place in the officers vehicle. No one disputes this. Neither does any witness dispute that this is where the first shot occurred. Also, neither the cops statement, nor the witnesses dispute that Brown, once shot, attempted to flee and the cop continued to fire. Now theres some dispute as to whether after Brown turned around, he attempted to surrender, or he moved toward the cop in an aggressive manner. So, when the cop is struggling in the car with Brown (he has a swollen cheek according to his superior), I believe he fired in self defense, as would I in the same situation. But once Brown tried to flee, was the officer correct to keep firing? Brown was fleeing, so the cop wasnt in any eminent danger at that moment, and so far the only law Brown broke was assaulting an officer. A serious offense for sure, but still wouldnt get him the death sentence in any court. If a man robs a store for $200, and attempts to flee the police, they have the right to shoot him dead? If they want to pursue the felon, tackle them to the ground and rough them up a bit is one thing, but to shoot at an unarmed, wounded person who is attempting to flee seems illogical. I mean the cop KNEW he wounded him. It isnt like the guy was going to get far. Sooner or later hed end up at a hospital or bled out somewhere, or captured by the backup that should have been called. I know a lot of my conservative friends may think Ive switched sides, but it just seems that deadly force was used correctly at first in the initial struggle, but incorrectly used afterwards. The rioting and looting that followed is a whole other rant.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:56:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015