OK! A Law Enforcement Scenario. All are Welcome!

I'm guessing that you are trying to trick us, thinking that it may have been a CCW holder, as there is no mention that the officer had witnessed a holdup?

I'll go with IZ. Not for me to judge. Probably not much interest to me, unless it turns out that it was a legal gun owner openly carrying, and the officer fired without asking questions.

More likely, a robber who just shot up the place, whom (s)he legally was justified in shooting, in which (s)he would have been placed on administrative leave anyways.
 
Fair enough; here's a bit more.

The running man was a BG, had just committed an armed robbery.

The officer fired the rounds that killed the man.

Also, I completed the sex change (thanks, IZ! :p )

So, fire away!
 
That one is up to IA to investigate and to press charges against the officer. As for "in the back", we don't know from a newspaper report if the BG started to turn around to fire at the officer (it was an armed robbery after all) and she/he fired when they saw the BG's gun and just happened to shot the BG in the back, or if the BG had turned, the officer paused, then the BG turned again, the officers brain started working again (operations can slow you up some :p ) and fired after the BG had turned completely back around. To many variables to really make a judgement.

MikeTX: Geez man, I'm not that paranoid of the LEO's yet. I would back up and go back into the house but I'd still be watching and not just stand there looking like a looky loo but still.... :confused: .

Wayne
 
actually would make me feel safer in that community. now i know that leo's will actually use the training that they got on the range and put it in practice in real life. most likely she will be cleared of all charges and put back on duty. of course the clerk could have tipped her off also, so it shows that the community respects the officers enough to let them know of what is going on. as for shooting the bg in the back, there could be many reasons she did that. perhaps he went to run after being told to stop and knowing he was armed decided to take him down rather than persue and possibly end up in an ambush from his friends (tactic we did while role-playing as insurgents to train marines going to iraq). better one perp dead and cost up maybe a few grand on the investigation than spending tens of thousands a year to incarcerate him and then let him out. or even worse, letting him go so he can do it again.
 
There was a thread either here or on THR where some computer animators re-created an officer-involved shooting that looked really bad for the cops. Seems their subject died of a bullet that struck the subject in the buttock, traveled up through his torso and lodged in his heart.

WTF, over?

The animators re-created the shooting and showed the BG stumbling and falling, thus taking one in the cheek, rather than some sadistic ballistic sodomy, as the race-baiters tried to suggest. Cops were exonerated.

Point being, there could be countless, completely legitimate ways the officer could hit the guy in the back.
 
m198, your method might be barely applicable in Iraq, but back home in the states, its benefit of the doubt, and shooting the BG just to save money, well I leave the jury to decide, but its def illegal and immoral
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top