I can't, really just *cannot* believe I'm about to defend the LAPD of all groups, but second or third-hand stories rarely provide a complete picture.
You assume you know the full situation from the description. Do you know if the tank driver was armed and threatening? Did the cop have the ability to shoot to disable? IMO, you shouldn't say 'tear gas would have forced him out of the tank' without knowing the full picture. You don't know the answer to the question: Did the cop think he himself was in imminent danger? If so, according to US law, he would have been justified in using force -- possibly deadly force -- to defend himself. That's probably what the jury thought too. Me: The show I saw had more to do about video taping of police activities. I'm 98% sure that the tank driver wasn't armed. The family of the thief tried to bring a wrongful death suit against the city. The video was used to show all the damage the tank had done. When they popped the hatch the police yelled at him to get out, and the tank started lurching. The tank wasn't going to go anywhere but still it could move a little. That's why I used it as an example. I don't think the police were in immediate danger but I do think they were justified in their actions. How about this for a different view: in Philly 15 years ago two police entered a house, there was a report of a burglar. It was completely dark. The home owner was at the top of a stairway and fired at the cops, thinking they were the robbers. One bullet hit the badge on the policeman's chest and ricocheied away. They got the home ownwer to stop shooting. The police had their weapons drawn but never fired. There were no injuries and the home owner wasn't charged. Can you imagine having that kind of restraint? I'm just trying to point out that police and anti-terroist forces are (usually) trained to do their job. The make mistakes, everyone does, but they get 100 times more training then a fry cook because a poached egg instead of a scrammbled egg never killed anyone. Kevin T.
