The real story isn't it? Prudy
Hi all, I just got this on another list, and as it is so utterly on the money, I felt I had to forward it on. Sorry about that Flyboy. Peace, and be safe, Preston Not only did they fail to protect but they created the dangerous situation that led to the perceived need to shoot. So much attention has been given to the few seconds during which the officers had to observe, Diallo's actions, evaluate the threat, and decide to shoot or not shoot. Then there is the attention paid to the number of shots fired with some saying that 41 shots was excessive at an average of 10.25 shots each. Those who consistently assert that the number of shots fired is irrelevant, argue that it takes only about 2 to 4 seconds from the moment that they determine the need to shoot and the point when they have fired the last of 41 shots. Somewhere in that argument is a supposed justification for firing enough rounds to drop a grizzly bear. For some reason the training that teaches officers that when they make the determination to use deadly force they are to fire three rounds at a time. And why fire three? Why not two or four? Because the experts who determine what will be taught at the academy say that if the officer must shoot, then the technique that should be followed is to fire two rounds at the upper body mass because there is a greater likelihood of hitting the target, then fire a third shot to the head because of the increased occurrence of criminals wearing body armor. So the people who have the experience and knowledge of research done on officer involved shootings to determine what the most effective tactic is, have determine that the triple tap is what the academy should teach and what the officer should do in the field. So it would seem that the number of shots fired is relevant to the experts. Why street cops feel that they know better. If the officers who shot Diallo had followed policy then based upon an average of 10.25 shots each these officers would have each fired a volley of three rounds at Diallo (that's 12 shots total), then still determined that the object in his hand was a dun and that he was still making a furtive movement that threatened the officers so they each fired another volley of three rounds each (that's another 12 shots total), then observed Diallo and again determined that the object in his hand was a gun, and that Diallo was still making furtive movements that threatened the officers, so they each proceeded to fire another volley of three shots each (that's another 12 shots total), then observed Diallo and determined that he was still holding a gun in his hand and that he was still making furtive movements toward the officers caused them to feel fear for their lives so three of them fired one final shot but the fourth felt he should fire two more shots (that's 5 more shots total. Now we are to believe that these officers, if they followed the tactics taught to them, determined that the object in Diallo's hand was a gun and that Diallo was making furtive movements before they shot him, then after 12 shots, then again after 24 shots, then again after 36 shots but only enough threat to justify 1 or 2 more shots. I have difficulty buying the argument that these officers were following department policy or their training. It has been postulated on this list that when police officers are placed in emergency situations where they do not have time to think that their training kicks in. That would mean that Diallo continued to posturer and move in a threatening manner after 12, 24, 36 shots with about 6 then 12, then 18 rounds striking his body. Yea, this slight built man continued to make furtive movements after 5 bullets struck his body, the still after 12 bullets ripped into him, and then still made movements that made the officers fear for their lives after he had taken 16 to 18 hunks of metal measuring about a third of an inch wide each into his body. Anyone really believe that this little man continued the present a threat to the officers after being shot 14, 15, 16, 17, times? Remember the cops may have thought the wallet was a gun, but Diallo knew that he had no chance of frightening the cops away or stopping the shooting other than to fall down. But he continued to present a threat with more than a dozen bullets striking him? I don;t buy it. But these arguments all address what happened after the officers came rushing into the darkened entrance of Diallo's apartment building with their guns drawn. With Diallo having no reason to expect four armed men to come rushing at him at his home, he could be expected to react in any number of unpredictable ways. There has been all this discussion about how Diallo reacted and how he should not have moved in he manner he did. And there has been all this defense of the officers actions because they had only seconds to react. But what about Diallo? The police knew that they were rushing into a dangerous situation so the time available to consider what may happen and what to do about it. But it was Diallo that was surprised and was allowed only a fraction of a second to react to a threat that a second before did not exist. So these comments about Diallo being foolish or using poor judgment ring very cold hearted. To excuse the officers because they had only seconds to determine what to do, then imply that Diallo acted improperly causing the officers to kill him when he was the one who with no time to think and with no training to fall back on, this is revealing of persons willing to provide excuses for police killings with any argument no matter how irrational and with no regard for the innocent victim. The attention on the actions after the police claim to have had a reasonable fear for their lives is concentrating on the wrong time frame. The killing of Diallo was put into motion well before the officers even entered the apartment building. If only the state of mind of the officers, at the time they decided to kill Diallo, is considered, then virtually every police killing will be found justified. In every police killing the officers are going to claim that they felt that the victim made a furtive movement and the officer thought the victim had a weapon so he felt fear that his life was threatened. So in every case the officer will be found not guilty. But is no consideration to be given to what the police did that caused the situation to develop where they ended up feeling fear for their life. Is it acceptable for police to foolishly rush into a situation when they know or reasonably should know that the person they are going to confront, even if innocent, is going to be startled and could react in any unpredictable way? The culpability of police officers in the killing of a person must be determined by considering all the circumstances, not only those that involve the last seconds where the victim reacts to a bad situation that was created by the police ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *__ ___ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ /'_|'0 \'V'/'\|'|'__|'|'|'/'_| \_'\''_/\'/|'\\'|'_||'V'V'\_'\ |__/_|'.//'|_|\_|___|\_n_/|__/ http://mprofaca.cro.net/latest.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/975/0/_/7016/_/952298655/ eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/spynews http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
