Scratch one up for the good guys

[MudPuppy]

Anybody else annoyed that Grand Juries are even allowed to review police (in the line of duty) shootings? I mean, they're the GOOD guys! (granted, uncool that she shot him in the back, but still...)

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3728194

A Travis County grand jury Tuesday declined to indict an Austin police officer in the June 9 shooting of an 18-year-old Austin man.

Officer Julie Schroeder shot Daniel Rocha fatally in the back after a traffic stop as police were conducting an anti-drug sting in the neighborhood.

Schroeder had told investigators she fired because she thought Rocha had taken her Taser stun gun during a struggle and was about to use it against her or her sergeant. The account had differed from accounts provided by witnesses.

An attorney for Rocha's family says witnesses have told him they saw police pull Rocha from a sport-utility vehicle and throw him to the ground.

The FBI and Austin police internal affairs investigators continue to investigate the matter.

 

[Sindawe]

Nope, I have no problem with Grand Juries reviewing police shootings, even in the line of duty.

 

[Greg L]

Anybody else annoyed that Grand Juries are even allowed to review police (in the line of duty) shootings?

When the day comes that they aren't allowed to review LOD shootings then we are all in a lot of trouble.

I mean, they're the GOOD guys!

And on the (rare) occasion when they aren't the good guys they should just get a free pass....?

Probably a good shoot. However if Rocha had gotten the taser he could only have zapped either Schroeder or her Sgt - not both. I would rather see him shot after zapping/attempting to zap one of them & not the nebulous "well, he might have gotten it"/shot in the back/with witnesses who have a different story of what happened.

More of a wait & see mode here.

 

[CARRY'IN]

Somebody wake me up from this bad dream. When is it probably justified to shoot someone in the back because you "think" they are about to use something that is supposedly harmless against someone else?