LWYM425
Member
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412772_suspect01.html?source=mypi
This made national news so maybe a few of you have already read about it. Today the man who authorities believe shot the four Lakewood policy officers was shot and killed. Since the trail this guy seemed to be on was getting closer and closer to me I thought about what I would do if I happened upon him as I went about my day.
The picture they showed on the news was pretty disinct so I think I'd be able to ID the guy rather conifdently. I came to the conclusion that I would only fire at him if I could justify that "my life was in danger" e.g. he had a weapon or was advancing on me. I came to this conclusion becuase it seems that if you can't justify your actions that way you'd be in a heap of trouble...
So, my question for discussion... Would you have acted like this officer?
--> You are conifdent that the man in front of you is the SUSPECT, you assume (after the fact I believe this was proven) the SUSPECT is armed but do not see the weapon, and he turns to run away from you.
I don't know guys... I know the "justice system" MIGHT let this slip for an alleged cop killer, but shouldn't your actions be consistent regardless?
When I first heard this aired, the cop was approached from behind, he turned, the man ran, and then he was shot (not sure at what point he was ordered to show his hands, but I imagine it was shortly before he was shot).
This made national news so maybe a few of you have already read about it. Today the man who authorities believe shot the four Lakewood policy officers was shot and killed. Since the trail this guy seemed to be on was getting closer and closer to me I thought about what I would do if I happened upon him as I went about my day.
The picture they showed on the news was pretty disinct so I think I'd be able to ID the guy rather conifdently. I came to the conclusion that I would only fire at him if I could justify that "my life was in danger" e.g. he had a weapon or was advancing on me. I came to this conclusion becuase it seems that if you can't justify your actions that way you'd be in a heap of trouble...
So, my question for discussion... Would you have acted like this officer?
--> You are conifdent that the man in front of you is the SUSPECT, you assume (after the fact I believe this was proven) the SUSPECT is armed but do not see the weapon, and he turns to run away from you.
I don't know guys... I know the "justice system" MIGHT let this slip for an alleged cop killer, but shouldn't your actions be consistent regardless?
When I first heard this aired, the cop was approached from behind, he turned, the man ran, and then he was shot (not sure at what point he was ordered to show his hands, but I imagine it was shortly before he was shot).
