Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy fired

I think that's largely a red herring. We've talked about this on here. Once you decide to shoot, you shoot to kill.

 

I don't have a position here. I am interested to hear what Van Dyke has to say. But I'm saying that based on the actions of the powers-that-be here, it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't going to charge him because they either don't personally think he committed a crime, or they think there's enough reasonable doubt about it that a jury is likely to acquit.

 

I know I would have just shot him once -- in the calf.

 

Which would have been horribly excessive and criminal in its own right.

 

OK, the toe. But the pinkie toe.

 

Thank heavens he killed him five times, then.

The guy was surrounded by cops at that point. Kill him if you must,
but if you shoot him 16 times, don't wonder why you have an image problem.

 

What is the acceptable number of shots to fire in a situation in which an officer fears for his life?

 

I can see from Dick's posts that this is how it's going to play out in court ... the guy's getting off.

But I've always felt the cop in South Carolina would get off too, and recent developments there have only strengthened that belief.

 

Nah, most people would have shot the knife out of his hand, just like in the movies.

 

Ummm, really?

 

Absolutely.

 

OK, I'm thinking about this more beyond my initial knee-jerk reaction. I can maybe get behind your sentiment if it means cops pulling the trigger less frequently.

But since that's not realistically going to happen, what say we work on having officers avoid emptying their magazine into a guy who is walking away and then trying to reload before getting stopped (for the record, I do not see the move toward the officer as you describe it)?