Cincinnati, you're on the clock

Of course there's a difference.

But, if it's ok to shoot the escaped convict in the back as he's running away, it simply means that there are times when it's ok, right?

So, it's not going to be a black and white situation (no pun intended) any time a dude gets shot in the back and/or when fleeing, right?

Which means it's always going to be a judgement call, open to interpretation.

Unless it was wrong to shoot the convict in the back, but we just don't give a shit -- kind of like how we launched a raid to assassinate bin Laden, and no one was upset by it.

 

Yeah, the guy who ran as soon as the cops pulled up could have simply been carrying a cup. It's possible. And, it's possible the CPD might have planted a gun.

 

You can easily make the case that a convict who escaped from a maximum security facility is a danger to others if he gets away.

Guy with no tag, woman not using a turn signal, guy who wants to vamoos when cops break up a party -- not so much.

 

That's your decision, made in the early morning calm, while reading about an incident.

That's not the situation the officer was in when he had to make a split second decision.

And, again, the point is, that if it's OK in some circumstances, then there must be some degree of judgement involved, right? Which means they will likely have to look at the officer's state of mind, and will likely have to defer to his decision, if he's granted that leeway.

And, again, it's not like there was even any questions asked about the NYS trooper who shot the unarmed escapee in the back. He was immediately hailed as a hero by the Governor. No investigation.

A drunk behind the wheel of a car is a much more immediate danger than an unarmed, tired, escapee, being trailed by 1,000 law enforcement officers.

 

There should be no questions about the escapee who got shot. He murdered. He escaped. He's getting shot. That's the drill in that scenario.

 

If you are cool with allowing the police to shoot people if the officer uses his judgment to avoid possible danger to others, then perhaps we should have an elite band of SWAT snipers out at night who are authorized to take out drunks who stumble out of the bar as soon as they turn the ignition key.

May have to shoot some white people now and then to avoid racist charges and protests and such, though.

 

LOL yeah all the time, man. Broken mirror, no front license plate, that shit gets white people pulled over all the time. Especially by university cops, because that's the sort of thing the university needs to guard against.

 

No way. White people who drive drunk, and even KILL, say, four other people, are just suffering from "affluenza" and need medical attention themselves.

 

Often things like a brake light that is out or a license tag violation allows the cop to make a stop and just look things over. Maybe he issues a warning, maybe he searches the car, depends on what he sees, the vibe he gets - and how the driver reacts to him. OTOH, I know of cases where small town cops pull over the car of someone black or with long hair, or with a Led Zeppelin bumper sticker, and as he walks to the car he whacks the tail light with his nightstick. "Did you know you had a tail light out?"

It does happen, and not just to black folks.

 

But, it is a judgement call if the person is fleeing, isn't it?

If it's always wrong, the NYS trooper would have been brought up on charges. Instead, there wasn't even an investigation, and he was hailed as a hero.

Now, I don't have a problem with what happened to the NY escapee, and the Ohio cop might be in the wrong. But, it's not a cut and dry situation is it?

Apparently, there are some circumstances where it would be warranted. So, instead of determining that the officer is in the wrong simply because he fired at a fleeing person, why don't we learn all the facts, and see what the investigation reveals?

 

How's he going to support all those kids now??

 

He was engaged to be married.