While this is not the same story as that of the young man in Florida who was harassed then shot dead by someone with no authority over him, unless I am missing something here, I still don't see how the verdict of the grand jury make any sense here. You got an unarmed person walking toward you in straight line during the middle of the day and you are a trained police officer with your gun and without having your back to the wall or anything like that preventing you from continuing to move back temporarily, yet you are still unable to stop him except by fatal shot to the head? How is that, not only convincing, but apparently so to the level of seeing that no trial is needed? What happened to shooting at the legs? He is a person not a tank. In addition, you have your pepper spray and baton in case he gets closer.
I had no intention to write about this because I was under the impression that the shooting happened during the close struggle and just knew otherwise a while ago.
Again, unless I am missing some important detail here, I see that the verdict of the grand jury here is very unconvincing .
No comments:
Post a Comment