Categories
Uncategorized

Defending the cops

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am not shy about pointing out when cops have overstepped their bounds. I am not a cop basher, I just call em like I see em, bashing them when they screw up and I support them when they deserve to be supported. This is one of those times.

Seven months ago, undercover officers of the Orlando police department had been watching a man who was driving a stolen SUV. They boxed him in with their cars to arrest him, but said he didn’t stop. Undercover officers opened fire, but the car kept accelerating. That would mean the tires kept spinning and the engine kept racing. Confused and in fear for their lives, officers said they kept shooting until they fired 133 shots.

There has been a lot of claims from the public, and from some of my friends, that the force used was excessive, and 133 shots is too many. A man trying to run you over, even if all he is doing is trying to escape, is still trying to hurt you.

“Why was my brother killed? Why were guns fired at him when he was unarmed,” questioned Tiffany Breedlove, the victim’s sister. A man trying to run you over is armed with a deadly weapon called an automobile, that’s why. In this case, how can a cop tell the difference between a man trying to escape, and a man trying to escape by running over a cop?

Another point is the number of shots fired. At what point are the cops supposed to stop shooting? 1 shot? 5 shots? Should they stop with 40? What is the magic number that guarantees that the threat to your life has ended? Or do you keep firing until the threat has ended?

After all, it is called DEADLY FORCE when you fire your weapon. It doesn’t matter if you fired 6 shots, or 60, as long as the threat is present, deadly force can still be used. Even if they did fire too many shots, dead is dead.

One reply on “Defending the cops”

How were they to be run over while in their cruisers? 133 shots fired no return gunfire mentioned, should be fired for the poor shooting alone.What about reckless endangerment with depraved indifference.No possibility of collateral damage,oh that`s right those other are only serfs.

Comments are closed.