<<<I don't think your point in any way excuses what was done.>>>
Well, I had more than one point -- there was context, plus a few points -- and I believe the points and context do "excuse what was done" sufficiently to make it unfair, and prejudiced, to call the cops names. Some of the names they have been called are a lot worse than your "trigger-happy" characterization. "Racist" is one. "Murderers" is another.
<<<I don't buy this. Cops don't carry automatic weapons. If 41 shots were fired, triggers were pulled 41 times. That's a lot of shooting>>>
Okay, semi-automatic, 9mm, requiring a separate trigger-pull each time, but very fast firing, so it was all over in about 5 seconds.
<<<These guys were not blazing away in a panic. That was deliberate, aimed fire, probably at fairly close range. >>>
The cops are wrong if they were "in a panic" and wrong if they were firing deliberately according to the protocols, aren't they?
My reading about the case convinces me that they were probably doing both, in fact. I'm convinced that departmental guidelines say they were justified in firing in those circumstances, given what they perceived to be happening; and also that part of the reason they perceived what they did is that they, being human beings, were probably in a galvanized, flight-or-fight sort of state.
Diallo's not obeying police orders, and instead thrusting his hand in his pocket, probably represented a cultural misunderstanding. I have a serious practical suggestion to make: All immigrants should be instructed that in America, if the police show you their shield, and, aiming guns at you, tell you to stop, to halt, to show them your hands, you must not put your hand in your pocket to pull out your wallet, or you may be misunderstood, with tragic consequences.
I asked in my post how the guidelines should be changed in a way that protects both the public and the lives of cops, but no one offered suggestions.
I'm going to post more about this. |
