I saw this editorial from the Detroit Free Press as reprinted in the Editorial Section of the San Luis Obispo Tribune. http://www.freep.com/article/20140828/OPINION01/308280015/michael-brown
I totally agree with several of the points made. First, I agree that statistics need to be collected on all police shootings nationwide, and the data base needs to be kept public. Police shootings should include Federal officers (border patrol, DEA, FBI etc) as well as State and Local.
Yes, Police are taught to "shoot to kill" --because often they are in a kill or be killed situation. However, a flexible response might be more appropriate for some situations. When engaging an unarmed citizen, it would seem that a warning shot first, and a wounding shot second might be more appropriate than shots to the heart and head. Training for such a flexible response would definitely be more complicated and expensive. But the result might be more lives saved. .
When an apparent unjustified police shooting occurs, we need to treat the situation in the same way as a citizen shooting. Yes, police officers should be given some discretion, and the benefit of the doubt. The officer is risking his life to protect us, of course. But when an unarmed citizen is killed by an officer there should be serious suspicion. Should such an officer be put on "paid leave?" Or should he be held in a jail cell?
During investigations of Police Shootings it appears that all of the facts are kept "secret" to protect the officer. While if a citizen is accused of a shooting, it appears that police "tell all"as information is discovered. We would know all about the shooter, his education, job performance, family, sex life, drinking habits etc. However when a police officer does something the public is kept in the dark --with the promise that it will all be made available later. This promotes suspicion among the public of a cover-up.
I believe the police chief of Ferguson should be held accountable for all of the riots that occurred. Had he stepped up and arrested the officer (2 shots to the victims head?) and kept the public appraised of the progress of the investigation, I believe the situation would have been a LOT different.
26 Sep UPDATE on Ferguson situation: USA Today, Christina Coleman and Greg Toppo reported that Police Chief Thomas Jackson of Ferguson MO officially addressed the public and read a supposed apology to Brown's parents on a video that was produced by a public relations firm.. That sounds like a "forced apology" -- not from the heart of Chief Jackson, but because he had to do it. This apology is over 6 weeks late, and apparently the police officer Darren Wilson is still on paid administrative leave. Information about the shooting of Michael Brown is still apparently being kept secret and is being dribbled out to a grand jury in hopes by the police that the grand jury won't vote to indict the police officer.
I totally agree with several of the points made. First, I agree that statistics need to be collected on all police shootings nationwide, and the data base needs to be kept public. Police shootings should include Federal officers (border patrol, DEA, FBI etc) as well as State and Local.
Yes, Police are taught to "shoot to kill" --because often they are in a kill or be killed situation. However, a flexible response might be more appropriate for some situations. When engaging an unarmed citizen, it would seem that a warning shot first, and a wounding shot second might be more appropriate than shots to the heart and head. Training for such a flexible response would definitely be more complicated and expensive. But the result might be more lives saved. .
When an apparent unjustified police shooting occurs, we need to treat the situation in the same way as a citizen shooting. Yes, police officers should be given some discretion, and the benefit of the doubt. The officer is risking his life to protect us, of course. But when an unarmed citizen is killed by an officer there should be serious suspicion. Should such an officer be put on "paid leave?" Or should he be held in a jail cell?
During investigations of Police Shootings it appears that all of the facts are kept "secret" to protect the officer. While if a citizen is accused of a shooting, it appears that police "tell all"as information is discovered. We would know all about the shooter, his education, job performance, family, sex life, drinking habits etc. However when a police officer does something the public is kept in the dark --with the promise that it will all be made available later. This promotes suspicion among the public of a cover-up.
I believe the police chief of Ferguson should be held accountable for all of the riots that occurred. Had he stepped up and arrested the officer (2 shots to the victims head?) and kept the public appraised of the progress of the investigation, I believe the situation would have been a LOT different.
26 Sep UPDATE on Ferguson situation: USA Today, Christina Coleman and Greg Toppo reported that Police Chief Thomas Jackson of Ferguson MO officially addressed the public and read a supposed apology to Brown's parents on a video that was produced by a public relations firm.. That sounds like a "forced apology" -- not from the heart of Chief Jackson, but because he had to do it. This apology is over 6 weeks late, and apparently the police officer Darren Wilson is still on paid administrative leave. Information about the shooting of Michael Brown is still apparently being kept secret and is being dribbled out to a grand jury in hopes by the police that the grand jury won't vote to indict the police officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment