I am unbelievably sick and tired or criminal behavior being downplayed and law enforcement having to defend split-second, life-and-death decisions brought on by said criminal conduct.
Here’s yet another example: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/14044562.htm.
An off-duty Philadelphia police officer was rear-ended by another driver. The officer identified himself as a cop, and the second driver—who appeared to be under the influence of some type of substance—sped off. The officer followed, keeping in touch with 911 dispatchers the entire time, trying to help them find this guy to get him off the road…before he could be involved in a more serious accident and possibly injure or kill an innocent motorist. Had the officer not followed the suspect, it would have been all but impossible for anyone to find him.
For whatever reason, the driver pulled into a train station parking lot. The officer told him to stay put, but what did the suspect do? He charged the officer and threatened in no uncertain terms to kill him. Gun drawn, the officer again ordered him to stop, but he continued charging, and reached for his waistband in a motion that, having just threatened someone’s life, could easily be construed as reaching for a weapon.
So the officer fired. The first three shots missed; ultimately, the suspect was killed.
Unfortunate? Yes. But at countless steps along the way, this outcome was brought on by the dead man’s own actions. He chose to flee the scene of the original accident. He chose to not stay in his car. He chose to make a death threat against the officer. He chose, repeatedly, to charge a known law enforcement officer with his gun drawn despite repeated orders to stop. Anywhere along the line, he could have changed the outcome, but he didn’t. So in the blink of an eye, the officer had to pull the trigger and try to bring down a moving target. The use of deadly force is sad, but justified.
Look, I understand that someone grieves at the loss of their child. But if I were a judge and a case like this came to my courtroom, I’d hold the plaintiff in contempt if I could.
Perhaps he did have dreams of getting his life together, but when, exactly, was he planning to face the felony charges from which he was a fugitive? Or doesn’t it count if you managed to flee the state in which you’re wanted? Maybe all is forgiven then and you don’t have to be a man and “do the time.”
"'My son was not the kind of kid who had conflict with the police,' Shields said. 'He does not put up a fight.'" Again, I’m sorry, but telling the officer he was a dead man and charging him qualifies as having conflict. Perhaps it was out of character, but no matter the cause, he was responsible for his actions.
“Family members said they did not think that Shields even had a weapon that morning.” No, ultimately he didn’t have a weapon. But when someone reaches into their waistband after saying they’re going to kill you, it’s a natural assumption that they just might. And in that situation you have a blink of an eye to make a decision, not the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Would it have been better that one of the shots only wounded the suspect enough to render him immobile? Naturally. But sometimes a moving target isn’t quite so easy to deal with. He’s in motion as the bullet leaves the gun, and what’s intended may not be what happens. That, however, isn’t brutality or excessive force. The suspect was not subdued and was not in custody—he was in a one-on-one fight and made his intentions clear. The reaction was appropriate, and I hope the D.A. stands by his initial decision not to file charges.
I feel sympathy for the family, make no mistake. But this officer has to live with what happened for the rest of his life, too, and I hope he knows he has people in his corner. God willing, he’ll never be faced with a similar situation.
If we keep putting the screws to law enforcement for actions that result from the actions of the criminals, the criminals win. Let’s stand up for the good guys.
Comments