Disturbed by the increasing trend in modern police forcing to immediately resort to force. Here is a perfect example, police gun down double amputee in a wheel chair.
That’s right, the man (who had a case history of schizophrenia) had apparently pinned an officer with his chair, and possessed an item in his hand. So he was fatally shot.
The item happened to be the most dangerous of weapons – a pen. For we all know the “Pen is mightier than the Glock”.
Yes, the man was acting aggressive. Yes, there was potential need for force. But was there need for lethal force? I am highly doubtful of that. First, most officers these days are equipped with secondary non-lethal force items (baton, pepper spray, and tazers). Were any of these put into use? They should have been…
“The officers made verbal commands for the suspect to drop whatever he had in his hand, to stay still and to speak with the officers, but the suspect continued to make threats,”
Second, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that there was no reason they should not have been able to restrain this man without the use of their firearms. There were at least two offices involved per the article. The man was a double amputee, thus largely immobile. Even if one officer was pinned an attempt to grab the man’s hands should have provided both the determination that he did not have a gun, and the elimination of the man’s mobility through his wheel chair.
How hard would it have been for one officer to grab the chair and turn it on it’s back or both officers to restrain the arms. (Remember, this guy is a double amputee it’s not like he could use his legs to run or kick.)
Frankly, you could take any ol’ Joe, Jane, or 10 year old kid and put a gun in their hand and tell them go into a room and if any resistance or defiance is made – shoot!
That’s NOT WHAT WE PAY OFFICERS TO DO, we pay you to go into a room, handle a matter and shoot only as a last resort. Shame, shame, shame….
I am sorry, but I am gravely concerned by how trigger happy many police departments have begun. I feel police are merely armed citizens and should be held responsible to the same level as an armed citizen, just more so. And if an armed citizen did what these Houston area police officers did they would in no way pass muster of self-defense. So please, anyone, anyone in uniform, explain to me the justification of law enforcement officers to meet a lesser standard in armed conflict than a mere “armed citizen”.
Frankly, if I was a judge in this matter, I would make every officer in that department sit through the NRA’s pistol training courses:
- FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation
- Basic Pistol Shooting Course
- Advanced Pistol
- Basic Personal Protection In The Home Course
- Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home Course
That would be the bare minimum to ensure that said officers not exceed their authorized role in society. To the men in blue, I am sorry if this post is harsh, but it’s got to stop. Seriously, I understand you take risks day in and day out, and are underpaid to do so. But that doesn’t lessen the responsibility and behavior that are required and expected by society.