Ohio deputy shot a news photographer

[BrentC]

We each have our opinion.
Mine is the officer should NEVER be allowed to fire unless a confirmed threat is present.
I don't think that is to much to ask of someone that is properly trained........it's exactly the mandate I had while in the military.

Exactly! 5-6 folks in an un-armored vehicle conducting a patrol in an area where they KNOW they're being tracked by multiple hostiles, but there are no rounds incoming, so they are not permitted to engage. At the end of the day, if you're so worried about your personal safety that you'd rather engage a possible threat with deadly force than wait and determine what, if any threat really exists... you're in the wrong job!

Except for that in the dark you likely won’t know whether it’s a real or perceived threat until you’ve been shot.

Sorry, but someone reaching for an unknown object and continuing to do so despite being ordered to stop must automatically be considered a lethal threat.

Again; I’m not saying that this officer was correct in his actions. It may warrant retraining, internal punishment, or even loss of his job. But his actions were certainly not criminal or deserving of charges.

Except the officer gave no warning. Shot first. And he was suing for excessive force and only asking money to pay for his medical bills. Not for him to go to jail. So not only does he get shot with no warning he had to pay his own medical bills.
If the officer took a few seconds to assess the situation this could have been averted.
It seems like police in the States are trained differently then in Canada. Reading comments around the web a lot of Americans seem to want to put the blame on the photographer which just blows my mind.

 

[terri]

Since the outcome of the original post is now known, I think this thread has run the course. It's also teetering into political commentary, which we prefer to keep off the site.

Thanks to all who commented. Closed.