On Wednesday, March 13, the Napa County District Attorney's Office released surveillance footage of a shooting by an American Canyon police officer in Vallejo
Additionally, someone is innocent until proven guilty and that’s not the cops job. The cop shot someone not guilty and now people are speculating about the crimes that person could have done to justify it
I dunno. Brandishing is a misdemeanor in CA and it doesn’t sound like there was any probable cause to believe that the guy posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.
Seems like shooting someone in the back as they run away while discarding their weapon is questionable at best.
This is an interesting ethical dilemma which I don’t know if there’s a clear cut answer. It’s a variation of the trolley problem (sort of). I think it depends a lot on the risk assessment being made. I don’t know the details of this particular case, but I can think of plenty of examples where a potential future danger should be limited by direct action. I’m happy to provide examples if you’re interested in exploring this thought further. I don’t know that I have a simple yes/no answer to this dilemma (also why I never became a cop).
“Somebody could potentially have been in danger later” doesn’t justify murder.
Additionally, someone is innocent until proven guilty and that’s not the cops job. The cop shot someone not guilty and now people are speculating about the crimes that person could have done to justify it
Actually, the Fleeing Felon rule explicitly does allow for deadly force in this case.
I dunno. Brandishing is a misdemeanor in CA and it doesn’t sound like there was any probable cause to believe that the guy posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.
Seems like shooting someone in the back as they run away while discarding their weapon is questionable at best.
Running away from a traffic stop?
Really?
What’s next? Jaywalking?
You guys don’t understand he just kept crossing the street!
This is an interesting ethical dilemma which I don’t know if there’s a clear cut answer. It’s a variation of the trolley problem (sort of). I think it depends a lot on the risk assessment being made. I don’t know the details of this particular case, but I can think of plenty of examples where a potential future danger should be limited by direct action. I’m happy to provide examples if you’re interested in exploring this thought further. I don’t know that I have a simple yes/no answer to this dilemma (also why I never became a cop).
Of course it doesn’t because that “somebody” isn’t someone you know. If that “someone” is your family, what do you suggest he do?