I’m afraid I don’t quite get the complaints about the number of times someone gets shot. It has similarities to the notion that cops should “shoot to wound” rather than shoot to kill.
A cop (or anybody else, FTM) should not open fire on a human being unless they have decided to kill him, hopefully with that decision justified by the facts. Once the decision to kill has been made, it seems reasonable to make sure the killing takes place by using as much lead as necessary, or more.
I have no idea whether this case was justified or not. The cops claim the guy tried to use his car as a lethal weapon, which it most certainly is, and that generally constitutes justification for shooting.
A few years back here in FL a guy gunned down a couple of cops, then hid for a day or two in the woods. When the cops finally found him he was shot something like 76 times. When the MSM indignantly asked the sheriff why he was shot 76 times, he responded, “We ran out of ammo. Next question.”
If the first shot is justified, the rest don’t matter.
I understand the need to use lethal force to get the job done, but 51 cop cars? How many officers were at the scene shooting? I’d hate to be caught in THAT crossfire.
It wouldn’t be an issue but when you shoot in self-defense, the prosecutor gets to say “Why did you shoot the “victim” 26 times. You shot him 13 times reloaded, then shot him another 13 times. How can you say you were in fear for your life and then shot him 26 times?”
So I say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t care if the police shoot a perp 7 zillion times. I just want the law to be consistent. If the cops get a pass for shooting a “suspect” a bazillion times, then a CCW holder should get an EQUAL pass for shooting a perp in his house a bazillion times.
But you know the massive double standard that let’s a cop off for doing something a CCW holder gets prosecuted or convicted for. That is my only beef.