Strange as it is to find myself agreeing with Sotomayor, in this case I do. We are giving police free rein to shoot first. That should be the last possible course of action.
The U.S. Constitution was written at a time when there was no such thing as a "police officer" as we now have them, and it would have been inconceivable for people to call in "the law" to deal with a petty dispute like this between two adults.
Me too
I agree. Deadly force should only be used when there is a credible threat to someone’s safety. I’m not seeing that here.
If the event happened as the article states I agree also. Bad shoot.
Strange as it is to find myself agreeing with Sotomayor, in this case I do. We are giving police free rein to shoot first. That should be the last possible course of action.
I tend to agree, though I’m sure it’s a case by case situation. How is this different than the FBI being allowed to breach the constitutional rights of their targets, in non-life threatening situations?
We have ALWAYS given free rein to perps to STOP!first. That should be their FIRST possible course of action.
First, the Townhall report is faultly, never introducing Chadwick but fist mentioning him as one who said said “take it easy.”
Reuters provides needed details:
Three university police officers went to the off-campus Tucson home that Hughes shared with her friend Sharon Chadwick after receiving a call about a woman acting erratically and hacking a tree with a knife.
Chadwick said in an affidavit that prior to the shooting, Hughes had threatened to kill Chadwick’s dog Bunny with a knife over a $20 magazine subscription. Chadwick went outside to her car to retrieve money from her purse when Hughes followed her outside, still holding the knife, according to court records.
Chadwick said Hughes had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was taking medication, and that she sometimes acted inappropriately but was never actually violent.
The three officers arrived at the edge of the metal yard fence and drew their guns. Hughes did not respond to orders to drop the knife as she walked toward Chadwick, and Kisela opened fire, according to court records. Kisela told investigators he saw Hughes raise her knife, but the other officers said they did not. - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/04/03/scotus-ruling-on-police-shooting-n2467046
Thus we have two females sharing a home, one with manifest mental issues and threatening the life of a dog, and a solitary police officer seeing her raise her knife, and thus shoots her to stop an attack.
From where i see it, one office should have approached her to distract her from Chadwick and engage her in dialog, and tased her if necessary, or another PO could have grabbed her arm firmly, and disarmed her.
However, if you threaten to kill even a dog, and walk outside with a knife, and do not respond to the orders of a PO, who have guns drawn, then you are asking for force to be used against you. Yet one bullet should have sufficed. But then you have this: California lawmakers propose legislation restricting when officers can open fire was no reason