“Notwithstanding any of the foregoing though...”
There is no information in the article concerning the ROE of the department in question, so I don’t see how you can blame “the policy”. Even if the jurisdiction has been sued in the past, it’d be like saying that because murder still occurs in the U.S., that murder is “policy” or legal.
Also, I don’t agree that the article makes the case for a “tenuous record”.
It indicates a false report in 96 where the partner got fired and not the officer in question here. So he’s to blame for his partner?
It also indicates that “Last week, area resident Jeff Westbrook came forward to say ...” which is interesting, but nothing about charges filed in that situation.
So, his partner getting busted 17 years ago and someone coming up to talk to a reporter investigating this is hardly what I’d call a tenuous record.
The other blurb in there about a 24 million verdict concerns another case won by the lawyer pressing this one.
There is also nothing in that article concerning 10 rounds fired. I count 2. When it says he continued to fire after the kid dropped, that “continue to fire” could simply be the second shot.
It seems to me this article is deliberately written to arouse anger without revealing the critical facts. If there had been 10 rounds fired, why not mention it?
As far as the tragedy of shooting an innocent 13 year old, I agree, but had this not been an innocent 13 year old, I wouldn’t have as much sympathy.
<>There is also nothing in that article concerning 10 rounds fired. I count 2. When it says he continued to fire after the kid dropped, that “continue to fire” could simply be the second shot.<>
He fired 8 times. 7 rounds hit him in the right side and buttocks. The first shot killed him. The rest were fired while he was on the ground.
You will find the facts in these posts so that there is no excuse for being unaware of the facts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3088015/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3087714/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3087417/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3087193/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086698/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086672/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086669/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3086671/posts
.....the gut thesis of what I wrote was that as of today, we don’t have enough information to conclude to a “legal” certainty that Gelhaus was to blame. You raise several issues that bolster my case on that point.
The report on ten rounds I have definitely heard several times though it could be wrong too. Bottom line, we are going to have to wait for the investigative/prosecutorial process to run it’s course.
Where we differ is on the subject of “policy”, or “policies”. I believe that nation wide the “policy” for running up on a similar scene is that: “if an officer feels threatened he/she is justified to open fire and ask questions later”. If I am right on that, then I also believe that that is the wrong policy. If you support that policy, then you support more “scared” cops, “afraid for their own personal safety” rolling up on similar scenes in the future and just opening fire leaving more dead women kids and old men and the taxpayers stuck with the multi-million dollar bills.
I believe, as I have said previously on FR, that these cops who are scared out of their shoes (usually by their own admission) and there are many, need to go find another job. And, starting immediately, police departments need to realize and admit that not everyone is mentally equipped to be a cop and handle these type situations. We need cops that are not so scared when they encounter this scenario that their judgment goes right out the window and innocent people routinely (seems the rule, not the exception) end up dead. Just “opening fire” like this cop did is the wrong policy evidenced by one dead and innocent kid.
The REAL problem is and we all know it on FR that another “policy” is substantially at fault too and that is “hiring policy”. Cops are not hired because their big strong, tough, mean sum bitches with excellent thinking skills under duress (think Seals). They are hired because of their gender, sexual preference, ethnicity and so on which directly leads to these kind of incidences when you turn these type people loose on the street with a gun and a badge. It’s not a big mystery at all.