The cop was found not guilty of murder. That does NOT mean he was found justified. He deserves no prison time because they did not get a criminal conviction. But he could certainly have an administrative review, and that review would surely show less than totally proper behavior.
Well, maybe not. The Mesa Police Department doesn’t have a good reputation here in Arizona. They MIGHT claim he deserves a medal!
Since I don’t live in Mesa, I have zero voice in Mesa politics. But I am well within my rights to be disgusted by the Mesa Police Department and by laws that make it very hard to convict a cop who shoots anyone for any reason. All I can actually DO is stay on the freeway any time I am near Mesa.
I rarely agree with David French on anything, but he makes a good point here (different case but a similar problem):
“The brief dissent was spot-on. After noting that not even qualified immunity protects the “plainly incompetent,” the dissenting judge said, “Because no competent officer would fire his weapon in the direction of a nonthreatening pet while that pet was surrounded by children, qualified immunity should not protect Officer Vickers.” This seems plainly true.”
We live in a society of rules until they are inconvenient. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen the term “rule of law” used to indicate what should be done but not necessarily right.
Reputations can be misleading. So if you are not there to get a close up look, then you only have people’s opinions.
I carried a weapon for the military for half my life so I understand training and expectations. And I will repeat what I said in a post on this thread, if you don’t like the result of the training which is your law, and your expectations, then get them changed. In the meantime, the officer accomplished what he was expected to do. We’re back to the gun killed the person, so get rid of the gun.
rwood