Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
he was tackled and there was no need for him to be murdered simply because he was wearing a jacket. suicide bomber? i'm sure he would have detonated before being tackled if that was case. this is a case of police abusing their power, plain and simple.
|
Your reply seems to show that you haven't read the whole story. He wasn't shot "simply because he was wearing a jacket". He was shot because the police had every reason to believe he was a terrorirst, because he *acted* like one.
This was a case of police doing exactly what they were told to do, plain and simple.
If this was a suicide bomber, tackling and holding him down is NOT ENOUGH to stop him. He can (and will) still push the big red button. The only way to be sure he won't do that, is to shoot him. And if you shoot him, you shoot more than once, to be absolutely sure that he's dead.
The fact that he wasn't a terrorist is tragic. The incident will be investigated, and if the cops did something wrong, they will be prosecuted. However, I very much doubt that they did anything wrong. I believe that these police officers followed their "rules of engagement" to the letter, and this incident was a direct result of that. If anything, the rules may have to be amended.
Just a thought: if this had indeed been a terrorist, most people would be happy that these cops shot him. (I say "most people", because there will obviously be people that would have wanted a fair trial instead...)