Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest - View Single Post - Can someone explain this ruling?
View Single Post
Old October 11th, 2006, 04:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
jamiesann's Avatar
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods
Posts: 2,888
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Originally Posted by fr3db3ar
My point is that police do go through weapons proficiency......if they thought he was only a danger to himself I believe a shoulder wound or 2 could have been sufficient......but then again...I wasn't there so it's hard to judge. It just seems messed up from the outside looking in without more details.

Personally I'd have been Wyatt Earp and shot the gun from his hand.....but hey....this way....he can't sue :shrug:
dont feel bad i just found out a few years ago when the detroit case happened with the shovel wielding psycho ... the cops are supposed to eliminate the threat ie shoot to kill. Wounding guys, shooting guns out of a robbers hands etc thats hollywood. Real life cops are supposed to shoot you dead, no maimeing you and then rush you to the hospital and wish you a speedy recovery. Again, if they were to shoot this guy in the shoulder and he stabs his mom, his father would end up sueing the police. You gotta eliminate the threat.
jamiesann is offline   Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.12503 seconds with 22 queries