Pretty silly, agreed. It's not as though the driver's actions (driving his car) constituted a threat of any kind. Thus it's impossible to believe that attempting to kill the man was the only "split-second" option available. It's hard to see how firing upon a non-threat was considered an option at all.
Originally Posted by chuckusaret
It's tantamount to one of us firing upon someone "daring" to walk towards us on a sidewalk in our neighborhood.
Assuming what's been reported in the news and stated by the department is true, this is gross incompetence in the extreme, IMO. Time to be extremely heavy handed in going after those responsible for such actions, including the leadership/trainers that failed in their duty to instill any sense of judicious citizenship on these people. They hired to protect us, not to kill us in cold blood.
The best protection the citizens of the LA area have right now is the apparent dismal marksmanship of the people sworn to "Serve and Protect" them. Kind of makes you wonder just how much that sworn oath really means to them. Granted, they need to get Dorner, but the newspaper ladies and baggage handlers should be relatively safe from them. The law of averages favors it not being much longer before someone is killed by reckless shooting?
This probably has nothing to do with it, but I can't help wondering if the California Cops will start enforcing the law against tinted side windows.
From the article....
But the pickups were different makes and colors. And Perdue looks nothing like Dorner: He's several inches shorter and about a hundred pounds lighter. And Perdue is white; Dorner is black.
Cop #1 -- Hey its the wrong color.
Cop #2 -- He must have painted it.
Cop #1 -- But the guy in the pickup is white.
Cop #2 -- He must have on some sort of makeup. Open fire!!!!!!!!!!!
Makes sense to me... :rolleyes: