General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I fully understand that this post is likely to draw very intense personal criticism but, at my age, [View all]sop
(10,156 posts)Granted, Toledo posed a risk to the officer as he was chasing him down the alley with a gun in his hand. However, the boy did not pose a threat to the officer when he stopped, turned around quickly to face the officer with both arms raised and hands empty, immediately after "throwing" the gun behind the fence. What threat did Toledo pose to the officer at that very moment?
The officer acted unreasonably because he did not take sufficient time to react appropriately to a risk. Instead, the officer shot an unarmed boy in the chest while he was facing him with arms raised and both hands empty. At that very moment, Toledo posed no threat to the officer.
This was not a legally justified shooting according to both police training and the law. It might be understandable, in the heat of the moment and considering it occurred in "EIGHT TENTHS OF A SECOND," but it's not legally justified in response to a risk. The law holds cops to a higher standard.
This shooting is only "reasonable" if one believes cops are entitled to do anything to avoid the risk of being shot. That's typically the justification behind most of these fatal encounters, but it's not how cops are trained to react to a risk. "Shoot first, ask questions later" and "better judged by twelve than carried by six" might be standard cop practice, but it's not how cops are legally entitled to react to a risk.