laughing dog
Contributor
If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.The guy was trying to take the cop's taser and it appears the shot was provoked by his getting it. At that range he very well might be able to use it on the cop before the cop can react.It used to be that cowardice was the presumption of shooting someone in the back until sufficient evidence showed otherwise.You might think so but that doesn't mean you're correct.One would think that shooting someone in the BACK OF THE HEAD would not indicate the shooter was in a situation of "undue risk".It's not a job for cowards, you are absolutely right.Yes. It's not a job for cowards.
Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.
If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.
At the same time, we should not expect cops to take on undue risk just to reduce risk to perps.
Are you seriously arguing that shooting someone in the back of the head is justified because of what they might do? Do you really how effed up that is?Action is faster than reaction.
"Action is faster than reaction" literally justifies any pre-emptive strike. It is carte blance for killing by the police.
Sorry, your apologia is unconvincing.