It's doubtful anybody has ever accused me of being a bleeding liberal - but, who knows? After reading the following you may wonder.
One of the breaking news items this morning in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is about a female police officer who was allegedly assaulted at night by a 20 year old black man near Schenley High School in Pittsburgh, a town where I grew up. (The word "allegedly" is my personal tribute to any politically correct readers.)
It is similar to the report: "The victim's wife 'allegedly' slipped and stabbed her spouse 26 times in the back."
Per this article, the police responded within 5 minutes of a robbery victim's call stating the robber was a black man wearing all black.
We are told the officer shot and killed the suspect. The article says the officer was "seriously assaulted by the man before she shot him." It adds that she is in the hospital being treated for a concussion, facial wounds, and a broken nose." She is also on paid administrative leave.
The paper was kind enough to include a head shot of the suspect - suggesting either a very cooperative family member or friend, or, that the man might have previously been arrested.
The police spokesperson assures us:" Police have no doubt that the man who was killed is the same person who committed the robbery earlier in the night on Denniston Street. "We know who everybody is." said the spokesperson.
The victim of the armed robbery was not injured.
The term "armed" suggests that the suspect attempted to commit the robbery with the use of a weapon as a negotiating tool.
One other sentence in the report: "During the fight, she shot him, fatally wounding him, and police 'later' recovered the gun".
Now, I will admit my first reaction to the headline: "Officer fatally shoots armed robbery suspect in Shadyside." - was: "Great! Too many of these guys get away and nobody will come forward to identify them."
Could my reaction have also been based upon the fact that my reflexes have slowed a little since I became a septugenarian, so I have safety concerns of my own? ( don't bother to look it up. It's that horoscope sign the prophets seldom take the time to analyze or predict.)
Maybe you would not have responded in the manner I did? Maybe I've watched too many cop shows? Maybe it's an "open and shut" case?
Question: When the family's lawsuit comes -and, if past alleged gun shot fatalities at the hands of the police are any indication, it surely will - what will the plaintiff attorney for the family argue that the police did wrong?
Answer: If we're smarter than a 5th grader - and I like to think we might be - the attorney will most likely argue: "Why was it 'later' that the police recovered the gun and how do they know it was his?
Now comes a question like that which you might find on The Family Feud: "What other arguments do you think the plaintiff attorney will make?" Assume: "One hundred people were surveyed and the top 7 answers are on the board."
Hopefully, you and your family will make it to the bonus round.
Hopefully, you also do not have a female relative who has been physically assaulted by a man or who is a police officer hurt by a larger assailant in the line of duty. That could prejudice your answers to the question.
But, if not, it may help you when you next read the incredible report that: "Three police officers filled a suspect with 70 bullets because they 'had reason' to believe he was armed".
There used to be a saying: "You might as well be caught for stealing a sheep as for stealing a lamb." It may or may not be applicable to analyzing the 70 bullet scenario. (and, what were you doing hanging around sheep in the first place?)
No answers here - just questions - like the one which is the title of this blog.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment