Riot police in Ferguson. NBC.
I've been closely following the reporting and public reaction to the Ferguson. Now, I am the first to admit that the case brings up some important issues. The militarization of the police, for example, is an issue that deserves to be discussed. This isn't going to be about that though. The topic of this post deals with the issues and opinions that are either illogical or wrong. I'm not here to comment on who is guilty and who is not, I have other posts for that. This one is going to be about things people should already know due to common sense and basic education, but somehow don't. The question is when is it ok to use lethal force. I will offer a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer so I take no responsibility if you misinterpret my words and do something stupid. Educate yourself on your state laws. And of course, this is an American perspective, so if you are in a different country I won't claim to understand how your laws work.
"Shooting an unarmed person is never ok! It's not self defense if they don't have a weapon!"
This one came up in the George Zimmerman case, and it is, without a doubt, completely and utterly wrong. You don't need a weapon to kill someone. You can kill someone with your bare hands. You can kill someone with a single punch. You can be choked out, kicked to death or thrown down onto the pavement. In short it is very easy to kill someone without using a weapon. The standard for self defense isn't about whether or not someone is armed or not but if the person claiming self defense fears for there life. Since it is so pathetically easy to die in a fist fight, even accidentally, it is not unreasonable to shoot someone who is actively attacking you without a weapon. It would be unreasonable to not shoot someone who is beating the hell out of you.
"Well then, the cop should have just shot him in the leg then!"
If the officer had done that then there would be no ambiguity about whether or not he was going to prison. The first rule of gun safety is that you never point your gun at something that you aren't willing to destroy. A leg shot can easily kill someone and isn't a guaranteed way to save someones life. It's also much harder to hit then the center mass of a person. But most importantly a purposeful leg shot is never justified (unless it's the only shot you have). If the situation isn't so dire to require deadly force then you aren't allowed to shoot someone. Period. Even if you aren't trying to kills someone, even if you are trying to save a life, it is NOT justified under the law. Again, you can't use a deadly weapon to purposefully inflict a non-lethal wound if you expect to have a claim of self-defense. Cops and civilians who care about self defense all know this. Real life isn't a movie.
"He still could have used a tazer/mace/baton/bare hands!"
First of all, see above for why deadly force can be justified against someone with no weapon. Second, for the sake of argument, lets say the police account of the incident is true. Here's the recap just in case you haven't heard it before. Brown punches officer Wilson in the face, injuring him. He then walks away. Wilson, having already been attacked and injured takes out his handgun. Brown then charges and gets shot. Again, for the sake of argument assume this is true. I said before that punch to the face could have very well killed Wilson. He already almost died once so lethal force would be called for. The other options, like Tazers, mace or melee weapons aren't designed to be used when your life is on the line. They are for when people are resisting arrest. So if the police account was true using a less then lethal weapon when you are fighting for your life is stupid. The gun was the right weapon to use, if you believe the police account.
"But Brown was shot SIX TIMES! No way is that justified!"
How many of those shots were lethal? From what I understand 4 of the 6 shots were in the arm and upper chest and some of them were grazes. Only the last two, to the face and head, were the kind of hits that were likely to end a threat immediately. People can and have fought on with serious injuries. Only a shot to the spine, heart, brain or lungs are likely to disable a person quickly. Getting shot four times in the arm, while potentially lethal, will not end the threat immediately. There is no such thing as overkill when you are being charged or attacked, you shoot until the person can't fight anymore.
Also, people tend to underestimate how hard it is to shoot accurately with a pistol. I have some experience with firearms and let me tell you, it is hard enough to hit a stationary target with any degree of accuracy. Try doing it in a combat situation, while injured, and with a hostile and moving target. It is not easy. You will take as many shots as you can because you will miss. If that means someones sensibilities are hurt because they watch to many movies and don't understand how guns work then so be it.
So why post this? I care about self defense. People should know the standards for the use of force. It should be taught in schools. And by doing so we could prevent things like the Michael Brown case from happening. Even if the police are completely wrong about the case and even if Darren Wilson is a cold blooded killer, the version of events they portray is a valid case of self defense. The question is whether or not the evidence supports the defense. I'll leave that up to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment