Officers weigh many factors in use of force
I'm going to stop at the headline. There is only one factor in the use of deadly force: does this person have the means, motive and opportunity to cause me serious injury or death and do I belive that is his intent.
When a Silverton police officer fired five bullets into an unarmed man who was charging toward him and defying orders to get down, he followed the basic premise of deadly police force: he shot to kill.
And this first sentence shows the bias in the media. Instead of saying "when a Sivlerton officer defended himself from and illegal alien who threatended him" they say "unarmed man" who "defied orders."
Gonzalez reportedly fired his gun as he was backing away from Hanlon, who was screaming, kicking and swinging his arms at the officer.
Despite the grand jury's finding of a justified shooting, Hanlon's family remains adamant that deadly force wasn't necessary. As they tell it, Hanlon was agitated on the night of the shooting and possibly in the throes of mental illness.
What does "possibly in the throse of mental illness" even mean? And how does that differ from "possibly in the throes of drug addiction" or "possibly in the throes of a murderous rampage" when an officer (or civillian) is threatened?
We can't ask our police to inquire if suspects who threaten them had a troubled childhood or are feeling a little crazy before making a decision that they think is neccessary to protect their lives.
If you have a family member that is mentally ill perhaps you yourself should make some financial or time sacrifice to get that person some help before you ask a cop to sacrifice his life.