|
hermannr, while I think the police may have shot too quickly, I am not sure what you mean by "illegal operation."
They were responding to multiple shots fired within city limits. Nothing illegal about running to the sound of the guns; on its own, that is actually admirable.
They then saw an unarmed guy on the ground, and a semi-nude guy with a rifle, who had apparently fired those shots in the direction of the guy on the ground.
(Edit: on the ground as in not shooting down from the house, not lying in a pool of blood. Shots fired had been warning shots, to that point.)
I haven't seen the video, but apparently its audio has about one second between the order to drop the gun, and the first shots fired by the police. So they did give the order first, then shoot, even if the gap wasn't great.
OTOH, if I were taking a handgun against an M1A, I probably would not be inclined to give the rifleman too much chance to bring up the rifle, either.
(Edit: I am not sure if the officers only had handguns, or also had a patrol carbine; I think one article I encountered may have indicated that at least one officer had a rifle of some sort. Even so, an M1A is a serious threat at any reasonable distance.)
The angle the bullet followed when it hit the rifle proves nothing. Surprise could very well have caused Sturdivant to start turning toward the officers, to see who was yelling at him; he could easily have thought the burglar's friends had arrived.
I don't think the officers were necessarily wrong in how they reacted, based on the way the situation would have appeared to them. I definitely don't think their actions were criminal.
That doesn't mean I couldn't see the city or county trying to cover their collective butts, though, as there probably is a lawsuit here.
Now, if you were referring to the bait car operation as being somehow illegal, that doesn't really bear on this incident. It's merely the reason the officers and camera crew were in a position to hear and respond to the shots fired.
|