Was deadly force necessary in Capitol shooting?: " . . . Michael Lyman, a former criminal investigator who has studied use-of-force guidelines for police, said the woman's inability to penetrate barriers around the White House downgraded the situation from a national security concern to an "old-fashioned pursuit." From that point on, he said, officers should have tried to use other means to stop the car. "Shooting at a moving vehicle is against all nationally recognized protocols," said Lyman, a criminal justice professor at Columbia College of Missouri. Lyman said the possibility of accidentally striking innocent bystanders is just too high when trying to shoot at a moving car. "Cops get rattled," he said. "And when they get rattled, police don't always shoot straight.". . ."
Nor do "rattled cops" think straight.
Was police shooting of unarmed woman outside Capitol justified? - Investigations: "Law enforcement officials who briefed NBC News on the case said that officers fired a total of 26 rounds at the driver, 34-year-old Miriam Carey of Stamford, Conn., who never left her vehicle."
But the police executioners just mirror-imaged the Washington mindset of the Bush-Obama era -- paranoid, overreacting, overreaching, big-brother government police state. The police and federal agents psyched themselves into thinking a threat existed which did not. Perception over reality.
Was it really necessary to gun down, in Chicago gang-banging style, an unarmed woman in her car with an infant child last week in DC? No, but does it matter anymore in America?
Tweet Follow @johnmpoole