If we were making the rules, officers of the law would be immune to criminal liability in all cases where the subject was killed while fleeing or resisting arrest. Job termination and prohibition against holding other (armed) law enforcement jobs would be the full extent of correction in such cases.
If Derek Chauvin had been fired (as he should have been), following his altercation with Lamar Ferguson, then quite obviously he would never have killed George Floyd.
Those who think that we intend to encourage the use of deadly force are jumping to foolish conclusions.
Also this: Why has there been nothing stated about what an officer is expected to do in a case where the subject is fleeing (either on foot or in a vehicle), seeing as it is fairly often that such cases are reported, with the officer shooting at the subject, sometimes fatally?
Our verdict would be that any officer who uses a firearm outside the auspices of their training should be terminated. Their training, however, should not restrain them from using deadly force in defense of their own well-being.
To submit a letter
Send by email to email@example.com and include name and hometown. Letters never publish anonymously. Letters are limited to 500 words on topics of public interest and may be edited for content and length. Writers are limited to one letter per month. Letters may be rejected from readers with no ties to Northeast Georgia or that address personal, business or legal disputes. Letters not the work of the author listed or with material not properly attributed will be rejected. Letter writers may hyperlink portions of their letters to sources of their information. Letters and other commentary express the opinions of the authors and not of The Times.