Police Officers Shoot Fire Chief In Courtroom.

[neoolong]

You'd think they might have mentioned that by now though.

[Wing Commander MAD]

@Sith:
Good point, I suppose being overly cuatious is as bad or worse than not taking any precautions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Doesn't Fairley mean the right to shoot him in the back?

That's a screwed up situation. Is there no oversight for local cops? State-level or something?

There might be something that we're not aware of because I don't see how a prosecutor would tell the media that the police won't face charges for shooting a man in the back unless he were doing something that justified it like for example he was about to smash an officers face...

Would you call a physical altercation with an officer a "good shoot"? I would not call a scuffle with an officer to be sufficient justification. Care to enlighten?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Would you call a physical altercation with an officer a "good shoot"? I would not call a scuffle with an officer to be sufficient justification. Care to enlighten?

Well, in my example I cited "smashing an officers face" as action that would justify the use of deadly force. A police officer, or anyone, can use deadly force to protect themself from death or serious bodily injury (injury which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty)

That being said it certainly doesn't sound like that is the case, and I don't think it is either. However, I'm speculating on what could possibly make the shoot justified. So, to answer your question it would depend on the circumstances in the physical altercation.

[White Haven]

In a situation like this, if there was a legitimate justification for the shooting, would the prosecutor not be, er, mentioning that? Because it's pretty obvious that not providing a justification isn't working out too well here.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In a situation like this, if there was a legitimate justification for the shooting, would the prosecutor not be, er, mentioning that? Because it's pretty obvious that not providing a justification isn't working out too well here.

I don't think there is a legitimate justification for the shooting, but even if there were the prosecutor is not required to satisfy the media especially when it's likely that the Fire Chiefs attorney will be suing the department and/or city.