When the police shooting review board says the officer acted without authority or cause, you know it's a bad case. Ironically, it's also the perfect time for a prosecutor to decide to give the officer a free pass and special protection that a "mere civilian" would never get:
In a Nov. 21 report, the use-of-force board found that Wells was not in harm's way at the time and that Wells moved into the path of the car. The shooting was not necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury, the experts said.
"There was sufficient time for Officer Wells to remove himself from in front of the vehicle at any point in the encounter," the report says. "There were no obstacles that would have prevented Officer Wells from escaping from in front of the vehicle."
"They can conclude all day long it's a bad shooting. But a bad shooting does not equate to a criminal shooting. That's really the bottom line."
To summarize what happened, the guy is parking possibly illegally, the officer jumps in front of his slow moving car and opens fire when the guy won't stop parking on the grass. Do I need to even point out what would happen in most areas of the country, probably even Tennessee, if a home owner came out with a handgun and starting shooting at a driver doing anything non-threatening to his or her life on their yard? The prosecutor wouldn't even realize that not prosecuting the homeowner was a legal choice!
Ah the double standard. It's just a case of bad judgement when a police officer does something potentially murderous and stupid, but when a normal person does it, it's invariably a severe criminal offense. Both sides look out for one another, you know.
Excessive force, I disagree - it's simply more fun ;)
Wow, that level of sadomasochism you're into is just... sick... beyond all recknoning.
Bend over, I'll show ya reckoning ;)
Without passing judgement on the situation, I'm forced to ponder why the driver didn't comply with the officer's instruction, especially once the weapon was drawn?