License to Kill?

For one New Orleans resident, at least, all it takes for the Po-Po to be justified in shooting to kill is the Po-Po's perception of a threat. That's it. Read it to believe it:

Re: "Law and disorder," Page 1, Dec. 18.

A the time of Katrina I was a New Orleans police officer working in the city. The recent series of articles about police shootings after Katrina was some of the most biased tripe that I've ever read.

Any individual -- citizen or police officer -- placed in a position where he perceives a threat of death or great bodily injury to himself or others is allowed to use deadly force to stop that perceived threat.

In every instance cited in the series, law enforcement officers used the force necessary to end the perceived threat. The fact that Monday morning quarterbacking revealed that the threat might not have been what others perceived it to be is irrelevant.

Individuals act with the information they have. Perceived life and death situations do not allow someone to second-guess what another's motives may be.

As far as a follow-up investigation to a shooting, all one really needs to learn is: Was there a perceived threat? Did you stop that threat using the force you felt necessary?

Obviously, others may not perceive the threat the same way. Their thoughts on the matter are not germane.

A seven-minute interview of an individual involved in a shooting would answer all the basic questions. Further questioning and investigations usually only explore the mechanics of the situation for reconstruction purposes and provide conflicting views of what others perceived.

I wonder whether someone confronted by an individual who says "give me the cash or I'll blow you away" would be considered justified in shooting the individual if they did not see a gun. I, for one, would shoot that individual until the perceived threat was ended.

What would a reporter perceive if he saw me pull out a gun and shoot an individual who just appeared to be standing in front of me? In the cited instances in the articles, every police officer reported a perceived threat from an armed individual!

Harry O'Neal
Lacombe

It's one of the most fascist rationalizations of the abuse of authority and a disturbing justification of an unchecked and unaccountable use of deadly force that I have ever heard expressed.

Really, according to Mr. Harry O'Neal, if a kid holding a lollipop gets shot by a cop, the cop is in the clear as long as the cop perceived a threat from an armed individual. Does Mr. O'Neal not believe that police officers should be held to account for their actions precisely because they wield the badge and the weapons, and behave in the name of the people? Doesn't Mr. O'Neal believe that police are specifically trained not to shoot at people without verifying that the threat is real as opposed to simplying perceiving a threat in the recesses of his imagination?

Does Mr. O'Neal not understand the license he gives to officers when he says that all that matters is the cop's opinion on the subject and that the truth is irrelevant and secondary to the cop's opinion? I'd ask Mr. O'Neal two questions: (1) Does he think a cop can ever abuse his authority and kill another person without proper cause? (2) Does he know a cop who has killed another person who ever said that he didn't perceive a threat? I'd bet anything that the answer to the first question is "Yes" and the answer ot the second question is "No." But the irony is that in Mr. O'Neal's world, that combination of answers is impossible. It is impossible because Mr. O'Neal believes that a cop who kills because he claims simply that he perceived a threat always kills with proper cause. In fact, Mr. O'Neal argues that even if it is revealed post-facto that the perceived threat was not a real threat after all, that makes no difference. The truth is irrelevant. All that matters is what the cop perceived -- even if the cop "perceived" a kid holding a lollipop as a thug holding a gun.


I suspect Mr. O'Neal is blind to the fact that he is basically arguing that any cop who shoots another person in cold blood has to account to no one other than his own perception. I propose, however, that citizens who pay the salaries of their law enforcement officers have every right to question whether the perception of threat that a cop says led to his shooting a suspect is legitimate or not. I do not accept that just because the cop says so, then it must be so. If it were Mr. O'Neal's lollipop-holding son on the deadly end of an enounter with a delusional trigger-happy cop, he wouldn't be so disposed simply to accept that the killer of his son gets a pass just because he perceived a threat. It's folks like Mr. O'Neal who let men with guns give the middle finger to the rule of law.