"Details were released Wednesday after a suspect shot at a police officer, opening fire on a N.J. highway, police said.
...
While investigating the abandoned vehicle, the officers observed a man in a nearby field. The man fired multiple shots at the officers after he was instructed to come out of the field, according to the HCPO.
The officers were able to successfully place the suspect in custody without returning fire. A thorough search of the area was conducted, and it was determined there were no other persons involved and no threat to the public, according to the HCPO."
http://patch.com/new-jersey/baskingridge/suspect-shoots-cop-opening-fire-n-j-highway-police
First and foremost, kudos to the officers, who acted professionally, and apprehended a dangerous criminal. It is officers like these who represent what or police force should be. Moreover, i would have had no problem with these officers returning fire, either. If someone shoots at a citizen, that is certainly grounds for the police to employ such force themselves.
That being said, why is it that in several other cases we see discussed here, officers are compelled to shoot at the slightest hint of a possibility of a chance that the citizen might do something? If we can apprehend someone who actively shot at officers without resorting to shooting them, then surely, when there are 5+ officers for 1 unarmed suspect, shooting isn't necessary, is it? Obviously, not every situation is identical, or even similar, and what happened here doesn't translate into "police officers never need to use their guns" or any other such absurd notion, but it does call into question how quickly some officers resort to lethal force.
...
While investigating the abandoned vehicle, the officers observed a man in a nearby field. The man fired multiple shots at the officers after he was instructed to come out of the field, according to the HCPO.
The officers were able to successfully place the suspect in custody without returning fire. A thorough search of the area was conducted, and it was determined there were no other persons involved and no threat to the public, according to the HCPO."
http://patch.com/new-jersey/baskingridge/suspect-shoots-cop-opening-fire-n-j-highway-police
First and foremost, kudos to the officers, who acted professionally, and apprehended a dangerous criminal. It is officers like these who represent what or police force should be. Moreover, i would have had no problem with these officers returning fire, either. If someone shoots at a citizen, that is certainly grounds for the police to employ such force themselves.
That being said, why is it that in several other cases we see discussed here, officers are compelled to shoot at the slightest hint of a possibility of a chance that the citizen might do something? If we can apprehend someone who actively shot at officers without resorting to shooting them, then surely, when there are 5+ officers for 1 unarmed suspect, shooting isn't necessary, is it? Obviously, not every situation is identical, or even similar, and what happened here doesn't translate into "police officers never need to use their guns" or any other such absurd notion, but it does call into question how quickly some officers resort to lethal force.
