yes, when you are 1 cop, 1 huge guy is more of threat then if you are a dozen cops against one kid with a pitchfork.
When you are alone, if things go south, no one is there to back you up.
You are partially right. Being the only officer at a scene with a violent person puts the officer in a vulnerable position. For one, he or she can be disarmed and have their service weapon used on them or
on other civilians. Ergo, when struggling with a firearm when someone is attempting to disarm you, some are taught to fire their weapon "dry."
But use of deadly force per the law is pretty similar for law enforcement and civilians. I say similar because law enforcement are given a bit more leeway to shot someone. For example, if a person is considered dangerous to other civilians while fleeing (meaning he might seriously harm or kill other civilians) an officer is allowed to shoot the fleeing person in the back.
For us civilians if you shot a person in the back, even in the middle of the night as they are fleeing your house as an armed intruder, you would get brought up on felony homicide charges.
But "deadly force" as it is called can only be used by security and law enforcement personnel in protection of one's life, the life of others, or as I was taught about two decades ago in Marine Security Forces (guarding tactical nukes, classified materials etc.)... "in protection of property." I'm not sure if law enforcement and civilian security guards can use deadly force in protection of property. Civilians can't under Wisconsin state law as I understand it.
A cop can't shot an unarmed man or child surrendering and posing no threat or serious bodily harm to the cop or others. That would be extra-judicial execution. Something a cop is not warranted by the city, state, or U.S. Federal Government to carry out.
However, if Michael Brown was charging at the officer, especially if the officer was not outfitted on his body with a stun gun, he may well have been warranted shooting Michael Brown. Especially in context of other things that may have given what the law calls "a reasonable person" grounds to fear serious bodily harm (not death) or death from another. Size of the person would matter. If the person had just assaulted you would matter too.
Given the cop did not have a "tight group" of bullet shots into Michael Brown, I suspect the cop was under stress. That stress could including a moving target. I've seen Marines on the pistol range shoot tight groups into stationary targets. They could fit a quarter (coin) over 2 or 3 of their bullet holes all grouped together. But some of those same Marines shooting at moving targets stress out and their shots are all over the place. I was never very good shooting the pistol even at a stationary target. Through practice I got well enough that drawing from the holster I could land all 2 or 3 shots in the upper body. But there would be no tight group. I could hit the moving targets the same. But sometimes when shooting, especially from jerking the trigger, if I was aiming at the targets head, I might more or less hit the target were a man's nuts might be.
The vast majority of law enforcement and military personnel, or just people in general, don't shoot very well under duress, when they have a person coming at them. This means most people will not fire "tight groups" into an attacking person. Many get what's called "tunnel vision" too supposedly. There's not much
training that can overcome that. Experience with real life violent gun incidents might, but little controlled training can do. That said... it speaks well enough of a cops shooting skills if he or she can place all or the vast majority of his or her shots into the body of an attacker 25 feet away. The
average civilian would likely miss all or most shots they fire while under the same stress, and hit innocent by standards.
Shooting a pistol
accurately is a lot hard than they portray on TV shows. Aiming and hitting moving people in the leg (although major arteries are in the legs, besides bullets can travel upward into the body) is nearly totally fictional. It happens really, only on TV and in the movies.
The pitchfork by the way... would be a deadly weapon. Thus authorizing the use of deadly force by cops if even one of them felt threatened. Especially if the suspect is a
known murderer.
I'm not white, and I got shot 3 times by a cop. I had a knife, but disarmed myself, and then quickly approached him to engage him but he shot me 3 times before I reached him. He did not have a stun gun on him.
My case was more justified than the controversy in Milwaukee over the cop shot a mentally ill man (black) 14 times (killing him) after they got into a big scuffle. The cop was right to shoot him, as the guy took the cops baton and hit over the head or neck with it supposedly. However, I have to question shooting the guy 14 times. The police chief of Milwaukee fired the cop, because according to the police chief while he was justified in shooting the man, he broke police procedure dealing with thew mentally ill by starting a confrontation with the guy. That's what the police chief says anyways. The police union is appealing the firing of the cop.
Recap: Officer's firing latest chapter in nearly six-month Dontre Hamilton story - TODAY'S TMJ4
MILWAUKEE - Wednesday's announcement that the officer who shot and killed Dontre Hamilton would be fired comes about five and a half months after the incident itself.
Was this excessive force, or justified use of force? That's been the question at the center of the investigation since April 30. Despite the officer's firing Wednesday, that question is still unanswered.