crashfrog writes:
I don't fault the cops in the Amadou Diallo case - they were approaching a man who matched the description of the violent criminal they were chasing, he turned and grabbed something under his jacket, then a shot went off and one of the cops stumbled.
A very charitable description of events. Chasing a violent criminal makes it sound like there was a hot pursuit. The police were aware of an uncaptured serial rapist. But they weren't actively chasing the criminal from the scene of a crime. Meets the description is here a euphemism for matching a very generic profile of the serial rapist.
Apparently Diallo matched "some features" of the rapist. I'm guessing young, broad nose, and brown eyes.
Finally, why does the cop who stumbled get a free pass. Did Diallo drop a banana peel? "A shot went off" means a policeman fired a shot. The policeman stumbled only after at least one shot had been fired.
I can agree that at the instant triggers were pulled, the cops made the best decision they could. But some of the misinformation was created by the police.
We can certainly fault the investigative tactics used here, and the police who employed them. The tactics used here created a situation where the slightest mistake would be fatal, regardless of Diallo's guilt. The Special Patrol Group, or whatever they called the four policemen [Street Crime Unit] was disbanded because of this incident.
Similarly we can question the circumstances surrounding the decision to enter Guerena's house at a given time of day.