If you are a journalist (because as I understand after that interview you have looked that up?), could you cite the law that forbids a law enforcer to ask about potential life threat to people in public? You know the ones he is responsible for protecting and eliminating threats? Unsecured gun on passanger's seat is a mishandled gun that can fire a round i.e. if it tumbles down from the seat when car skids etc. The law or its interpretation sounds really absurd, so I'd love to see how it is framed in words.Kyrian007 said:I really shouldn't comment on this one, I'm a local journalist covering this incident because it happened in my hometown. But I'll just leave this interesting tidbit. For whatever its worth, just one week prior to this tragedy my news director interviewed our police chief. One of his comments sticks with me. He was speaking about the dangers in law enforcement and some of the things that makes it a difficult profession. He commented that; say a police officer pulls someone over and approaches the car. Then that officer sees a gun, on the passenger seat. Lying there, unsecured, within arms reach of the driver. The Chief then told us that we live in a state where it is illegal for that officer to ask the driver or anyone in the car any questions about the gun. The officer can't ask who owns the gun, if anyone has a concealed carry permit, why it is just sitting on the passenger seat... nothing. I remembered thinking at the time seems a small wonder the police haven't faced more incidents where they shoot first and kill a completely innocent person. And then this happened.
On top of that, this has naught to do with the story in which only guns fired were the ones professionals held. I understand that constalnt life threat puts on a lot of pressure on officers on the streets (so i.e. the ones in 'bad neighborhoods' become more prone to use force because they constantly have to use it to protect themselves). However anti-terrorist teams should have been completely different breed, they're always under that pressure by default and job description even in countries in which carrying or even owning a gun is prohibited.
Did the victim pull out the gun? Did Police sent in recon first to investigate and verify the threat (what was the report from them i.e. they were unable to confirm or disprove so armed officers went in anyway)? Did the victim had criminal record or was 'known to any of the officers' (i.e. someone advised this course of action based on priorly obtained knowledge)? I'd ask these questions.
That tidbit you mention is important too, just not in the context of this crime. If the law is that bad it has to be changed and I suppose both law enforcers and people who own guns leaglly would support officer being able to enforce gun safety rules on the owner and possibility to verify misplaced gun ownership.