No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself “Well, he must have been shot because he’s rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover.”
After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed “reasonable”? What?
Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can’t differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is “REASONABLE”?
From what I read, they didn’t shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant’s actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up.
Wait, he’s not?
No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself “Well, he must have been shot because he’s rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover.”
After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed “reasonable”? What?
Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can’t differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is “REASONABLE”?
From what I read, they didn’t shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant’s actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up.
They were shooting at their own car because the unarmed, handcuffed man that they thought had just shot one of them was locked in the back seat.
Ah sorry, you’re right. I misread the article thinking they were all at or in the SUV.