by Darrick U. Hall
Antwon Rose: For the sake of argument, let’s say that Antwon Rose and his associates did commit the shooting and the police pursued the right suspects. The fact remains that Mr Rose had absolutely no intentions to pose a threat to the police, nor did he have any intentions on engaging the police violently. That fact was evident by Mr. Rose’s choice to abandon two firearms in the car and by running AWAY from the police. Regardless if Mr. Rose was involved in the shooting beforehand, Mr. Rose still did not pose a threat to the police while running away, therefore he should not have been shot in the back as he was attempting to flee. No one should be shot in the back. For example, if someone unlawfully enters someone else’s home with the intention to burglarize it, and the homeowner is home. If that homeowner retrieves a firearm, once the burglar attempts to flee away from the homeowner, if that homeowner follows the burglar and thereby shoots him in the back, that homeowner will be held accountable. That is because the homeowner only has the right to use lethal force when his or her life is in direct danger. Once the burglar turns to flee, the threat is abated, so lethal force is no longer necessary. So the question is, why do we hold average citizens accountable and to a higher standard when discharging their firearms, and do not hold a TRAINED police officer accountable? Now I am not anti-police, but they must be held accountable under such circumstances and to a higher standard because of their training. The officer that discharged his firearm was more likely anxious due to it being his first day on the job, and he may not had any malicious intent, but the fact remains that the incident still occurred and that he had the proper training, therefore he must be held to some level of accountability.