I don't havethe full story on this yet; but from what I heard this morningI must ask why an officer needed (or felt the need) to discharge his weapon 31 times in this instance. Was he that bad a shot? After the first hit; did he not notice that the subject was down? Why was it necessary to keep shooting if there was no fire coming from the victim?
These situations are what damage the image of police everywhere- sometimes irreparably.
Personally, I think the Justice Department will need to re-open and investigate this case. There are far too many inconsistencies in the facts. I can understand an officer shooting to protect himself,or in securing the safety of innocent parties being threatened. I also understand that sometimes intentions can be misread by officers in certain situations.
But I cannot understand how the officers still felt threatened enough to keep firing when they recieved no fire in the first place. Just how many shots do you need to render a potential criminal helpless?
I can almost guarantee that this will not be the last we'll hear of this case.