Just as with war coverage, it's all too easy to watch it or read about it and sit back and judge those involved. Were we involved personaly we might see things much differantly. Then too, often enough there is no 100% right answer branded in black and white. Sometimes the best choice is simply a shade of grey at best. I've worked in law enforcement, as have and do, many members of my family on many differant levels, and one thing I know for certain. Something is terribly wrong when the criminals have more rights that the victoms. Law officers get mighty tired and disillusioned when time after time the bad guy is back on the street before the officer even has finished his paper work. Criminals get out and go right back to doing what put them in in the first place. A little more street wise and harder to catch the next time. Often, the prosecuting Attorney is to blame. They like easy, sure fire wins where cases are concerned. Then too, think how often someone is murdered by a felon who did a light sentence for murder and was let out to kill someone else. It's scary how often that happens. A guy breaks into your home at two in the morning, you shoot him and don't kill him, and even with the "Castle Law" there's a good chance he can, and will, sue you. He might not win but he can sure cost you money, time and grief. Laws are meant to be enforced but all too often they are open to interpetation. In this case, some of you are blaming the criminal. Some the officer. But fact is, the criminal is the one who put himself in the situation to begin with. Don't necesarily make the officer right, or wrong. But it clearly makes the criminal wrong now don't it? Frankly, the officer will probably face a review of the incident. Not my place to judge him. That's what his superiors are paid to do.
