NOLA police shot and killed a man after he threatened them with a knife in a videotaped standoff. The man not only refused to put down the knife, even after being maced by the officers, but he then lunged at one of the policemen, who then promptly ended his life.

So what’s the big deal?

MSNBC is trying to turn this into the next Rodney King. I wonder how long it will take for someone to mention the fact that there were white officers involved and the suspect was a black man. It just happened…give it some time.

Check out this exchange between MSNBC and the NOLA Chief of Police in the Totally Exclusive Interview(tm):

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, GUEST HOST: I guess a lot of people are simply wondering why this man had to die. Why didn’t the police just incapacitate him?

CHIEF WARREN RILEY, NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT: Why didn’t we incapacitate him?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Shoot him in the leg, for example.

RILEY: Well, I think our officers gave him every opportunity and every option to put the weapon down. We used force other than our weapons, as it relates to using the mace, which had no effect on the subject. Officers were extremely patient, giving him verbal instructions numerous times, until the person actually raised the knife and lunged at a police officer, at which time he was shot.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I don’t want to sound like I’m second guessing because it’s easy to ask questions sitting in a chair here. You’re out there in the field. A lot of people are wondering why not shoot him in the leg, or for example, taser guns? I understand that your department, the officers do not carry taser guns. Why not?

Because if they’re not dead, they can still kill you, oh Jane of the nonexistent logical powers. Notice that she says herself, “I don’t want to sound like I’m second guessing,” yet she plunges right on anyway, doing exactly that.

The moral of this story is, as long as you pretend to care and fake having a clue, you can say what you like and all the moonbats will cheer because they’re not bright enough to know any better. Wait. Code Pink already taught us that.

Never mind.

Crossposted at Euphoric Reality.

Said Kit Jarrell @ 2:42 pm | Permalink   

1. Group: Police Justified in La. Shooting

   The officers who gunned down a knife-wielding man appeared to be justified in using lethal force, bu

   Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 12/28/2005 @ 3:16 pm

---

2. Here in Northern Virginia, a fellow went on a Christmas Day murder spree. No complaints directed at the police, however, because the fellow killed himself.

   The police should have the right to defend themselves. They take a lot of crap as it is.

   Comment by Always On Watch — 12/28/2005 @ 8:05 pm

---

3. I guess she thinks they should have waited on the zoo keeper to get there with tranquilizer darts. And if he took a hostage or killed someone before then that’d be okay..

   Comment by Ivy — 12/29/2005 @ 12:02 am

---

4. It still amazes me at how some people just can’t get enough killing. Caring and killing two interesting words.

   Page rank… I rest my case.

   Comment by Athene — 12/29/2005 @ 12:15 pm

---

5. A reporter’s job is to anticipate the questions the listening audience might have and to ask those questions. If you don’t think that particular thought (shoot in leg or carry tasers) would have occurred to anyone that is simply naive. Besides it works to the police department’s advantage to get the question on the table so they can respond as opposed to folks not hearing their rationale at all.

   When I know a witness has a weakness that can be exploited on cross, I go ahead and introduce the subject during direct examinaiton in order to give the witness the opportunity to explain the situation rather than having to answer a mere yes or no on cross. It serves to neutralize any damage that could be caused by the unfortunate fact.

   Comment by Carol — 12/29/2005 @ 2:40 pm

---

6. Carol? You’re a lawyer?

   If so, take no offense dear but……well, your arguments here are weak. Do you win many cases?

   (now, before you start, I am not being mean…I am simply anticipating the question that will run through the minds of many of my fellows here at TWA and trying to “introduce the subject during direct examinaiton in order to give the witness the opportunity to explain the situation)

   Happy New Year Carol.

   Comment by Kender — 12/29/2005 @ 8:13 pm

---

7. She’s astonishing in the know-it-all-without-facts-to-back-it-up category, and sips the MSM koolaid without taking a breath in between. She spouts the MSM line on every subject, and can’t even see how ridiculous and tiring it is to others. REALLY CHALLENGED in the deductive reasoning department, too.

   Comment by Cao — 12/30/2005 @ 10:46 am

---

8. Yes Kender I win many cases. I am not a lawyer but I do third party litigation for the government, meaning arbitration hearings, MSPB hearings and EEO hearings. However, I wasn’t making any arguments here merely offering a different perspective that might not have occurred to you. Personally, I have absolutely no qualms with the officer’s decision to shoot the man. Had I been the PD PR person I would have vetted the questions to be asked prior to the reporter asking them and even suggested that she ask why the man wasn’t tasered or simply shot in the leg just so our guy could provide an explanation.

   Comment by Carol — 12/30/2005 @ 8:54 pm

---

9. Actually Carol, you haven’t ever posed a position I haven’t considered…..you pose positions I have tossed out as irrational or just plain bad….

   Comment by Kender — 12/31/2005 @ 2:30 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website