Another police officer is on paid or unpaid administrative leave for fatally shooting someone (April 2, "Official offers more detail on what prompted police shooting in Willard"). It's not a dog this time, but still bad or worse, a human being. I have to ask myself why. If this officer felt his life was really in jeopardy by an individual raising his arms through trees and brush, then maybe he should have just shot him in the leg. I bet that would have stopped Mr. Ramseyer after the taser didn't work. If this would have happened in the desert, would the outcome have been different? I doubt it.
Mr. Ramseyer obviously needed some kind of help for his mental sate, but did not deserve to die this way. To heck with the new facts about his intending to commit suicide. What does that have to do with the situation? With multiple police agencies on hand, why did the Willard officer decide to take the guy's life? Do they not communicate in these kinds of situations, or, is it shoot and ask questions later? Or was the officer being singled out by Mr. Ramseyer, making him feel threatened enough to use deadly force?
It's obvious this guy needed help but, but didn't deserve to die. I am 100 percent sure this will be another justified shooting, as always. At least 99 percent of the time, and the officer will be back to work quickly to serve and protect.
I've always felt it takes a special kind of person to become a police officer and I couldn't do it, but it's more and more starting to look like a lot of people believe we have a police state. For example, look at Davis County's Bearcat. They obviously feel that they need it.
I really liked the Grondahl cartoon in the April 2 paper (Our view "Militarization versus liberties"). It was great. The swat team with guns was drawn on a car with a tail light out.
If people are starting to think this way, joke or not, maybe that is the way it will be eventually.