High-raking police officer investigated following complaint filed by female subordinate; nature and severity of alleged offences are still unknown.03:34 26.11.15 | 0 comments
First: I am an ex-police officer in the U.S. with 18 years of service. When I was trained in 1976, the teaching presented then held that shooting at a car was incorrect. "The rationale was that if the driver was killed the car was then uncontrolled and more injuries were probably from a speeding driverless car that from a car that was being used to elude or escape. Part of our training was based on the existing law that held that shooting (or throwing anything) at a car constituted a 'terroristic threat or act' persuant to the law of that same title. That act is a felony. I do not agree that it is permissible to shoot at cars for any reason except in military controlled security zones (for the purpose of stopping car bomber). Shooting at the car as it drives past you is pointless because the threat to you is over. Second, It is inappropriate for a superior court to increase the penalty applied by a lower court. That is not the function of the superior (appeals) court. The appeals court is to uphold or overturn the conviction--that is all.