Not guilty, but certainly not innocent

3 NYPD detectives have been cleared of all charges stemming from a 2006 shooting outside of a strip club in Queens, New York. While there seems to be no shortage of blame on both sides of the dispute for what happened that morning, and second-guessing is admittedly easy after the fact by laypeople such as myself, the only fact that is clear to me is that the 31 rounds fired by Detective Michael Oliver was both unnecessary and excessive, and that he was the one who should have been charged with reckless endangerment, not the other officer. The amount of rounds expended by Detective Oliver necessitated at least one reload, and any private citizen who used a firearm in a defensive situation, stopped to reload, and then emptied their weapon again, all on a public street with no regard for innocent bystanders or where all that lead was going, would have been immediately vilified by the likes of Mayor Bloomberg as some sort of out-of-control vigilante. That same standard should also apply to Oliver, as that amount of deadly force against what turned out to be unarmed suspects was indeed reckless, in spades.

Police officers are granted deadly force powers to protect themselves and others from death or great bodily harm, just like private citizens with handgun carry permits. They should therefore be held to the same standards once the incident is ended.

"'This sends a message to New York City police officers that when you are in that position, when you are in front of a court house, when you are in front of a court bench, you will get fairness.'"

I'm okay with that, as long as the next private citizen who defends himself against a criminal, whether armed or not, with 31 rounds gets the same consideration as Officer Oliver.