Women shot during LAPD ex-cop manhunt had no warning, lawyer says

[MH1]

49. If you look at the post he responded to, you might read it a different way.

It probably would have been better if he'd said "war zone" instead of "Afghanistan".

From the post he replied to:

It was predawn (still dark) and these guys were guarding the home of someone who they thought the killer was targeting. They see a truck moving slowly, no lights on--meaning that it's not only hard to see the truck (it's color, etc), but who is driving it. They assume it's their guy come to kill those they're guarding.

Then claims this makes the cop's actions "understandable".

I'll admit, I haven't read all these details in the news. But this is the argument being made: that the cops were justified in shooting up the truck because it was dark (couldn't see who was inside) and truck was moving toward them with no lights on. Now, put yourself as an army private at a checkpoint in a war zone, and a car is coming toward you with its lights off. No, you probably aren't supposed to just start shooting (I seem to remember a bad case where that happened, and it was awful), but if we are talking understandable it is closer to that realm in a war zone. But in a residential neighborhood? WTF?

That's how I read it. I can see how others would read it differently. But I try not to assume the worst of other posters, when it is more likely just that their point was badly stated.