If you aren’t from around here, you may not have heard the news about the Washington State Patrol officer who shot the unarmed pregnant woman in the back last fall. If you haven’t followed the story, you may not know that the officer has been on paid administrative leave since the shooting, that he has changed his story multiple times — originally he shot her to keep her from fleeing out the window, and then he shot her in the back because she was struggling with him, and then he shot her in the back accidentally.
Under what circumstances would it be OK to shoot an unarmed pregnant woman in the back? Clearly, this shooting was OK, because they’ve announced no charges will be filed against the officer. Is it OK because it was a drug raid? Is it OK because she was black?
How is it OK to have shot an unarmed woman, who was nine-months-pregnant, in the back? He can’t be charged if there was no malice. Obviously, there was negligence, but without malice, the shooting is OK. But I want to know how something like this happens without malice? How you can come into a room, and see a pregnant woman, and not holster your gun, and say later that you didn’t even hear it go off. The gun in your hand, that you had trained on a pregnant woman.
Tell me why you would send this guy back out there to keep us safe? This guy who will shoot a pregnant woman in the back, and stand looking at her afterward, lying on her back, bleeding. You can say what you will about war zones and collateral damage. You can say bombing hospitals and ambulances and schools is unfortunate. You can say we never mean to wound or kill civilians. You can tell me we dropped atomic bombs to save lives. You can say the police are the only line between us and anarchy. You can argue until we’re both exhausted. It means something that he didn’t holster his gun. It means something that he trained his weapon on her and fired.