Just yesterday, the police officer that killed a 13 year old boy who had gone "joy riding" late at night was found to be negligent on some level.

Apparently, the finding was that the officer acted inappropriately because his life was not in danger at the time he shot and killed the boy because he was not directly in the path of the car, which was backing up at a rate of 2 miles per hour.

When determining a police officer's behavior, is it "fair" to not acknowledge prior, similar situations that the officer may have been aware of and that may have influenced his behavior in this instance? Is it fair to treat this one instance in a bubble?

I once read of a police officer who approached two people sitting on the side of the road late at night who were apparently drinking out of a paper bag and drunk.

As the officer approached, one of the drinkers shot and killed the officers before any interaction had occured.

Just recently, an officer made a "routine" traffic stop and was shot and killed for his efforts. It turned out the person being stopped was fleeing from a previous murder they had allegedly committed.

It seems to me that Police officers should be allowed to introduce a similar situation to the one they are being tried on. One problem with this idea is how do we know that the officer knew of the prior incident and that it may have affected his actions? It's possible that someone could tell them about a similar situation after the fact.

Perhaps the officer in question would be required to mention the situation at the time of the incident and before meeting with their attorney.

Yet, could this idea be turned into a lethal excuse by an occasional rogue cop who might keep a list of such tragedies so they can refer to it if they are ever charged with police negligence.