Controversial, but in a different way.
How is this story controversial? 
Thanks for posting that, slumtrimpet. The thread needs some good counterexamples of the kind of “ask questions first, shoot later or not at all” approach many of us are advocating.
I like the quote from the crisis intervention guy (emphasis added):
It’s controversial because there are law enforcement professionals (and amateurs, some arguing in this thread) who will argue that this approach “gets cops killed”.
- IT’s not controversial.
- The article doesn’t mention the race of the old man. “Cops Don’t Shoot Old White Guy” would be even less controversial.
So, you guys are saying there’s no widespread disagreement in rhetoric or practice with this approach by law enforcement toward armed resistance from mentally unstable subjects?
Bullshit. It’s only “controversial” after the fact when they jump the gun and shoot someone without trying any other alternatives first. You don’t find law enforcement professionals criticizing officers who act as these did, which they would do if they actually believed what this approach “gets cops killed”.
There should be (but obviously isn’t) a great deal of shame in opposing measures on the basis that they “get cops killed” when they are meant to reduce the absurd number of civilians that are being killed by cops.
I’m not impressed by Police saying they need to kill 1,000 people a year because the alternative is less than a handful of cops dying in the same period. Your lives are not more valuable than ours.
Cops lives are more valuable than the lives of people who attack cops. Of course, anyone’s life is more valuable than that of the person who attacks them, and I don’t think anyone is arguing for cops having more right to kill people than anyone else.
That someone chose to risk their life to help a suicidal, mentally ill man is great. It’s certainly something we can hope more people would do, but not something we should expect anyone to do. What needs to happen is much better mental health care, much earlier, to try to prevent things ever getting to that point, not to leave it to cops who are not trained as mental health professionals, and will only be coming into contact with the mentally ill in extreme circumstances.
Who is talking about people who attack cops? Shithead.
It these particular case, which approach do you think would have been the better one: The one they took, or the “Take no chance and shoot, because he might shoot us” choice?
The majority of these “controversial” cases, including this one where a guy pointed a gun at a cop, involve that. Eric Garner, Michael Brown… All used violence against cops. The ones that are actually controversial are the ones where it’s in doubt that the person killed actually used force.
Better in what way? Yes, it’s good that someone chose to risk their life to help someone, and it worked, but we shouldn’t expect people to do that.
A situation occurred where either the cop had to risk his life, or risk the life of the other guy. Or both. Fortunately, his risk paid off. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better for the police to risk their lives on every occasion.
What would your view be if the old guy had shot the cop? Would you still think he did the right thing? Even if, as would be both likely and sensible, the other cop shot the old guy in self defence?
Just answer the fucking question I asked. Between the two choices given, do you support what they did over the “Shoot him first in case he decides to shoot us” approach, or vice-versa?
In this case, what they did worked. That doesn’t mean it’ll work every time. The officer made a judgment call, just like every single officer who does decide to use force.
Can you just answer the question? Do you think that, between the two choices, they picked the right one?
I did answer the fucking question you asked. It’s not a fucking yes or no question. I support and respect someone choosing to risk their life to help someone. I do not expect them to do it, or think that anyone should expect them to do it, except in special cases where you are trying to save a dependent family member - that is, one could be expected to save their child’s life at risk to their own.
It was better in this specific situation, but we only know that because we know how it turned out. There was no way to know beforehand, and there will be no way to know in any future similar situation.
Now, will you answer my fucking question? Would it have been better for the cop to get shot, then the old man be shot by the other cop, than just shooting the old guy in the first place?
He did answer the question. That you don’t like the answer is fucking irrelevant.
The choice they made worked, didn’t it?
- You refuse to actually answer my question.
- The old man wasn’t going to shoot the cop.
Referring back to my post #3966, you and Smapti definitely fall under that hypocritical category. If they don’t shoot, as in this case, you talk about how they did the right thing “this time” but it’s complicated blah blah blah. If they do shoot, suddenly it’s cut and dried “Any other choice would have been stupid and foolhardy!”.
IF they fire, the answer is “They had no other choice!”
If they don’t, the answer is “Waffle!”
Got it.