Is it your assertion that the cops knew before the encounter happened that, no matter what, he wasn’t going to shoot them? Because if it is, that’s just plain silly, and if it isn’t, it undermines your entire attempt to force this into a dichotomy.
Police can’t see the future. Nor can we go back in time and determine what would have happened if one of the parties involved had chosen to act differently. Every time they’re confronted with a potentially dangerous subject, they have to make a judgment call and decide whether or not they should use force. In this case, the officer decided not to use force, and it worked out for them. It’s entirely possible that, if the cop had misjudged the suicidal person’s state of mind, the story would be “Man Shoots, Kills Two Police”, not “Police Talk Down Suicidal Man With Gun”.
If the officers had chosen to put their guns away, and the man had shot both of them, would the officers have done the right thing?
My personal opinion is that you are attempting to shoehorn this “Shoot = Wrong choice, don’t shoot = right choice” into a situation where such a dilemma is nonsensical, and your refusal to answer mine and Steophan’s question proves it.
What part of “it was better in this specific situation” doesn’t answer your fucking question?
And the cop who was having a gun pointed at him was supposed to know that how, exactly? He made what turned out to be a good decision by trying to disarm him. That doesn’t mean that it would have been a bad or wrong decision to shoot him. It’s not a dichotomy, where one and only one option is good, or right, especially without knowing the outcome.
Of course his action was stupid and foolhardy, at least from the point of view of self preservation. People very often choose to prioritise things other that that, which is fine. But you don’t get to tell them that they should.
So, are you going to answer my question now, or just keep ignoring it? In a situation that looked identical from the officers point of view, but ended with the deaths of both him and the old man, would you still consider that he made a good, or right, or better, choice?
Of course you won’t answer it. Because it would mean admitting that shooting someone who has a gun pointed at you is a sensible choice.
If they had shot that guy, it would have been justifiable self-defense. They didn’t shoot him in this case because they made a judgment call that he wouldn’t shoot first, and it happened that it worked out.
Not every encounter between a police officer and an armed citizen will pan out in this exact same way.
If the cops didn’t shoot, and the old man had shot them, would the cops have made the right choice?
No-I am showing that the both of you(and many cop-shooting supporters) are hypocritical shits who get all high and mighty about how, when cops shoot people, any other choice would have been dangerous and foolhardy, and yet get all wishy-washy about it when cops decide not to shoot and find a nonviolent solution to the problem. Why aren’t you calling these cops out for doing something you seem to think is dangerous and foolhardy in so many other cases? Where the fuck is your consistency?
I would say it was the sensible, least risky thing to do, and the only thing you have a right to expect the cop to do - as I’ve consistently said.
You going to answer my question, or are you too much of a coward to? Actually, everybody already knows the answer to that, it’s just a shame for you that you can’t hide under the mod-mummy’s skirts anymore.
It’s possible for a decision to be dangerous and foolhardy, and nonetheless result in a positive outcome. Is their room in your black-and-white shooting-first-is-always-wrong cosmology for such a thing to occur?
These cops took a gamble and they came out ahead. That doesn’t mean you should always double down on a pair of sixes.
If the cops had chosen not to shoot and the old man shot them instead, would the cops have made the right choice?
Because they have a right to risk their own life, you idiotic, disingenuous piece of shit. You don’t have the fucking right to demand they risk it, or even to think they should risk it. Selfless and stupid are not mutually exclusive.
If this cop were to say at a future shooting “I disarmed someone, why didn’t you?” then I’d call him out, because he’d be expecting others to risk their lives.
But you know what? All of this is a sideshow to the real issue, which is why did this situation occur in the first place? Why was a mentally ill man left to get to the level of desperation where he’d threaten to shoot himself and a cop?
You still using that as an excuse for not being able to hold your own? :rolleyes:
The right thing to do is always to take the time that you have to analyze the situation and then do what you can to de-escalate with the least amount of violence possible. That’s what they did in this case.
Ooooh, and what if the bullets hit each other, ricocheted off at perfect 45 degree angles, and one hit a baby and another one hit a rapist/mass murderer about to do violence to a nun?
I’d rather talk about what actually happened.
The situations have to match before you pull the juvenile “NO U!” card, but nice try. I asked you your opinion about what really happened, and you are asking me about something that didn’t happen. See the difference?
No, you wouldn’t. You’d rather not actually examine your own ridiculous views and answer questions that challenge them, and - as you always do - you want to be the one who decides what should or shouldn’t be talked about.
No, because you are trying to apply the response to events that actually happened to general behaviour, which requires talking about events that haven’t happened.