This is absurd.
All other things aside, it sure looks to me like the crux of your current argument is that if things turned out right, then it was the right thing to do.
Nobody besides pot hazed philosophy majors believe that crap.
You are smarter than that Czarcasm.
Personally I think you are just arguing to argue (maybe your having a bad day or something).
What can I say?
No U! 
When the next cop guns down someone prematurely and you two bozos pop up to say that they had no choice in the matter because doing anything else would have been dangerous and/or foolhardy, these last few posts of yours are going to be cut-and-pasted to show you to be the hypocrites you are.
Why wait for some future hypothetical event when we have a perfect example of hypocrisy right before us?
If the cops had chosen not to shoot and the old man had shot them, would that have been the right choice?
Yes. He can pull his gun and make sure the perp is not armed. He doesn’t have to pre-emptively shoot everyone that makes him wet his pants a little. If that results in a taking one for the team once in a while, that is the price we pay to reduce the number of innocent citizens who get shot for no reason. Cops getting shot by bad guys is part of the profession; innocent citizens getting shot by a trigger happy cop is never acceptable.
I’m saying that Smati and Steophan are hypocrites for saying that it is a hard decision to make if the police decide not to shoot…but it is apparently the only possible choice if cops shoot first, often within a short time frame of getting to the scene(given their absolute support of such actions in this very thread.)
Firstly, thank you for having more conviction in your beliefs than Czarcasm apparently has.
Secondly, you’re wrong. “Cops getting shot by bad guys” is not part of the profession, and it is not expected, nor should it be expected, of any officer of the law to willfully neglect his own safety on the job, nor does any officer waive their human right to self-defense by the act of donning a uniform.
Are you comfortable telling the widow of a cop killed by a suicidal madman that “Hey, someone has to take one for the team once in awhile”?
Only sensible choice, not only possible choice, you ignorant, illiterate twat.
That’s a strawman and you know it. Neither of us have ever said that shooting first is the only possible choice an officer can or should ever make, and I challenge you to provide a cite to the contrary (after you get around to answering that question that you hypocritically refuse to address, you hypocritical hypocrite you.)
Would this be the old man that pointed his gun around the corner of the hallway blindly,(not directly at cops as you imply), which allowed the policeman to take the action he did to render the firearm unusable? They would still have made the right choice, and it would have been an extremely lucky shot that would have harmed either officer.
Answer a question, ask a question.
Innocent citizens like Michael Brown, you mean?
Yes, cops are at risk of being shot. That’s why they have guns, and shouldn’t be afraid to use them. I agree with you that no-one should be shot by a trigger-happy cop, but very few of the examples in this thread are anything like that. Maybe the guy who was shot reaching into his car for his licence, but I can’t think of another one.
That may be. I’m having a hard time parsing your grammar/logic there.
But as a third party bystander I’m telling you part of your argument sure looks like “its right because it turned out right”.
They may or may not be wrong in the bigger picture, but I’m pretty confident that “its right because it turned out right” ain’t one of the bullets you can use so to speak.
If we must decide to err on the side of safety, should it be in favor of the cops, or should it be in favor of innocent citizens? I say the innocent citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the police did take the oath with the full knowledge that they may be put in life threatening situations. If that is unacceptable, they have no business wearing the badge.
Any time a cop gets shot in the line of duty, it certainly wasn’t an “innocent citizen” who was involved.
Are you comfortable telling that to the mother of a child? BTW, did they give the old man, who already had his real weapon drawn, more than two seconds before coming towards him? Did they yell at him and run towards him, or did they talk to him calmly and approach him in a non threatening manner?
Are you comfortable telling the mother of a certain dead 12 year old child why he didn’t deserve the same treatment?
And any time an innocent citizen gets shot by a cop?
Answer a question, ask a question.
If the cops had decided not to shoot and the old man shot them instead, would that have been the right choice?
Answered in post #4009.
How about the guy who was shot on camera, running away from the cops? It doesn’t matter what he was guilty of before he turned and ran away from the cop. That does not justify the cop executing him. That cop is in jail for murder; do you agree he should be convicted and incarcerated for a very long time?
The simple answer to that is that the old guy didn’t deserve that treatment. The cop went above and beyond in doing so.
No-one deserves to put someone else’s life in danger (or act in a way that makes someone think their life is in danger), then have that person help them instead of defending themselves. Yes, a lot of people will take that risk, but you have no right to expect or demand it of them.