If posters went on ride-alongs with police officers instead of relying on YouTube and TikTok videos, their perspectives might change.
If someone threatens me, or even goes so far as to point a gun at me, and I immediately pull out my own gun and empty the magazine into them, I am certain to be arrested and tried for murder. And a jury will then decide if I was justified in responding with deadly force or not.
But a police officer can do the same thing and is exceedingly unlikely to be charged, much less tried for murder. Because the courts have ruled that the LEO need only say he was in fear for his life.
There’s something wrong with that, IMHO.
One of my neighbors killed a home invader and he wasn’t arrested or tried. Another neighbor, in a different neighborhood, shot a man at her front door and she wasn’t arrested or tried. It is not a given that shooting someone will automatically result in an arrest and a trial.
This depends very heavily on the state and various “Stand your ground” and “castle” doctrines. In quite a few states you would, of course be investigated- just like Police are when they do a shooting- but not arrested or charged- unless of course it turns out your testimony is flawed, and/or they had no gun and you have a good motive for killing them.
Because what is their motive? The perp was not sleeping with their wife or anything. When an on duty officer shoots someone it is nearly always to protect their safety and or the publics safety.
When I was on the County Civil Grand Jury, I went on a couple. The San Jose police were very professional. The only dangerous one was a angry homeless man with a length of pipe that had broken a car window. The cop talked him down- and did so very well. In the Other, the officer asked me to stay quite a bit away as it was a domestic disturbance. But again, handled well, just drunken yelling, no one was hurt. A couple moving violations, and a few rousts of homeless sleeping in store doorways. A young man was given a serious warning for urinating in an alley. Try it sometimes.
I also saw that, and the cops were out directing traffic and warning walkers to go on the other side of the street. They did have coffee and chairs, but I did not see them use either during that period.
That is not what qualified immunity means. Police are absolutely subject to the same laws. Qualified immunity means you can not sue that individual cop for doing his lawful duty. You can sue the Police dept, you can sue the City, etc. but not that individual officer. And of course that has to be that way, or else any good officers would be sued on a daily basis by gangsters. And it is not just cops- all government employees have qualified immunity- IRS agents for example. Every time they said a taxpayer owned serious money- lawsuits. And just the legal fess would mean civil servants could not keep their jobs.
I will also note that on 9/11 Police and firefighters ran towards the danger, heedless of personal safety, and 72 officers died that day, and nearly 600 more from related injuries= 667 police officers died because they ran towards danger, heedless of their own safety. Also hundreds of firefighters etc.
Granted, there is typically more deference given to people defending their homes from a home invader.
What do you think would have happened if either of these altercations had happened in a local park?
Or if a homeowner uses deadly force on their doorstep to a pollster holding a clipboard they’ve supposedly mistaken for a gun?
Whereas police always seem to get a pass.
I gave links to three examples upthread to cases in which police officers shot someone for no good reason whatsoever. There are thousands of these cases nationwide.
To their credit. Although I will also note that was a quarter-century and a generation ago.
What is their motive? Maybe they were wrong, sure. Cops are human and they make mistakes. But do you really think some officer woke up and decided to kill a couple of innocent people for no reason?
#1- the man had a gun and was thought to be reaching for it. Officer Yanez was charged, and the 12 members of the jury voted “Not Guilty”.
#2- he had a VERY realistic airsoft pistol, and instead of putting his hands up, he reached into his waistband and pulled out the gun’. Yes, it was a mostly harmless “toy”, but the officers did not know that. The Grand Jury declined to indict. It was fully investigated. This was an error, but understandable.
#3- it was dark- the cops yelled- Hey, show me your hands. Stop. Stop. Instead the man pulled out his cellphone and held it out in front of him. Again, an error, but understandable. In the video it can not be seen it was NOT a gun.
On September 26, 2019, US attorney McGregor Scott and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced there was “insufficient evidence” to bring federal civil right charges against the officers. So not just local authorities, The FBI was brought in
At the time, the officers thought they had good reasons to use deadly force. In 20/20 hindsight- not so much. .
What I would expect to happen is the police show up, do a cursory investigation, and decide on what the best course of action is. It might very well be to arrest someone but they might wait for a more thorough investigation before coming to that conclusion. Look, you are simply wrong that shooting someone is automatically going to result in your immediate arrest. Florida alone provides plenty of evidence to disprove your premise.
They will take your statement and take that firearm as evidence. They will investigate.
I suspect their motivation is fear. The fact is that most people that police encounter are not actually planning to engage in a gunfight with them. But police have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the idea that they have to immediately react with overwhelming deadly force to anything they perceive as as a threat.
And this makes the populace as a whole, including law-abiding people like me, fear and distrust the police.
All of these deaths (and thousands of similar deaths) could have been prevented if LEOs were prohibited from killing people just because they saw (or thought they saw) a gun. Or someone supposedly reaching for what might be a gun.
That is exactly when Police have to use deadly force. You can not insist they let the perp take the first shot.
It obviously depends on the state. I live in Connecticut, and I have a pistol permit. As part of the required firearms safety course the instructor made a point of saying that if you get into an altercation involving firearms in the State of Connecticut, you can expect to be arrested.
Regardless of the state, however, it undeniable that a civilian is far more likely to be arrested than a police officer for an altercation involving deadly force, even if the officer was clearly mistaken.
Why, exactly?
Why not?
Here’s the thing. I think there are far more instances of police unnecessarily using deadly force against people than there are of people taking potshots at the police.
Statistics seem to bear this out. In a typical year, police shoot and kill 1,200-1,300 people. Whereas 43 officers were feloniously killed with a firearm in 2025. That is a huge disparity. And I wonder if some of those deaths weren’t in self-defense because police are so quick to jump to the use of deadly force.
Cites: