I’m late to this thread, didn’t take the time to read every post and am not sure who exactly said what. but here goes:
To those who say to, literally, do away with the police – what do you propose? When a guy steals your car from you at gunpoint, what is your next move? Or when you hear the neighbor beating the tar out of his wife or kids? How about the neighbor beating the tar out of your wife or kids? Laws are meaningless if there isn’t a way to enforce them. The naiveté around such a proposal is staggering.
You want to turn over “non-law enforcement” tasks to someone else? Great! Most cops would be more than happy to have someone else respond to barking dog complaints, parking disputes, car crashes, landlord- tenant problems and medical calls. All you have to do is find, train and pay that someone else to be available 24 hours a day. You could probably reduce police staffing through attrition, if nothing else.
To the idea that there has to have been found, after the fact, an actual and not merely perceived threat, before an officer can use force – good luck with that. To say the cops should actually wait until the other guys fires the first shot before he can shoot is completely unrealistic. No one would take the job if that were the case (maybe that’s your goal). Are going to wait until an intruder in your house actually tries to harm your or your family before you do something about it? How about someone pointing a gun at your child? Are you going to let him shoot first before you shoot him? Should an officer encountering someone pointing a gun at a kid wait to see if the threat is actually real? You know, because maybe its a toy gun or not loaded or he is mentally ill. Or is your child’s safety more important than that of the guy with the gun? Is not the officer’s safety, likewise, more important? It sounds as though you are O.K. with risking the lives of police and that suspect safety should come first. Why? Why does an officer’s life deserve less priority than a suspect’s? Do you think they get paid to get shot at? How about killed? Tell me where in the world such a policy exists.
Does anyone really believe that there is more crime in a given area because there are more police to find it? Police districts are busy because that’s where the calls for service are coming from. If 80% of the calls for service come from the 12th District, doesn’t it make sense to deploy 80% of your manpower there? Its common sense that you don’t deploy resources where they are not needed. If you did so, the response time to calls in the 12th would increase and people would be crying “You are discriminating against us!”
Finally (for now), a cop can’t simply say “I thought he was going for a gun” and be cleared in a shooting. His belief has to be based on objective observations. “ I thought he was going for a gun” is far different than “At 2:00 am I was dispatched to a call of a burglary. On arrival I saw a male exiting a window. I was approximately 25’ from the male at this point On the ground under the window were various items including a flat screen TV and a jewelry box. I identified myself by saying loudly, “ Police! Don’t move!” At gunpoint I then ordered the male to get down on the ground face-down. The male began to run south and into the back yard. I repeatedly told the male to stop and get on the ground. He continued running and jumped over a fence into the neighboring yard. I followed at a distance of 20-30’. In that yard he encountered a fence too tall to get over. I again ordered to him to get on the ground at gunpoint with my flashlight illuminating him. At this point he reached into his pocket with his right hand, produced a dark shiny object and began to raise it in my direction. Fearing that it was a firearm and that he intended to shoot me, I discharged my duty weapon several times. The male collapsed. My partner arrived about 20 seconds later and handcuffed the male.”
Even that is not a detailed enough statement but it is far more than “I thought he had a gun”. Under the circumstances known to the officer at the time, did he have a reasonable belief that his life was in danger? It it really reasonable to ask the cop to risk getting killed to confirm the male was going to shoot him? Every case is different and all the circumstances must be considered. You’ll note that I didn’t say whether the burglar had a gun or a cell phone because it doesn’t matter. He was given the opportunity to comply with the cop but chose a different option – making movements that could be construed as a deadly threat
If you haven’t already, read Graham v Connor cited above. That is the law. If you don’t like it, elect a President that will change the USSC to such a degree that they will overturn a well-reasoned landmark case. Its not going to happen in my lifetime.