undefined | Better HN

0 pointsimagist9y ago0 comments

> Asking people to endanger themselves on the off chance a person with a gun isn't going to shoot is nothing short of insane.

This is a straw man argument. I never asked anyone to endanger themselves. I don't criticize the officers who shot the man--it was a tough call and while it turns out they made the wrong call, I believe they made the best call they could given the information they had. I'm saying that the officer who didn't shoot, should be lauded for his actions, not fired.

Further, people who apply for police work do so of their own accord. No one forces anyone to become a police officer. If you want to be safe, you should get a desk job instead of becoming a police officer. If you put yourself in danger and use that as an excuse to shoot people unequivocally, you're just a murderer. Part of an officer's job is assessing a situation and deciding whether lethal force is warranted. I don't blame an officer for making the decision to use lethal force, but it should be a decision. And if you aren't willing to make that decision, you should find another career.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

sp5279y ago· 2 in thread

Here's where you're mistaken: cops are at the end of the day mostly just normal people like us. There isn't some secret reservoir of especially heroic people to draw on. They are not expected to place their lives at unnecessary risk (like trying to negotiate with an armed, unstable person) on behalf of the public. They in particular must avoid these risks because they deal with large sample sizes. Attempting to negotiate with armed, unstable people is a great way to ensure you will eventually be shot dead by one of them. I didn't say this wasn't a case of an 'innocent' man getting killed. Law enforcement has a playbook for situations involving armed opponents that favors protecting the life of the cop, his fellow officers, and any potential innocent bystanders. There's nothing irrational about that in my view or in the view of countless researchers and policymakers who have designed that system (and who by the way have a lot more experience with the reality of law enforcement than random internet commentators).

Bottom line: If you display a gun and emotional instability in the presence of a cop, you have forfeited your right to necessarily walk away alive. If you think that's unreasonable, then I suppose that's your opinion.

imagistOP9y ago

> There isn't some secret reservoir of especially heroic people to draw on.

This is true, but irrelevant. The conversation at hand is about the fact that we are actively firing heroes for taking heroic actions.

> They are not expected to place their lives at unnecessary risk (like trying to negotiate with an armed, unstable person) on behalf of the public.

Again, this is a straw man argument. This is not what I am proposing.

Please read the posts you are responding to before you respond to them.

> Bottom line: If you display a gun and emotional instability in the presence of a cop, you have forfeited your right to necessarily walk away alive. If you think that's unreasonable, then I suppose that's your opinion.

That's not my opinion, it's the straw man you're presenting. Please respond to what I actually said, not to straw men.

My actual opinion, which you have completely ignored, is that when police make the correct call and correctly identify that a suspect is not dangerous despite the fact that the suspect is holding a gun, police should not be punished for doing the right thing.

sp5279y ago

> My actual opinion, which you have completely ignored, is that when police make the correct call and correctly identify that a suspect is not dangerous despite the fact that the suspect is holding a gun, police should not be punished for doing the right thing.

Well in that case, addressing this point directly, I would argue that defying standard training/protocol in a real life situation is among the few incontestably red flag behaviors one can observe with respect to cops and that is precisely when you should fire someone, before his behavior can result in tragedy for himself, his fellow officers, or an innocent bystander. The officer did the right thing at the expense of good situational judgment. We as observers have difficulty stomaching it, of course. But a cop's career spans a much wider breadth than a single encounter with an armed, suicidal individual. This is why good judgment is so important: you have to weigh this across all such encounters with armed persons, which then has a bearing on a highly relevant random variable (cop survives his career).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse