"Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot."[1]
> I don't want to live in a world of cops hesitating to shoot armed, unstable people and neither should you.
The alternative that you're proposing is a world where cops are the armed, unstable people, except that now the armed, unstable people have power and authority. That's not a world I want to live in.
[1] http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2016/09/11/Weirton-...
If Mader had been trained to deal with this situation and expected to do so as a police officer, he would not have been fired. His having been a Marine does not change the conditions of his employment as a cop. You're basically implying it's okay to defy protocol if you view your own knowledge as exceptional. That's not prudence or good judgment; it's arrogance channeled into reckless personal endangerment.
You also seem to be saying that Mader risking his own life in the process of trying to talk down an armed, suicidal man is acceptable. Certainly in his own view. Not in the view of the department. There are all kinds of problems with what he did: statistical likelihood in these situations and establishing a precedent that defies protocol being the most pressing among them.
If you display a gun in the presence of law enforcement, you have an altogether different set of problems than the average citizen. Barring certain gun nut states with open carry laws, such a person has willfully forfeited the expectation of being treated like a normal citizen and I'm okay with that. I want to be defended against exactly that variety of morons, crazies, and criminals. That's just a sensible tenet of a functioning, civilized society.
If you don't trust law enforcement to carry lethal weapons and to exercise its best judgment in the face of situations with imperfect solutions, then feel free to go live somewhere else. But exerting your moral authority against an institution with many decades of accumulated practical expertise is little more than juvenile utopianist posturing.
EDIT: Oh and by the way, it's also worth quoting Mader directly, in case you think he has any misconceptions about how the police should act in these situations:
- "Firing me for it, it’s less of an eyebrow-raiser then to say the other officers are justified in what they did — which I think they were.”
- “They did not have the information I did,” he said. “They don’t know anything I heard. All they know is (Mr. Williams) is waving a gun at them. It’s a shame it happened the way it did, but, I don’t think they did anything wrong.”
Yes.
> There are all kinds of problems with what he did: statistical likelihood in these situations and establishing a precedent that defies protocol being the most pressing among them.
In a life-and-death situation, setting precedent is should absolutely not be a consideration, period. People's lives are more important than that.
> If you display a gun in the presence of law enforcement, you have an altogether different set of problems than the average citizen. Barring certain gun nut states with open carry laws, such a person has willfully forfeited the expectation of being treated like a normal citizen and I'm okay with that. I want to be defended against exactly that variety of morons, crazies, and criminals. That's just a sensible tenet of a functioning, civilized society.
I disagree. I think part of the fundamental disagreement you and I have is that I think giving someone a badge does not put them above the law or above ethics. Just because someone is an LEO doesn't mean they should shoot everyone who displays a gun in their presence.
> If you don't trust law enforcement to carry lethal weapons and to exercise its best judgment in the face of situations with imperfect solutions, then feel free to go live somewhere else.
This is, again, a straw man. You're the one who wants a law enforcement officer to be fired because he exercised his best judgment. I'm for trusting law enforcement to exercise it's best judgment instead of allowing pencil-pushers to determine absolutist protocols.
Also, "love it or leave it"? Seriously?
> EDIT: Oh and by the way, it's also worth quoting Mader directly, in case you think he has any misconceptions about how the police should act in these situations:
> - "Firing me for it, it’s less of an eyebrow-raiser then to say the other officers are justified in what they did — which I think they were.”
> - “They did not have the information I did,” he said. “They don’t know anything I heard. All they know is (Mr. Williams) is waving a gun at them. It’s a shame it happened the way it did, but, I don’t think they did anything wrong.”
I agree with him completely, and nothing there opposes anything I've said. You'll note Mader literally said nothing about "how officers should act in these situations". What he said was that the officers were justified in what they did, which I've also said.
You seem incapable of holding a nuanced opinion here or understanding the nuance of my opinion. I'll try to break it down for you, as simply as I can, and if you still can't or won't understand it, I can't help you:
1. When an officer encounters an armed suspect, the decision to shoot or not to shoot should be the officer's decision, because the officer has the most skin in the game, and the most information to make a good decision.
2. An officer is justified in shooting the armed suspect, because it's the officer's decision.
3. An officer is justified in NOT shooting the armed suspect, because it's the officer's decision.
4. Someone who sits behind a desk is not justified in firing the officer because he didn't shoot, because it is the officer's decision.
First of all, I don't believe I made any such logical leap of 'display gun' -> 'get shot by a cop'. In fact, it's probably worth sticking to this specific situation of an armed and unstable man "waving a gun" at law enforcement. Yes, we absolutely have a fundamental disagreement as to how a person exhibiting that kind of behavior should be treated. I think he should be shot before he can harm anyone else (including a lone cop responding to the situation). Period. It's not even a close call in my opinion. And, as noted, Mader is a trained law enforcement officer who at least understands why that response is justified.
>This is, again, a straw man. You're the one who wants a law enforcement officer to be fired because he exercised his best judgment. I'm for trusting law enforcement to exercise it's best judgment instead of allowing pencil-pushers to determine absolutist protocols.
That's a hopelessly shallow argument. Let's allow a sole officer with a limited degree of personal situational expertise to ignore decades worth of accumulated research, based upon an order of magnitude higher number of cases and codified into a protocol. In fact, I hope you realize your assertion that cops should be allowed to wing it is profoundly, laughably ironic in the broader context of everything you've said. The next thing you're going to tell me is they should only 'wing it' when it meets your ethical standards lmao.
> 1. When an officer encounters an armed suspect, the decision to shoot or not to shoot should be the officer's decision, because the officer has the most skin in the game, and the most information to make a good decision.
Only to the extent that his interpretation of that specific situation is relevant to the subjective aspects of decision-making. When there's a higher order protocol, with specific situational guidance that deviates from what he might personally want to do, he should follow it. Period.
> 3. An officer is justified in NOT shooting the armed suspect, because it's the officer's decision.
Oh in that moment anyone can do whatever they want to do of course. A fairly inane thing to enunciate really. That doesn't exempt them from post facto repercussions.
> 4. Someone who sits behind a desk is not justified in firing the officer because he didn't shoot, because it is the officer's decision.
Actually, there's a great word we have for this in the civilian world: management. Review the play. Decide if it constitutes acceptable behavior. You would want cops choking unarmed black men to death to be held to account, right? It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same holds true in reverse. Cops are not unilaterally responsible for their actions. The very insinuation of such is carelessly misguided.
I'm fine with leaving this conversation as is. Anyone who reads through it in its entirety will witness you progressively moving the goalpost further away from an achievable law enforcement reality.
