Reply To: The Shooting of an "Unarmed Man"

[Matt]

police are often dealing with people who have been engaged in a crime or have been acting hostile toward them or others

So if the police have a bad day, they can shoot someone running towards them? They had no evidence that this man had committed any crime or intended to commit any crime, yet he has been killed. He may of been running over to talk to them. Maybe he wanted to use their phone or wanted to ask them for some other assistance.

I wonder why you didn’t ask “Why didn’t the cop shoot in the air first?”

Because I realise that is dangerous. What goes up, generally comes down.

or “Why didn’t he shoot him in the foot?”

Because shooting a sprinting man in the foot is difficult. For the record, I did actually think of this.

And much of the time the injured/killed party was being less than cooperative.

So it’s ok to shoot people who aren’t 100% cooperative? I’m trying to understand the rules by which both the police and the public can live their lives. So far, it sounds like it needs to be two different sets of rules, and I’m not ok with that.

If he has his taser out then he doesn’t have his gun out

Why bother carrying a taser then? Anytime when it would actually be a non-lethal alternative to a gun is precisely when the police pull their gun out.

I find all this second-guessing by amateurs with no idea of the realities depressingly amusing.

I’m not second guessing on a professional level. I’m second guessing on a philosophical level, there’s a difference.

You seem to of forgotten my question:

Are you saying it’s ok to kill people because they disobey your authority?