4 ms·

I agree the context is important, and it may sometimes provide reasonable justification for the police to shoot first, like if there's a crowd behind the office

I agree the context is important, and it may sometimes provide reasonable justification for the police to shoot first, like if there's a crowd behind the officer. Generally, I think the officers should minimize the probability that 1) innocent bystanders get shot, 2) unarmed suspects get shot, and 3) the officer gets shot; in that order. Some people seem to put 3) in front of 2), and I think that's wrong. However, a in lot of recent videotaped incidents, it's been shown that many police officers are shooting and often killing people merely because the officer falsely "thought" they had a real gun. That behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop, even if that means police have to take more personal risks themselves.

talmand 11y ago
I agree, to a point, because most of the unjustified police shootings I'm aware of, that we have video for, did not show any direct threat to the officer or any bystanders. In almost all those cases the victim did not even have an object that could be mistaken as a weapon. I personally don't see those as police shootings but as murder, manslaughter at best. But I still have problems with your wording. In your examples above you feel 2 is more important than 3 and you disagree with people that reverse it. I agree with you. The difference is I see the possibility that the police may think the unarmed suspect is armed and is a direct threat to the officer or bystanders. By your wording you seem to suggest that scenario is not possible, and just in case the officer should wait until fired upon to determine whether the suspect is armed or not. That's a bad rule of engagement.