3 ms·

I'm sure someone will come up with a reason, but I doubt it will be more motivating than the expectation that police shouldn't issue death sentences - to me, at

• afarrell 10y ago
  If you object to the police using deadly force in this instance, do you also object to them trying to shoot the suspect?
  • eximius 10y ago
    If he is a credible and imminent threat (where imminent is immediate, requires similarly immediate action to protect oneself), then I wholly support neutralizing the threat. I think that police are increasingly reaching for lethal force without exhausting nonlethal options. I also think that, in this instance, he was a credible but nonimminent threat. So in that sense, yes I would object to shooting him. A nonlethal response to continue containing the suspect, even at some risk to themselves, would have been more in line with the duty I believe police officers have. Minimizing the risk to themselves will not maximize the fulfillment of their duty (which is obviously true because the extreme is them never leaving the station, etc). I do not claim to know what the right balance is. However, I would argue that as public servants, their duty inherently necessitates taking on some level of risk in order to uphold our values of justice. Our values of justice require that they not kill suspects they are tired of dealing with - they must stand trial.