4 ms·

You're appealing to fear of a hypothetical situation here, but we're talking about a real, non-hypothetical situation. There weren't bystanders, and Mader was t

• sp527 10y ago
  So you're saying it would have been fine for the armed, suicidal man to be shot more or less immediately if a bystander had been present? Good at least we can agree on that. 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.”
  • imagist 10y ago
    > 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. 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.