> First of all, I don't believe I made any such logical leap of 'display gun' -> 'get shot by a cop'. You said, "If you display a gun in the presence of law en

> First of all, I don't believe I made any such logical leap of 'display gun' -> 'get shot by a cop'. You said, "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." > That's a hopelessly shallow argument. Let's allow a sole officer with a limited degree of personal situational expertise ignore decades worth of accumulated research, based upon an order of magnitude higher number of cases and codified into a protocol. You have a great deal of faith in the idea that this is based on research. I don't have any such misconception. > 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. Describing "making a decision that you have the most investment in making correctly, and that you have the most information for making" as "winging it" doesn't prove your point. You're just labeling things, you're not actually presenting information that supports your position. > The next thing you're going to tell me is they should only 'wing it' when it meets your ethical standards lmao. I'll add this to the list of straw men you've presented. > > 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. I'm not sure where exactly you think his interpretation of that specific situation stops being relevant, given that he is the only person capable of interpreting the full situation. > > 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. There's another great word: micromanagement. > 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. When the suspect is unarmed, management has a clear criteria by which to judge whether the danger of the situation warrants deadly force. When the suspect is armed but isn't pointing the gun at the officer, and says, "Just shoot me", management can't possibly judge the danger of the situation--it's far more complicated. > Anyone who reads through it in its entirety will witness you progressively moving the goalpost further away from an achievable law enforcement reality. My assertions have been consistent throughout. The goalposts have been simple and immobile: when confronted with an armed suspect, an officer has the right to decide how to best handle the situation. I defended this assertion by noting that the officer has the most information and the most skin in the game. You've presented a variety of straw men, either as sophistry or because you don't understand my position, and when you finally responded to what I actually said, you merely claimed that research (which you did not present) proves you right and claimed that my position was an unrealistic way to enforce the law. Readers are supposed to accept your assertions on faith that you know best because "research" and "protocol" are words you've used, apparently.