4 ms·

Verify the firearm and attempt a non-lethal solution.

• golergka 9y ago
  And would that be a good decision in a typical situation that combines said data points?
  • jwatte 9y ago
    It should be. Society is better off when the trained, paid officers, bear the risk, rather than unarmed civilians. As it is, any police officer can claim "I felt threatened" and do whatever they want. That is 100% a recipe for thuggery and oppression that does not belong in a civilized democracy. Proposal: always verify the gun. If you shoot someone that actually didn't have a weapon, it's manslaughter. If you plant a gun, it's murder.
  • gtirloni 9y ago
    The situation was not ONLY about those two data points. I think you're conveniently ignoring other facts like: he complied with police orders from the beginning, they had ample time to handcuff him, the police officer was imprecise in giving instructions and constantly threatened to kill him, etc, etc, etc. Police officers carrying Semi-Automatic weapons should not get a free pass to act as robots without situational awareness.
  • drdeadringer 9y ago
    You appear to be fishing for an answer you are expecting but are not getting. Please explain why you want the answer to be "no" or "the shooting was correct".