2 ms·

>I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one anot

>I'm not completely sure, though, based on this article, that I would consider the officer culpable. Police are trained to react quickly and to protect one another. If being trained to “react quickly” involves shooting people when they are not 100% sure the person has a weapon, then they are being trained to commit murder. That will likely be an aspect of the inevitable lawsuit against the police in this incident. But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone. >Anyway I do hope you're not suggesting that the shooter's responsibility somehow mitigates that of the caller. No, I’m not.

rhizome 9y ago
But the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone. It also has psychological repercussions, where anybody who's not cop nor family is expendable by default. What is it like for a cop trained in this way to visit a mall?
ScottBurson 9y ago
> the mere fact that they were trained to commit murder does not absolve individual officers of criminal responsibility when they actually murder someone I don't think I can agree with this. Police departments have policies for when officers should and should not shoot at people. In cases where the policy was followed, I think we have to say that relieves the individual of responsibility. In this instance, of course I don't know whether the shooting was according to policy. And of course I hope, and expect, that it wasn't. But if it was, then it's the policy that has to change first.