A drugged out idiot with a knife shouldn't have to die just to make you feel safe in an inherently risky job, especially when it isn't necessary. The officer had time to talk to him and get him to drop the knife. The officer had a backup safely on the other side of the car aimed and cocked if the guy made a truly dangerous move. If you don't trust your partner to make that shot, then you have no confidence in your profession and training.
The job of a police officer is to take risks to preserve life. If you don't like the risks attendant to the job, quit. We'll find someone else willing to take those risks.
you are example of fishermen and tree cutters who have more dangerous jobs and I do does not correlate.
Sure it does. Fishing is a profession. So is police work. Fishermen don't have unions. They don't get retirements. They take big risks in return for a paycheck to put food on the table. They take much bigger risks than you, for much less. Hence, it is entirely legitimate for me, as your employer (at least in terms of role), to ask you to take those risks to preserve life in return for that paycheck.
Believe me, I understand those risks. I lived for nearly a decade on the waterfront in downtown Oakland, CA. I knew hookers, street bums, fishermen, loser intellectuals, longshoremen, bureaucrats... Many of them had bad days and drug problems, but they didn't deserve to die for it just because some cop is unduly afraid to try to talk them down before taking their life. In my opinion as a citizen voting for people who make those hire and fire decisions, a person willing to kill before accepting those risks is unfit for the profession.
Unionized "officer safety" work rules are what has brought us to the point that NYPD is making 400 no-knock raids a month, with TEN PERCENT to the wrong address. How many people should have to die defending their homes because of this mentality?
“The officer had time to talk to him and get him to drop the knife.”
And therein lies the problem.
Some people, deep down, do not believe that some individuals _want_to_kill_them_, and will not be swayed by words or threats or shows of force, and care not about whether they may die in the process.
In this case, the perp was going to kill a cop (or come just a twitch away from doing so). Nothing says “drop the knife” louder than two cops with guns drawn and pointed at him, yet he was not dissuaded. He did not pause to talk. He did not hesitate in contemplation of his rapidly diminishing probable lifespan. He knew exactly what he faced. He got the message, it’s ingrained deep in our social consciousness. No question, no hesitation, he marched right up to them with a knife drawn and radiating his own “I’m gonna kill you right now” message.
Yet the “but what about talking/beanbags/shoot-to-wound/retreat/whatever” people insist that no matter what the circumstance, no matter how simple and clear the scenario is, there _must_ be _something_ that could have been done to dissuade the attacker. The horrible reality is: sometimes there isn’t. Talk? this guy got the message loud and clear, and wasn’t interested in “talking”. Beanbags or other “non/less-lethal” options? if it doesn’t immediately incapacitate him, he’s continuing his mission to kill - and anything capable of immediate incapacitation rapidly moves into the “lethal” category because that’s human physiology. Shoot to wound? Wilson shot Brown FOUR TIMES IN THE ARM and the perp continued his gallop toward finishing off the cop whose skull he had already cracked. Retreat? you can’t move backwards faster than an attacker can forwards, and “run away” cedes lethal power to the evil.
This guy was gonna kill a cop.
Nothing was going to stop him but immediate incapacitation.
The difference between “incapacitate” and “kill” is often very small, if any.
Believe it, naysayers.
Some people do, in fact, want to kill others - and NOTHING will stop them short of being killed or gravely injured.
“The job of a police officer is to take risks to preserve life. If you don’t like the risks attendant to the job, quit. We’ll find someone else willing to take those risks”
Thats not in the oath or in any of the listed job qualifications....neither is be I willing to talk a person down from their “crisis” as they are charging at you with a knife.
Risks come with the job...but I am not required to add additional risk by being stupid.
Let me run at you with a knife and I want you to try and form a cogent sentence l,et alone try to reason with me.
That's a judgment call and a value judgment. I am not a 'cop lover' and I disagree with you on both. I'll just say Mr. Badass didn't have to die, but his choices and actions made it more likely. He alone bears responsibility for that.
Seriously...I have no friends or acquaintances who would engage in strong arm robbery, walk down the middle of the street, then act as this guy did toward a cop.
We expect cops to address and deal with situations such as those, situations most often not of their making. When we're being robbed or mugged, we do not call the NAACP.
It is, by definition, a no-win scenario. You have to deal with someone displaying mental or social issues. There's danger of someone being seriously hurt or killed.
No-win scenarios p!ss me off. By definition, they involve someone making a bad situation for someone else, where they have no good options. That's about the most psychopathic act imaginable.
If the situation went down as described, I have no problem with the cop doing as he did. None whatsoever.
Mr. Badass created a bad situation. Where that involves risk, it's fair, just and moral that risk of bodily harm is borne by the guy who created the situation.
Most of the time it's Mr. Badass. Increasingly it's the cops with such actions as 'dynamic entry,' and overuse of SWAT teams.
The question is simple: would a REASONABLE person conclude there's a significant risk of harm, and who created the situation?