Replies

>>the Citizen even being armed is drilled into the mind of the police officer as being a threat.
>
> Drilled? Its simply common sense.

...no it's not.
If you're stationed in a warzone you don't go flying off the handle because your fellow-soldiers are armed, you don't go flying off the handle if you see armed soldiers not of your nation, if you do you will cause friendly fire. (eg. your fellow squadmates, and allied troops, respectively.)

If it's common sense then they're already thinking that person X is the enemy. If person X is the enemy, then there is no reason to deescalate the situation.

The officer freaked out.

A sign of either (a) lack of training, (b) poor training, or (c) training that encourages a freak out.

He saw a thug looking, urban type black guy, reaching back for something.

Granted, that's the first piece of evidence you've cited. Does it warrant an untried execution by the police?

He knows the guy has a gun.

And we know the police have guns. Does that make the police people we should immediately classify as enemies?

And he freaked out.

Again, inadequate training.

Cop freaks out when armed black man reaches back to grab something. Simple as that.

I'm not doubting/criticizing that; what I am doubting is the legitimacy of the shooting, the adequacy of out LEO training, and indeed the general philosophies that LEOs use to operate.

Once upon a time they were called peace officers, now they are law enforcement officers -- do you think that the name change could reflect a difference in the philosophies they are taught in their training? Could it be that they were intentionally changed from being about keeping the peace into an authoritarian enforcement operation?

It seems to me that a peace officer is part of the community, while an enforcement officer is held apart and placed over the community.