Do you also think that police should get special treatment when they shoot unarmed people? You see, if I were to shoot a naked unarmed man, I would go to prison for life.
I have a close friend who's a cop, and I believe that the vast majority of officers perform their jobs very well - and that they deserve the respect of us all. I don't care to see them maligned. The Seattle area has had its share of troubles with protesters and downtown parties getting out of hand, and I will say that I would rather see the police err on the side of aggressiveness (WTO) than not (Mardi Gras, where Kris Kime was beaten to death - coming to the defense of a woman - as police were told not to move in). When they hang back too much, bad things happen.
You probably don't even see the incongruence here, do you? You are all over me for questioning the actions of the police, and telling me that I'm a cop hater because I think they reacted poorly in a situation. And yet, here you are doing the exact same thing.
The funny thing is, I agree with you -- in part. In both Seattle riots, the police refused to act when there were clear and isolated offenders to be arrested. They sat back and watched until the provocateurs were able to whip it into something bigger. Then the police reacted and many innocent people were harmed as collateral damage by both sides. It's not that the police need to be more aggressive at smashing crowds or shooting people. It's that they need to follow the law and be held accountable -- seriously accountable -- when they do wrong.
I think in the context of the job, a police officer needs to be able to function without unnecessary, unreasonable fears. If he has an excellent reason to shoot, then I have no problem with him shooting. Herzog had a very good reason to shoot, and unfortunately, he chose not to. It has been speculated upon that he may have had concerns about society's anti-cop whiners. You can bet his wife and two girls wish he'd used his gun, in spite of the inevitable complaints.
I don't know what the laws in your state are, but I would be surprised if you were not allowed to practice self-defense against someone threatening your life.
You probably don't even see the incongruence here, do you? You are all over me for questioning the actions of the police, and telling me that I'm a cop hater because I think they reacted poorly in a situation. And yet, here you are doing the exact same thing.
No I don't, no I'm not, no I didn't, and no I'm not.
The funny thing is, I agree with you -- in part. In both Seattle riots, the police refused to act when there were clear and isolated offenders to be arrested. They sat back and watched until the provocateurs were able to whip it into something bigger.
They were commanded not to by a wuss. He blew it, probably worried about public pressure and criticism. Now where would he get the idea that people might be critical? Hmmm. Gee. I don't know.
Until you tell me you have served on a police force, I'm going to take your dissection of what they do and how they do it for precisely what it is worth, by the way.
Then the police reacted and many innocent people were harmed as collateral damage by both sides.
You'll have to tell me specifically what you mean by "innocent" (anarchists bent on causing trouble and destroying property?) and "harmed" (yelled at? pepper sprayed? shoved?). Then you're going to have to prove the cops were out of line, and acted unprovoked by these so-called "innocents". Good luck.
It's not that the police need to be more aggressive at smashing crowds or shooting people. It's that they need to follow the law and be held accountable -- seriously accountable -- when they do wrong.
I think you need to take into consideration the context of the job. It's not conducted in a laboratory, after all. It just ain't.