Cities are going to start burning and the cops will be lighting the match.
When someone says they aren't going to comply with an arrest, should the cops say: "Hey, bro. Not in the mood to come down to the station? I totally get it, dude. Here's our address - when you feel like stopping by, we'll have a holding cell ready for you."
What should they have done? Just let him take charge of the situation? Defer to his "feelings"?
I know this man didn’t die from a gunshot, but Mark Steyn makes some good points here and it applies to this case:
Gun Control
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3179560/posts
It would be nice to get a Supreme Court ruling on that one of these days. Mr Tolan lives in daily pain, so he came out ahead of the poor schizophrenic and the pre-school lady, who are both six feet under. If someone shoots up a grade school or a movie theatre, the cable airwaves fill with experts demanding gun control. But every day Americans are shot for no reason other than that armed bureaucrats “don’t have time for this”. Any chance of a little more gun control there?
As I always say in these circumstances, if you need to shoot a schizophrenic, a teenage partygoer, a lame septuagenarian, a confused hobo, etc, etc, etc, you’re doing it wrong. “The book” is the problem. “The book” is what needs to change. Anyone who goes into law enforcement assumes the risk that a traffic stop might turn out to be something more. Mr Tolan, Miss Ramsey and the rest of us should not have to assume any such risk. In routine encounters with law enforcement, a citizen should not have to weigh the likelihood that the officer will decide to shoot him dead. That’s about as basic a standard for civilized society as one can muster.
You must be thinking of America. That was a wonderful place I had the privilege to be raised in.
The obedient sheeple of the USSA love watching troublemakers be killed.