“my problem with your post is that it seems to reveal a disturbingly casual attitude toward the life of an innocent person.”
At the time, I had no idea the man was innocent. I knew that he was wanted for questioning in a murder.
“It seems to imply that it would be better for you to kill an admittedly innocent(found out after much investigation) person because they had something in their hand (or you thought they did) than for you to even risk determining if there was an actual threat to you.”
From the, “I’d rather have dead cops than dead criminals division of FR.”
“I think most of us expect that a police officer would accept a little risk before killing an innocent person.”
Since you read my post, you know that at the time of the stop I had no reason to believe that the person was innocent.
“That is part of the job, and if you don’t like it or can’t accept it, find another line of work.”
I did.
“That is not to say we should expect the police to accept unreasonable risks to their safety”
Bullsqueeze that is exactly what you are saying. You prefer dead cops to dead criminals, just like all of the Losertarians that have chimed in on this thread.
From the, “I’d rather have dead cops than dead criminals division of FR.”
Except he wasn't a criminal. You simply thought he was based on your own bad and incorrect information. And yes, if we have to choose between the two I'd rather the completely innocent guy get to live than the cop who places him in harm's way based on bad information and a near-paranoid concern for "officer safety" through no fault of his own.
“At the time, I had no idea the man was innocent. I knew that he was wanted for questioning in a murder.”
True, but the fact that you have no proof of his guilt should make you less likely to react precipitously, not more likely. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
“From the, “I’d rather have dead cops than dead criminals division of FR.””
No, from the “I’d rather have an armed police officer take the risk than have an unarmed innocent person killed” division.
“Since you read my post, you know that at the time of the stop I had no reason to believe that the person was innocent.”
But you had no proof of his guilt, or even any proof that the person in the car was the person you were seeking. As you said, it was dark, and you were going by the fact that the car belonged to the person you were seeking. What if the driver were a son, a brother, a friend? In other words, there was enough uncertainty to expect that you, a trained and armed law enforcement officer would be reasonably sure of any threat to your safety existed before possibly killing an innocent person.
“That is part of the job, and if you don’t like it or can’t accept it, find another line of work.”
“I did.”
From the sounds of it, the citizens in your jurisdiction should heave a big sigh of relief for that mercy.
I think you need to check your premises. This man was not a criminal. He was a West Pointer, a veteran, and an upstanding citizen of his community.
One other thing: I'm most certainly not a libertarian, and I am far from convinced this was a righteous shooting.
You don't have to be a libertarian to oppose law enforcement officers willy-nilly gunning citizens down in the street.
Shoot a cop, save a civilian. Until the day comes where I can pull over a pig for no reason, point a gun its face, and have my cronies lie about it and the lies be accepted in court because I’m also a pig....