I get it. The deputy acted “stupidly”, right Professor Gates.
>I get it. The deputy acted “stupidly”, right Professor Gates.
No, that’s not what I’m getting at.
What I’m getting at is that in my training in the Army, and even in the civilian world, it is ALWAYS stressed that you are RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ROUND YOU PUT DOWNRANGE.
To endorse a “give him a medal” attitude like you did for operating on complete unknowns (and ignoring that he was WRONG) is to completely absolve the shooter of responsibility.
We already have a tradition in the “justice” system that absolves people of their duty: unqualified immunity for prosecutors. This means that a prosecutor cannot be held criminally liable for, say, withholding evidence that tends to justify or vindicate the person that he is prosecuting; in fact there was recently a case where just that happened, and the accused went to jail for about a decade (IIRC, I don’t remember the exact numbers) and won a civil suit against the prosecutor (on a due process clause in the Constitution) of several million dollars... this case then made its way to the Supreme Court where it was [sadly] overturned.
The practical ramifications of the above is that the government agents DO NOT have to provide [substantial] training in order to comply with providing ‘due process.’
If that is extended to “Law Enforcement” then we must *expect* a rise in such shootings as this; and, if coupled with a “give them a medal” attitude, then they will be encouraged to do so.