In a well functioning democracy submitting to an unfair arrest or being killed shouldn't be the only options. It works like that only in a dictatorship.
A democratic society would have at least one more option: to let the man call his lawyer, and wait until the lawyer arrives. It's not like any delay in taking the criminal down could result in thousands of casualties. Unfortunately, peace officers nowadays are not even trained to be maintain peace; looks like they are trained like guards for a high security prison. They are trained to always gain control of the situation - even when that is not the right thing to do. But LEOs do not know what "retreat" means. How many families would survive if both spouses only know how to push forward? If not many, then why would anyone expect this to work in the larger society?
part of the problem is ex-military have become cops and this is the compliance behavior they do.
“But LEOs do not know what “retreat” means.”
Looked to me like the ones at the Bundy ranch figured it out pretty good...
Our Founding Fathers hated democracy. They set up America as a Constitutional, representative Republic. Like Ayn Rand says about democracy...
The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html
Like yourself, I wish these cops had chosen another course of action. I also wish this now deceased person had not been breaking the law and had not resisted arrest. And, I WISH for a lot of other things too.
With respect to your views, you seem to advocate a policy whereby all the cops in all confrontations are trained to “back off” and let an individual observed breaking the law “call his lawyer”. Seriously? How would that work?
Here’s a hypothetical, suppose a tough guy was harassing and fondling a young woman on the street. He’s not raping her or anything just groping and talking dirty to her. The Cops come up and tell him to stop. He tells them to FO. The Cops then “back off” and tell him to call his lawyer???
Is this what you are arguing?
Aren’t the CIRCUMSTANCES important? Who makes the decision on the street to “back off” and not enforce Law A but NOT “back off” and DO enforce Law Y?
That’s a lot of THINKING for your average street cop.