Replies

If Officer Aledda was truly firing at the autistic man from just 50 yards away then there’s no excuse for hitting the black man. None.

Well, then, what are you saying? The police officer meant to hit the black therapist in the leg? How come?

If the police are going to “see” a gun in everyone’s hands (regardless if it’s actually a gun or not) and then use that as an excuse to kill someone then they need to find other work. Period.

How are they "'see(ing)' a gun in everyone's hands"? Despite all the encounters between police and the public, including minorities, police shootings are very much a rarity, especially in situations where someone hasn't actually done something serious - like engage in threatening behavior.

If the police in this country are going to use lethal force for every encounter with civilians then they’re going to have to understand that some people are going to use lethal force for every encounter with law enforcement.

"Use lethal force for every encounter with civilians"? Why did you say that? They don't. They usually don't even when they have to physically fight a suspect. "but if the police in this country are going to persist in acting like an army of occupation then they are going to foment an insurgency. It’s just that simple." What you write just sounds anti-police.

I'm wondering what you think of the other high-profile police shooting incidents of recent years.

And once again, on the officer in this case, you don't know if he is truly the one responsible for the error, and that he was either paranoid or just wanting to shoot someone, or if a reasonable person would conclude that what happened really was essentially unavoidable on his part.

One other point on that. Police officers, as we all know, aren't likely to be Harvard graduates, and most would admit that they aren't geniuses.

At the same time, they are dealing with a public which is growing more generally anti-social all the time. People are encouraged by the left not to follow rules "blindly," but to decide for themselves if they can "safely" break a rule. That's why I've seen several people in the city I've moved to drive up to red lights, stop (or not) for a second, and then proceed through the light if nothing is coming (though in one case I had to run back because I was crossing as a pedestrian on my green light).

People today are more self-satisfied but angry at others, cocksure that they're of the superior set.

So in a most challenging environment (and today's prevailing attitude is just a part of their challenges), you have police who typically would admit they weren't at the top of their classes. Let's an officer just makes a wrong decision, but not deliberately. It is out of making the best decision he or she could, given all factors, including their training, their understanding of things, and how well they're able to respond to rapidly-developing situation. Are you in favor of criminally punishing them not on the basis of their actual intent, which was to do good, but on the basis of the outcome?