Do we “allow the police extra rights” or do we give them greater latitude because we are asking them to put themselves at great risk in order to protect us? I would say that it is the later...and I would also say, in this case, the officer failed to meet any reasonable threshold of necessary use of deadly force.
I have family members who are law enforcement and they feel the same way. Incidents such as these tarnish the reputation of all of the good officers who go to work every day to serve and protect.
This guy was either horribly trained (Shouting all the confusing and contradictory commands), too panic-stricken to think/act clearly ( a trait which should have been caught earlier on in his career) or, worst of all, he truly thought he was bad-ass and wanted to shoot someone, which should have been caught in a psych eval and he should never have been hired! Whichever was the case, this was NOT a justified shooting!
I would say it is the former. I do not send police out in dangerous situations to protect me. The GOVERNMENT sends police out to raise revenue, primarily, and incidentally to enforce compliance at the point of a gun. They do not protect.
There was a time when cops thought it honorable to have carried a badge for 30 years and never had to pull their gun.
Now cops think it dishonorable to have served any time at all without having killed someone. And killing someone does not cost them one minute of sleep.
Refusing to bring in cops with too high an IQ and admitting cops on an affirmative action basis who are not qualified are equally to blame.
The shooter was not the one yelling instructions. That officer took of to the Philippines and can’t face extradition.