I think I can answer your question by saying that I believe cops should be held to a little bit higher standard in regards to lethal force than they are currently. Maybe training in certain departments is insufficient, I don't know. The problem is the propensity of some cops to agitate a situation using their authority which could have been approached in a different manner without the situation escalating to the level of violence.
I'm not a Mike Brown apologist either. Eric Garner, little bit different story. Either way, I do not believe that the death of the "perpetrator" was the only outcome of either situation.
Just like the wise ones on this forum suggest to activists that they settle matters in court instead of on the street, the same should be true of police. I'm not saying there isn't a time and a place for lethal force, but it would benefit society if it were a little more rare.
I can't disagree with any of this.
At the same time, I recognize that I have the opportunity, even an obligation (moral if not legal) to walk away from or even entirely avoid as many potentially violent situations as possible. Police officers do not have that same opportunity. They have an obligation (again, moral/ethical even if not legally enforceable) to do just the opposite: to confront dangerous individuals, to keep the peace, to make arrests, to uphold and enforce the laws of the land.
We in the gun owning and carrying community are fond of quoting Heinlein in claiming an armed society is a polite society. If we believe that, we have to expect people to be polite even when being confronted by agents of the state. I don't want cops escalating needlessly. But I cannot tolerate someone assaulting cops even if the cops were less than perfect in how they handled a situation. Cops are human. We are all prone to being a bit jerky at times.
Mild offense does not justify physical assault. But physical assault, especially if there is any hint of trying to gain control of a firearm, may well warrant a very serious response. We all don't own and carry guns primarily for recreation or even defense against man eating animals. I think it safe to say we carry guns largely for defense against human predators. The same guys we do our best to avoid, are exactly the reason we hire cops in the first place.
There seems to be pretty good evidence Mike Brown assaulted an innocent store clerk and stole his property (strong arm robbery). He was not a nice nor polite person.
Let us review Heinlein's quote in more context:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Mike Brown lucked out when he assaulted an unarmed store clerk. His luck ended when he assaulted an armed man who happened to be a cop.
I avoid yelling insults to anyone. But were I to insult someone, that would not give him license to try to kill me through my car window. Even the old "fighting words" would give him no more license than a mild physical rebuke such as a slap to the face. Any of us, subjected to the kind of physical assault the evidence suggests Officer Wilson received and that he testified was severe enough to put him into grave danger of his life, would respond with deadly force.
Holding cops to account does not mean indicting nor convicting cops who have used deadly force in response to serious physical assaults.
There are some cases that need indictments, convictions, and serious punishment. Good cops and their unions need to stop shielding or standing by silently when bad cops commit crimes. But calling for a cop's head even when the shoot is justified certainly won't help in these regards.
Charles
