That is fair point. Hindsight analysis must not include information unavailable to the participants. The only way for people outside of the situation to understand the decisions made by the participants is exhaustive, truthful testimony. Again, testimony is extremely flawed due to all of imperfections of our brains.
Here is the problem with your idea it misses the idea that the law recognizes the concept of reasonableness. So in short, the person relates what they knew in the heat of the moment. Then the Judge or Jury then, when not in the heat of the moment ask "does that seem reasonable?"
Read the article. Officer cited fear of public reprisal for not killing a citizen while out of their mind. All I have is that statement, so I will accept it at face value.
I am happier they both survived the conflict than if she had decided to kill.
Killing anyone is permanent; killing steals existence from another. A split decision made in a desperate moment could easily haunt a person for the rest of their life.
As a citizen, as a man of peace, I could only justify killing an assailant if I was unable to subdue them before they kill myself or another.
Well the "accept it at face value" comment in and of itself evidences an inherent suspicion. What is fact? An accident occured. Additional fact? testing showed the driver was high on wet. Additional fact, a female officer ended up in the hospital in "Serious Condition" from a beating she took from said suspect. Additional Fact "serious condition" means the officer suffered "serious bodily injury." In every State in the United States of America even a Civilian is allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent, or because of "Serious bodily injury."
Additionally, sorry, don't really care if that guy lived, I would have been happier with a cop needing an ice pack and a dead bad guy in this scenario. Here is why. This guy was not mentally ill. He knowing smoked an illegal substance known to make people prone to violence and to have issues walking a straight line let alone driving. He caused a car accident that could have hurt civilians because of his CHOICE. He then severely beat a female officer because of his CHOICE. Sorry but if your choice leads to something like that the consequences are on you and you don't, imo, have the right to take someone down with you because of your piss poor life choices. Seriously. I can sorta rationalize most drug use from an issue of self medication etc. Wet/PCP is the one exception.
I prefer holding off on discussing specific cases until we find out where we disagree on American policing.
I believe the point of disagreement is that you don't look at the situation logically, but rather emotionally. Are there bad cops? Yep. Are there decent cops that screw up? Also yes. However when you look at the incidents in question you actually see that a majority of the time when people jump to "he just murdered him!!!!" Social media has helped perpetuate a gross exaggeration. The VAST majority of cases get cleared not only by locals but the feds. We can argue "well if the officer would have gotten so close" or "if the officer had better training" How about the guy not run, not have an illegal weapon and actually listen to orders? Then you have the actual crimes which, in the face of the fact of over 800,000 officers in our country is so minute that police actually have a better record of doing the right thing that the Priesthood (and this coming from a Roman Catholic.)
Another thing people might want to remember is this. I was a soldier, now a cop. I wore a uniform both times, but they aren't the same. Yes I know my current job is dangerous but there is a very subtle but important difference. In the Army, after a patrol (I was a Scout), I went back to the FOB. Back to a place where I saw other uniforms, everyone kinda knowing "hey this could get me killed", you just tried not to think about it. Today I go HOME. Home to a lovely wife (if she isn't on duty on the opposite shift) and our cats (no kids). I might say "hey let me see if my brother, or brother-in-law, is free for a drink?" This creates an interesting mind set difference. In the Army we said "lets get the job done" when we went on patrol. In LE we say "lets all go home tonight."
People seem to think LEO's get paid to risk their lives. No we don't. That's the Army. LEOs get paid to protect innocent people, which MAY mean risking our lives but that "risk" is a consequence of our purpose. I don't get paid to wait for the bad guy to punch, shoot or stab first. I actually get paid to stop that from happening in the first place. Understand that and then maybe you will see where the difference lies.
