The first is, "If the policeman has to put himself at risk in order to save lives, should he?" Yes. That is part of the job description, whether it's taking on somebody who's a risk to the public or rescuing somebody. It's an ideal, however, and if a policeman fails to live up to the highest standard in this regard, well, he's still a human being. Self-sacrifice can be a touchy matter.
Notice that the value "self-sacrifice" is not one confined to the police. If a parent sees her offspring in danger, if a teacher sees her students in danger, if a Scout leader sees his charges in danger, self-sacrifice is one of the options that should be seriously considered.
It also pays to keep in mind that often when a policeman shoots somebody it's in order to protect the public. If an armed man is threatening somebody and he's shot, we don't usually see those videos. In fact, even when the man is shot we see the video, hear about how it's impossible for the guy to be armed, and then when it's clear he *was* armed we stick fingers in our ears and sing, loudly, la-la-la-la. Or we simply forget the details because, well, they're just not important, but retain the idea that this was another case that should provoke indignation. There were a couple such incidents over the summer, and even after it was clear the shooting was of an armed man who might well have been reaching for his weapon memories continued to say otherwise.
The second idea is, "If the policeman is personally threatened by a person, should he assume the risk of being shot simply in order to avoid injuring the other person"? I assume that nobody else is immediately involved.
Sure. The cop should avoid harm. But the standard has to be set much, much lower, because the policeman is also part of the public and he's not necessarily putting himself at risk to save an innocent. Moreover, if the policeman sees that he's in danger and may be shot, it's also got to be considered that having an armed man who just shot a cop walking down the street may not be best for public safety. "He's confused and mentally ill" is scant justification in this case. If he's confused and shoots a cop, he might stay confused and kill a kid. It still goes back to, "Do we even consider cops to count as 3/5 of a human being?" For many people, that 60% mark is aspirational, something they may finally achieve after decades of working on cultivating at least minimal regard for blue clothes.
Part of my response is due to a simple fact: We watch a video of an unarmed black man being shot by police and then the topic shifts, silently, to the idea that this doesn't happen to some other group *or* numbers are cited on how rampant shootings are but the numbers include *armed* black men. It sharply biases the discussion and it's even painful to point out that such posters are either dense or trying to trick and deceive those who want to be deceived because of the outrage that daring to question the accusations provokes.
There's another issue at hand, though, and that's one of trust and perception. Many assume that all things being equal, the cops should be regarded with extreme suspicion. They boldly claim that the opposite must be true: All things being equal, until the bullet actually leaves the gun and hits a cop, the cop must fully trust people, especially those who hold them in the highest suspicion and have no trouble insulting and abusing them. The dichotomy in views is extreme, and that kind of extremism is part of the problem. If you're convinced that the other side is out to get you, you regard the other person with extreme distrust and you assume that even misinformation spread about the side you distrust is true. This only makes sense. However it explains at least a portion of the unarmed black death rate and how cops are perceived to close ranks, not just the "community's" response to cops.
= new reply since forum marked as read
