In your discussions about police shootings where the subject is described as unarmed, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the police use of deadly force (UoDF) is always excessive and unnecessary. While that is often true, it is not automatic. Let me list a few ways such UoDF can be reasonable and justified.
First, unarmed does not automatically mean incapable of posing a legitimate deadly threat. People are often enough beaten to death, strangled to death, or intentionally pushed into danger by otherwise unarmed people. Shooting such a person to prevent them from taking such action could be reasonable and justified.
Second, the media often describes anyone who doesn’t have a gun as unarmed. Guns are not the only form of deadly weapon. I’ve seen screwdrivers used to stab, cue sticks used to club, broken bottles used to slice, and cars used to hit people. All of these things are not weapons unless used as such but can be deadly if used as weapons. A person who is shot by police while in the act of using an improvised weapon is too often described by the media as being unarmed.
Third, there is a phenomenon called Suicide by Cop. Let’s take a hypothetical ex-con who has sworn he’s never going back to prison. He has built a new life, has a job and a woman. But he loses his temper and beats his woman. He knows he’s ruined his new life and is going back to prison. So when the police go to take him into custody, he intentionally makes the police believe he is a deadly threat so they will kill him. (There are many videos out there of cornered suspects begging for the police to “shoot me!”)
Of course, there are times when police UoDF is excessive and unnecessary, but it is by no means automatic. It is necessary to look at all the facts and circumstances of every case before passing judgement.
In your discussions about police shootings where the subject is described as unarmed, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the police use of deadly force (UoDF) is always excessive and unnecessary. While that is often true, it is not automatic. Let me list a few ways such UoDF can be reasonable and justified.
First, unarmed does not automatically mean incapable of posing a legitimate deadly threat. People are often enough beaten to death, strangled to death, or intentionally pushed into danger by otherwise unarmed people. Shooting such a person to prevent them from taking such action could be reasonable and justified.
Second, the media often describes anyone who doesn’t have a gun as unarmed. Guns are not the only form of deadly weapon. I’ve seen screwdrivers used to stab, cue sticks used to club, broken bottles used to slice, and cars used to hit people. All of these things are not weapons unless used as such but can be deadly if used as weapons. A person who is shot by police while in the act of using an improvised weapon is too often described by the media as being unarmed.
Third, there is a phenomenon called Suicide by Cop. Let’s take a hypothetical ex-con who has sworn he’s never going back to prison. He has built a new life, has a job and a woman. But he loses his temper and beats his woman. He knows he’s ruined his new life and is going back to prison. So when the police go to take him into custody, he intentionally makes the police believe he is a deadly threat so they will kill him. (There are many videos out there of cornered suspects begging for the police to “shoot me!”)
Of course, there are times when police UoDF is excessive and unnecessary, but it is by no means automatic. It is necessary to look at all the facts and circumstances of every case before passing judgement.