Police are always civilians. Let’s not ascribe valor where none is present. Perhaps you were searching for the word “citizen”?
The off-duty cop in question brandished a firearm and threatened to murder a random kid. That’s at least two crimes, one of which is a felony in most states. I view the failure to prosecute as an affront to the rule of law. Time to change the laws that have created this clear violation of the 10th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.
In combination with the ubiquitous arming of Americans in some jurisdictions, it also seems to invite truly ridiculous scenarios, with one armed person pulling a gun on an unarmed person, then another armed person pulling a gun on the first, and so on. In such a stand-off, how is violence avoided? Worse, the arrival of law enforcement would seem to exacerbate the situation, not resolve it.
I also interpreted your post to @docsoc as critical and slightly patronizing. If that wasn’t your intent, you might check if some editing would make your intent more clear.
I don’t disagree with you, but the cop lobby is pretty powerful. This was back before CCW was as wide spread as it is now, and they wanted the security blanket they are used to.
That and cops are very much above the law for minor infractions. Ever see that video of a police chopper tagging speaders only to have crusiers get called off when it is figured out that the dozen or so they found were all cops racing to some big training semiinar.
He didn’t lie prostrate on the ground instantly when he saw a cop. Off or on duty or wearing or not-wearing a uniform did not matter. The way we have given officers the benefit of every doubt is just nuts.
It won’t be fixed until the cop from State A gets arrested and is placed in prison in State B for the same amount of time as if a Hispanic teen pulled a gun on the cop and told her to get on the ground or he will shoot you.
If she was off the clock, she should be in prison. If she doesn’t get hard time for brandishing a weapon at a minor and Teton County thinks that what she did was even reasonably okay, then yeah, I’d sue them.
What I don’t get (and haven’t seen addressed here yet) is when it became just fine for cops to use, or threaten to use (“I have a gun and will shoot”) deadly force when there’s no threat to life and limb. I mean, there wasn’t even the claim that the kid had a deadly cell phone.
I know that in the movies cops get to shoot people for fleeing, but I thought that was supposed to be fiction and that the law didn’t recognize the death penalty for suspicion of criminality in general (say, shoplifting, or I don’t know, obstruction of justice). The bald faced “reasonable to assume” justification just doesn’t hold water even if we accept that it is “reasonable to assume” (it’s not) because committing a crime isn’t a legal (or moral) justification for being killed.
You know, as I read this and thought about it, that might be the most frightening part of this, is just the normalization of cops employing or threatening deadly force in a totally nonthreatening situation (well, nonthreatening until they escalated it anyway.) “Kid is running, better deploy my firearm” has become fairly SOP. It absolutely should not and never ever is that gonna be OK.
I can tell you that bystanders in Chicago are routinely harmed and even killed by these gotta-get-em-no-matter-what-it-takes tactics, and yet almost never do those statistics make it into any news source. You have to know medical people – EMTs, etc. – to find out the truth privately.
Ironically, if they spent as much money and effort on getting actual military training as they do on getting the tanks, assault weapons, etc., they would know how to diffuse situations instead of turning dry tinder into a conflagration all the time.