We're faulting them for violating firearm safety rules and causing injuries to innocent people.
This seems quite naive. They had a duty to act, and act right then. Acting is not a "safe" choice, but it was the choice they had to make. We could wish and even demand that they have the training to perform that job better, but the officers had to act and had to act with the skills and tools they had at the moment.
Stopping a violent killer who is shielded by innocents is a terrible decision to have to make. It requires that the officer balance, in an instant, the risks of letting that person continue his acts and the risks of injuring and/or killing a bystander.
It is utterly devoid of legitimacy to say, "
the safety rules must trump EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE consideration." If that was the case, no officer could ever fire a shot in a city. No soldier could ever fire a shot in combat. No citizen could ever fire a shot in defense of their own homes. Every use of lethal force is a balance of risks. The safety rules can be utterly paramount when on the target range, or when hunting. There is no greater threat or consideration than safety. When lives are on the line, there are risks which actually do outweigh the awful possibility of "collateral damage." We can try to mitigate them, but we cannot eliminate them. And the officer, or defender, or soldier must not be paralyzed by them.
They knew he wasn't an active shooter, as witnessed by the face that he WASN'T SHOOTING. The gun was put away until they confronted him.
So they were going to let him walk on? Maybe, possibly. That could, perhaps, have been a legitimate choice, but it also might not have been. Without sound we don't know exactly why the killer turned on them and drew his weapon. But the fact remains HE DID. Therefore, the officers had to shoot, and shoot right then, right there. Period.
They were 10 feet from him, which means they had other options that did not endanger bystanders. They chose poorly,
This seems to be a complete failure of understanding of lethal force encounters. A man has a gun pointed at you from 10 feet away. And your options are ... WHAT?
and now 9 people and the city are paying for their judgement.
Yes. That's sad. But they're paying a price that "we" (society) can afford to pay. Letting that man continue a killing spree (as there was no realistic reason to think he would not do) would have been a far higher price.
Ooookay........they were still injured as a DIRECT result of the officer's firing. What happened to all the preaching about accountability for every round fired? Are police exempted from this in your opinion?
No. But see above, and my previous response. There was NO "SAFE" solution. They had to act. They had a DUTY to act. We (society) give them certain protection for the sad and painful consequences that might attend their actions when they are forced by criminals to react with violence.
This is going to sound mighty callous, but that's just life. It is not the fault of the cops, it is the direct fault of the KILLER they were stopping from harming the public.
If I swerve on the road to miss a piece of plywood that fell off a truck and kill someone, do you think I'll get a pass for running over a pedestrian? I mean, if the piece of wood that forced me to swerve had been properly secured, that pedestrian would still be alive, so obviously it would be totally the fault of the owner of that piece of wood, right?
Actually, yes, it is and will be partially the fault of that driver who did not secure his load. You don't get "a pass" but you very well may be asked to account for the propriety of the decision you made. Was hitting that piece of plywood a greater threat than the risk to the pedestrian? And, you are not acting according to departmental policy under indemnification for the consequences of your DUTY to do what you did.
If we're going to start excusing damage/injury caused to person "A" by person "B" because of the actions of person "C", why stop there? Person "A" is also clearly at fault for being present. I mean, after all, they wouldn't have been hurt if they weren't there in the first place.....
Let's not get silly. Look into the felony murder doctrine. If someone is doing something ILLEGAL and someone else dies as a result of that act or of the acts of others in stopping their illegal action, the criminal bears the guilt for all the harms which stem from his action.
We absolutely DO blame the criminal. We must! His act of murder, and then of threatening law officers with a firearm CAUSED the injuries to bystanders. That's just how it works.
Pretending that there was an option to just let the killer go ahead and shoot the cops (and anyone else he might have wanted to shoot) is absurd.
