Taz writes:
We know that now. But the swat didn't know that then. Again, in the real world you don't wait for the other guy to pull the trigger first. He points a gun at you, you open fire. Jesus christ, how many times do I have to repeat this?
Well, to me, it seems you think it's understandable if a cop fire first in case of a doubt for his own safety. But what about the civilian. Let's imagine you're an armed civilian, armed cops approach you or get you in your house, knowing that even if they are real cops, there's a risk that they could still shoot you unprovoked, shouldn't you shoot the cop first for your own safety? Moreover, at what point will people start to consider cops to be just another gang instead of public servants? Will relatives of people help cops or their ennemies after the incidents?
I think that's the bigger risk with this kind of reasoning, not only are cops shifting the risks to innocent civilians, but by reducing the immediate risks to themselves, they're also incrasing the risks to themselves and all their colleagues in the future. They're also making their own job harder. Sure, everyone make mistakes, but when a civilian makes a mistake, he pays the price but it doesn't seem to be the case with cops and that's where most of the hostility towards them come from.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.