Just what the situation needs, misapplication of military solutions from a foreign country in a complicated factional battlespace with much more deadly situations to problems with American citizens.

I guess this is the “Intellectual Yet Idiot” effect.

The US military under Petraeus’ command could deal with Iraqi suicide bombers without killing entire neighborhoods, even though they could, because they wanted to use the least amount of force. As using force against guerillas is counter productive in some ways. You need the loyalty of the people the guerillas terrorize or hide under first.

If the excuse of police is that their jobs are so dangerous they need to use lethal force… well, why did COIN work in Iraq that didn’t involve using the military’s MOABs, bombs, and nukes then? That was their military “max force” after all.

Of course, I am not exposed to danger as routinely as the police, but then again, nobody pays me to train to protect life and order either. So their jobs are balanced in some ways. If it wasn’t, who would be crazy enough to be employed as one… there are private CO, Corrections Officer, companies. Who would employ as one and deal with criminals for more than 12 hours a day? Obviously people do.

If I over react, I can go to jail or get sued due to negligent homicide or voluntary/not manslaughter. If I under react, I might get curb stomped or robbed or crippled. Police, are not very different from me, being human and also susceptible to crippling injuries, death, and what not. But they would rather over react, than underreact. If they over react, the Union or police or system can keep them safe. If they underreact and die or get crippled, they can’t be saved.

The police unions have it in their favor to desensitize police to violence against their fellow civilians. Why? Because it’s useful to get your very own loyalist death squad in a civil war. But, primarily, it keeps the Union dues and donations going. It’s like a cult, except it’s Officially Sanctioned.

Please see the more recent update post.

In both posts I’ve made it clear that new information could change things. But the information so far, including the video, indicates Shelby overreacted.

Officers are not required to take unnecessary risks. But there must be some reason for them to use deadly force that isn’t just based on their own fears that a suspect MIGHT be dangerous or MIGHT be armed. Being on drugs is insufficient.

If you look at the update, you’ll see that even Shelby’s own attorney tells a story that does not explain why she would feel the need to use deadly force. If she had such a reason, I haven’t seen it described so far. She thought he had a gun. Why? Nothing he did indicated he might have a gun, and merely being on drugs (which he may or may not have been, but let’s say he was) is not nearly enough.

And if she thought he had a gun in the car, why on earth escort him back to the car (if you watch the video, that’s what’s happening)? Plus, apparently the car window was closed. How could he reach into a closed window?

So far, this does not appear to be a situation where an officer had reason to believe herself at risk. And the fact that Crutcher was tasered at the same time (or around the same time) only tells us that something happened, it doesn’t tell us it would justify the use of deadly force. I’m not an officer, but I am fairly certain that there is a lower threshold for the use of a taser on a suspect as compared to a firearm.

“Police weapons training requires officers to assume the worst when suspects disobey or disregard.”

Wait, what?

Don’t have a false sense of security. See this.

Cases involving whites don’t get much attention because there’s no political hay to be made. But everyone is actually at risk with these scenarios.