I can't say that the officers acted well or badly here - I wasn't there. All I am saying is that this sounds like a tragic misunderstanding to me. And that people not understanding what real threats look like can lead them to behave in ways they don't realize are dangerous, and that's a real problem, and maybe something we can do something about on the civilian side.
I find it really unlikely that cops kill people for laughs. Does their training make them too high strung and jumpy? I mean, I've seen it, and given the threats they face, I don't really think so.
I do have sympathy for police. I know police officers. I train with some sometimes. I'm not saying there aren't bad ones or that there isn't bad training - I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier for them and the people they interacted with to stay safe if everyone understood what being non-threatening actually looks like, and how to surrender safely. I just hate to see a tragic outcome result from a misunderstanding. And maybe that's not what this is, but it's what it sounds like.
I think a lot of people have this really unreasonable standard for police, that they're supposed to know who's good and who's evil, and who's attacking and who's panicking... and man, they're just trying to get the situation under control so it can get sorted out. They aren't God. They aren't even juries and courts. You can't just be innocent, you also gotta act safe. I understand the outrage when innocent people die - I do. I'm just trying to offer a practical way to make the world a safer place. I don't think outrage at police alone is necessarily practical. There are some practical issues when people who don't know what combat looks like wind up in a tense situation, and they're real issues, and being mad at police isn't a great solution alone. All I'm sayin.
For one thing, combat is something that happens between two belligerents. I've been in a lot of fights and I've never, ever, gone off on someone by mistake because it's legally safer to risk a bit of disadvantage than to create a situation where none exists.
I absolutely disagree that we need to 'doing something on the civilian side' to make civilians more accommodating of police anxiety. That's literally the recipe for a police state, and there's good arguments for the proposition that we already inhabit one, it's just that it's benefits and costs are so unevenly distributed and the structure of it so decentralized that it's hard to perceive.
Knowing police officers gives you some xtra insight, as it has me. I suggest you expand your awareness to include information from criminals, attorneys in the criminal justice system, and other participants. Right now you seem to think that because you know some martial arts and some cops you're far enough ahead of the general population that you're half expert already. I think that's more likely knowing one corner of a field and thinking you've seen the whole thing.
I have no idea what you're talking about with a police state. Understanding how to be non-threatening violates no rights of yours, and is a very practical life skill in any physically tense situation.
Look, there are plenty of things that are messed up about the way police function - though nothing that applies to all of them, either good or bad, since police are a local institution. But in general, civil asset forfeiture is very bad, and often a grave injustice. Policemen lying under oath to get a conviction are very bad. Arrest quotas are bad. The high price of justice in the courts is very very very bad. There are bad things, and I am all for working to make them better. But on the other hand, I think police are people who deserve empathy and fair treatment as much as anyone does, and who absolutely deserve the right to protect themselves and work safely as much as is practical. I don't think understanding what that entails and putting them at ease and keeping yourself safer is building a police state. It's just being smart and decent.
You don't have a perspective here, you're uncritically adopting theirs, which is designed to present things in a certain way.
'the male' - not a person or a man; dehumanizing language
'turned towards the officers' - probably because he had just noticed their presence; this language implies intent
'the residence' - it's a house; unnecessary abstracting leads to a loss of valuable context
'lowered his hands to the waistband again' - do you wear pants or a skirt? then you have a waistband, and guess what, your hands naturally hang just below wait level; everyone who isn't naked and holding their hands in the air is assumed to be armed with a concealed handgun
'then suddenly pulled them back up towards those officers at the east' - probably because they were telling to put his hands up and most people lift their arms up in front of them rather than to the side as when doing jumping jacks; implies the action was directed at them without evidence
See? It all sounds like delightfully objective, but it's actually selective and subjective. You were manipulated into treating conclusions as if they were evidence.
I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation.
You know police departments consider hands and feet to be 'personal weapons' right? A paranoid person (and police suffer from a degree of professional paranoia) is apt to make irrational assessments of threat factors, and this problem is compounded by a deficit of integrity among some officers and police unions, so that you get police like Michael Slager claiming to be acting out of fear when actually they were shooting someone in the back for running away (fortunately he was convicted of murder, but probably only because he was caught on video).
Some of us have been insulated from violence for so long that we don't know what it looks like.
I'm not. I have a lot of experience with this. If it's alien to you then maybe join a martial arts club or visit a shooting range or whatever would broaden your experience; or don't, if you'd rather not. But insofar as you're not well able to judge this, you should absolutely not be taking the statements of people who have a vested interest at face value because by your own admission, you're not in a good position to assess their claims.