These are leading questions, because the answer is obvious: if the choice is a dead cop or a dead civilian, a dead cop is the only moral choice that can be made. Optimizing for the safety of the police is how you turn police into fearful, scared "warriors" who view the citizenry as their enemy, like we have in the United States.

Risk is the police's business, taken intentionally and with foreknowledge on behalf of the citizenry. Or else they're bullies with badges.

US cops are just a rogue and racist organisation, who apply their own law (mostly based on racial profiling).

I think that comparing it to the police in the Philippines would be more appropriate.

The victim in this case got hated by the right wing was because he was a stereotypical drug dealer who drove off, and nothing else, and they wanted the police to be able to work.

If the choice is a dead cop or a dead fugitive, a dead cop is the only moral choice that can be made.

That was easy. And it's true and it's right, too.

The police are not judges and they are not executioners. If it takes a dead cop to bring in a non-violent fugitive, who in functional countries is to be presumed innocent until found otherwise by a court of law, that is a good price to pay for society. And I do note non-violent; somebody who's engaged in violence against other people--not property--has implicitly raised the stakes and I don't have a problem with the police then responding with force. (But they are not mind-readers, and so hypothetical future endangerment of civilians without cause is not within bounds.)

If police don't like defaulting to rules of engagement where civilians' lives matter more than their own, they can find another job where they can't employ force against other people.

> rules of engagement where civilians' lives matter more than their own

You're back to the word "civilians" again. And I don't accept that law enforcement's lives are worth less than lawbreakers' lives.

Is it possible? Sure, I guess. Did it happen? No.

Do you execute somebody for it could have happened? Well, I mean, I think officers of the peace shouldn't do so regardless of country.

> You're back to the word "civilians" again. And I don't accept that law enforcement's lives are worth less than lawbreakers' lives.

Because they are civilians! That's the definition! Words mean things!

You don't have to accept that cops are less important than civilians. I think your position is wrong and gross, but I concede that there's a discussion to be had about rules of engagement. We could have that, if you were packing for it.

But you want call me out for dirty pool about the word civilian?

How about lawbreaker?

In a liberal society, it is the job of a court to decide who's a lawbreaker. Cops don't make law and cops don't prescribe punishment. If we're talking about dirty pool, loading that implication onto an extrajudicial execution should make it really hard for you to look in the mirror. I hope you've got the same energy for taking one in the ten-ring when you go five miles an hour over the speed limit in an area with a few curb cuts. After all, you could have hit someone.

There's bad faith arguing and then there's this, you're just rushing to claim a moral high ground you don't have to move the post towards someone having to dismantle the claim that cops are less important than civilians.

In my country, Chile, there was a brief flash of time when this attitude was taken, that even if a suspect threatens a cop's life to get away, they should be given that right.

People got sick of dead cops quite quickly, and the position was just thrown into the dustbin of history, poof, there, wrong side of history, discredited, shunned, almost forgotten. You don't have rule of law when "civilians" make their own in the street and the State giving up the monopoly of violence.

This is true. This is absolutely true!

But that cuts both ways. Can you explain to me how, given that in a liberal society police do not and must not determine guilt or innocence, you can have the rule of law when the police are seizing that role for themselves? Because, when we go down this rabbit hole, the police committing extrajudicial killings is also the state yielding their monopoly on force; the extrajudicial action of an agent of the state, when not ordered by the executive, is seizure of that monopoly for personal ends.

You could convince me of a middle ground instituting an automatic venue-changed prosecution of every police killing and letting a jury sort it out--take your chances with that shoot!--but I tend not to think that would go over well with this crowd either.

But on his report, the officer testified that he shot because the car was heading toward him.

That didn't match the video.

There is an investigation because, with such a mismatch, you can wonder to what extent the officer was really in danger.

You can assume that if you really faced death, you would remember what happened and describe it exactly.