Their was no chance of me being arrested. A person broke into my home in the middle of the night. I called the Cops and put a shotgun on him till they came. Luckily he choose to put down his own weapon and wait rather than run. I would have hated to have to fire.

I know several officers who see their job as protecting the people. I know one whom I do not care for the rest are good people attempting to do a good job at what they see the job as. Protecting the people.

I would tend to agree with your two points at some point up the food chain within a police department. I would not agree with it for most of the police based on those I know.

The fact that the second cop did not draw his weapon is an indication that the first cop was looking for action...
Again, the report was of a person with a gun. So what? Doesn't a US citizen have a Constitutional right to have and carry a gun? Could the report be false? Was anyone hurt, were shots fired? No, no and again no. Sure looks that the only criminal here is the one in blue (should really have been pink by now...).

Roy, no one is saying that context is not important. My question to you was to ask your sheriff friend whether, based on only the information in the video, he would arrest you? And I am inclined to guarantee that he would. Perhaps, with additional information, you would not be found guilty. Perhaps, but doubtful. However, once arrested, at the very best, you are looking at several tens of thousands of dollars to the lawyers. You will probably lose your job and under the best of circumstances, your life will never be the same. Why will the cops arrest you - quite simple - the cops do not work for you, for the public or for the victim. They work for the State and their functions are 1) to protect the State and the important people writing their checks and 2) to bring a perpetrator to the justice system. Notice, they are not interested in justice - that is the courts' job. Now, with the information in the video, do you really think that your sheriff will drag in a dead, unarmed kid, or would he arrest you with the gun still smoking as evidence?
You have mentioned before that you have pulled a gun on someone and that de-escalated the situation. Based on the case law, you have been incredibly lucky - all the person had to do, regardless of his previous actions, is to call the police and tell them that you were brandishing a gun. Automatic arrest. The case law is straightforward here - if you did not shoot them, that means that there was no imminent threat to your life. Once they are the first to call, they gain an automatic advantage as a perceived victim.
The point that I'm trying to make here, is that in a similar circumstance a citizen who would do what we saw in the video, is done for, while the cop nonchalantly walks away because the system protects its own, civil servants or murderers alike.

Sharpton doesn't give a hoot over the whether the country is torn apart or not, he's in it for the money, it's that simple. He's a charlatan using his race. I know a few blacks that totally agree.

I as well, was pretty surprised when I got home and was spit on the first time.

I think there's plenty of context in the video and the audio. The kid began walking away when the cops pulled in and before the cop got out of his cruiser, and when the cops finally got his attention, he turned around and saw a gun pointed at him, then he started backing up either holding up his pants or reaching to turn off his iPod. The kid was scared to death when he turned and saw a gun aimed at him by an over excited cop. And as it turned out, the kid was not the man they were supposedly looking for and had no weapon of any kind.

I've been in gunfights, been in an ambush, and been shot. You don't freeze. You move as fast as you can, you duck and dodge, and try to find cover. You freeze you're dead.

The cop pulling and aiming his weapon put himself into a shoot/don't be shot scenario that was unwarranted.

Roy; I doubt that we'll ever be able to agree on the 'shooting' part of this situation. But you have hit on a significant part of this event, Why the hell pull the gun with the kid walking away. The kid started walking away even before the cop got out of his patrol car. Bringing the gun into the mix in the first place is the right issue to address, IMHO.

Once that gun is pulled and aimed, every thought in your head, from NMH training, begins with does he have a weapon, is he pulling it, etc.

I think we're pretty much in agreement. Perhaps we're just a little different in opinion of what is needed to put a stop to the destruction of our people and our cites. I would guess I'm more for going to war, as I see too many Al Sharpton's, knowingly or unknowingly, trying to tear this country apart. And when our government seems to support the Sharpton Theory and put a target on all police for the wrongs of a few, we are doomed if we don't stop it soon.

Like I said before, now I understand why the military didn't let us bring our side arms home with us, my life might be different if I had. But that was way back then. By the way, I had little idea what was going on at home before I got back. Today I thank God that I didn't take that Sheriff job offer back in '69.

My reason would never start with law as the basis, that's a slippery slope, but the courts tend to do it that way.

Based on what we know of this case it may or may not have been justified. I think he pulled a gun in a situation that did not warrant it, and it escalated to a situation that did warrant the shooting.

The area of my concern is why did he pull the gun in the first place? That cannot be seen and that context is critical to judging this video and cop.

I do not think I would have ever pulled my gun out in the first place. Its there for needed defense for me and that's it. Why this guy pulled his gun in the first place is what needs to be known and really is not.

funny you should mention that because I did just that to one (a sheriff) who had a response just lke mine, insufficient information to decide one way or the other.

There is going to be context this video and the article do not show. That needs to be known before jumping to judgement.

Neal; I'm not sure that you've misinterpreted my message. It's simply that from an Objectivist mind, that the individual is primary and is the only entity that has rights, all rights which includes the right to be left alone, to go about his day as he wishes excepting that he may not initiate force against another in doing that.

A cop is an agent of the government, and the only legitimate function of a government is retributive force in that case where one individual does initiate force against another, and only that force necessary to make him stop that force; and to provide for the protection of the country from those foreign forces that are actively attacking this country.

A cop or soldier as an agent of that government has a moral obligation to follow the 'only that force necessary' to bring the individual to a court to be tried by a jury of his peers or to stop the attack on this country and it's citizens. In our case, the Founders penned the Constitution and Amendments that spell out that obligation.

We may not like the results of the protestors/rioters of late or the expressions of the race haters in our population, but remember that the Founders themselves, were considered to be protestors/rioters and criminals and British haters by a significant proportion of the population and the British police force (standing army) of their day. They destroyed things of their day such as the Boston Tea Party and a good deal more. They smuggled all types of goods, against the law of the land, to avoid ruinous taxes and items the government didn't want them to have, and they disobeyed laws they considered to be wrong.

We may feel and want to believe that the individuals being killed by cops in shootings, tasering, and beatings on our own streets, are not the type of people that we want as our next door neighbors, but that does not take away their rights that are identical to ours. And when we allow or excuse the cops to exceed that moral obligation, we are not ourselves being true to our own moral obligations in respect to the rights of man, and rational, reasoning, logical minds. We are bound by our ethical standards, based on that rational, logically reasoned mind to at least voice our condemnation of those in our society and government that are not following those same ethical standards, if not actively stop such violations.

The law of the individual's rights, living in nature have primacy far above any laws of the state and we fail to enforce that primacy when the actions of government and government agents and those that support that government and defend it's agents in the wrongdoings, violate those rights of the ugliest and meanest individual in our society, then we too have no rights and can fully expect that we are next on the list

Logically and historically proven time and time again in our rise from the animal, there can be no doubt. Our turn will be next. We either stop these situations now or we face the total destruction of what little freedom we have left.

So in a way, I have taken sides. The side of the rights of individual man over the authority of the state and her agents. I am after all, an Objectivist and an American.

Your entitled to your opinion, but my impression is you seem to be siding with the demonstrators over the police. It can’t be about that, there can be no sides. I wrote another reply but it turned into a short story (a rather long one, and a lot longer than this one). I do that sometimes, so I deleted it. The points I want to make though are, first there is no difference between drafted and volunteer military, we all fight and bleed the same. There are a few that murder, they should be prosecuted, when there is doubt the default has to be in favor of the soldier and he can be reassigned or fired. When there is no doubt he should be prosecuted. In any case the rest of us should not be held accountable for the actions of a few or we will just destroy the whole organization. This is what I saw some people doing when I came home, they threatened me, I represented the whole organization, not the individuals that they night have had a beef with. And, I almost forgot, neither color didn’t shoot each other, or even the other color at all, at least not in my unit*. And, we were all armed, and even had real bullets, grenades, claymores, etc. We too covered each other’s back to fight against the enemy.

The same goes for civilians, some are cops and most are not. The cops are trained and hired to protect us and enforce our laws. Every once in a while there is a bad one, or sometimes one that makes a gross error in judgement when his adrenalin is ready to pop the top of his head off. Prosecute the bad ones, reassign (perhaps to a desk) the ones that are in doubt, or even fire them. But in any case don’t let the public or anyone burn down the police station because of one bad cop. Just like the returning Nam vets, don’t blame the whole police force or you will destroy it. I think it’s been severely damaged already.

And the demonstrators, my God, what kind of brain does it take to burn your own businesses the ones you frequent, and destroy people’s lives that are hiding at home? Where are the demonstrations against the 43 some murdered in May in Baltimore, not murdered by cops but murdered by each other? I understand that‘s a record. And we want the cops to go back in there an put a stop to it without using their guns? It's almost like, if you just leave us along we’ll annihilate ourselves. Is that where where Baltimore is headed now? Would you want a cops job after the whole institution was demeaned for a few bad ones. Is that any different than demeaning all the people of Baltimore for committing 43 murders last month, or should it be just all of the blacks? If we continue this nonsense none of it will matter in the end, we’ll just eventually destroy ourselves.

What are the results of all the preaching Al Sharpton has done over the years? As I see it he has been making things worse for black people, not better. The people that despise him are living in my neighborhood and friends of mine. We don’t have riots and no one is burning our businesses down. Hell, we don’t even have cops shooting anyone, and no one is shooting back. Now why is that?

Just think, if we didn’t have criminals we wouldn’t need cops. If we didn’t have dictators we might not need militaries. Until that happens we have to support them. I may have misinterpreted your message, if so, I apologize profusely.

*We had one incident after a card game. A grenade came in the hooch and the handle was definitely missing. Everyone got out quick enough and no one was injured except for a few scratches form the screens as they jumped through them. The one that tossed it was courts martialed. It was similar to having one bad cop. No one rioted, but a few took a couple of punches at the perp, and he didn’t get off because of it.

Some think that's the point. I think it's just what happens with government.

Exactly.

Yes, it seems that so many of us just don't understand that it can happen to us as well.

Tech; I'm sorry you feel that this would have to 'turn ugly.'
I'm simply attempting to speak from an Objectivist standpoint about the legitimate role of government in this country.

Really well said.

Neal; I can appreciate and know your disappointment and issues with the return from Nam, but that was a great deal different set of situation than what I'm talking about in this Post. The vast majority of us coming back from there were either drafted under threat of prison or joined under threat of the draft. Cops choose their jobs, and it is a job. And the job is not killing citizens, particularly innocent, unarmed citizens.

We weren't heroes coming back from Nam, and these cops certainly aren't heroes for killing American citizens. They're criminals and those that work with them and protect and lie for them are criminals as well. These guys aren't thrown under the bus, they jumped under it.

Yes

Well said.

That would be the end game, yes.

We have such different views on things in this thread Zen, its like we are speaking two different languages.

Since I do not want this to turn ugly, I'm walking away.

Of course bullies are attracted to the paramilitary. Even Machiavelli wrote about that. When one has limited mental abilities, but is not satisfied with a low paying job, the paramilitary is an easy and a natural way out - it may not pay much, but he can be the king of the hill. And for women in the police - she can display a fountain of testosterone! What the limited ability cadres don't seem to understand is that they are used by the system in order to direct the citizen's hatred toward them, instead of the higher echelons, where it evil comes from. When something goes wrong, they are fed to the dogs, as in Baltimore. The cops alienate the citizens and lose their support, while their bosses see them as expendable cannon fodder. Ah, the price of stupidity...

That's because they're sitting in their cruisers in pairs and let the riff-raff kill each other!

I have to admit, I just feel better when the cops are NOT around, particularly when I am driving somewhere. They are an unpredictable lot enforcing so many vague and incomprehensible laws I never know if I am a criminal or not.

Exactly. I'm no anarchist, but so long as the cops are a greater danger than the other bad guys, we'd be better off not having them around.

I believe that any police department dirty enough that Serpico could not get a job there and keep it (and that's pretty much all of them) needs to be abolished, and all its members banned for life from being cops. Then after we repeal all their immunities and make them fully accountable for their actions, we can start recruiting new police. In only the numbers and strengths actually needed, which is much less than we have now. For instance, no city of less than a million population needs its own SWAT team, or the equipment for one.