Taken to Task

Instead of focusing on the evil police would it not be better to educate the public to comply? [More]

I believe this merits wider exposure than a simple comment reply. Here's my response to key points made by comment poster "American Patriot" to my latest Oath Keepers piece.

I specifically addressed the details of the 911 call and acknowledged "No doubt about it, responding officers were primed to expect the worst." And I also provided a good reason the response team had to question the call that I don't see being addressed in the "news": Did anyone on scene ask why what was reported as a one-story house (@2:54) was actually two with an attic window? Might such an inquiry have raised a flag that intel was suspect? Is not everyone -- including responding officers -- safer knowing that?

What my critic calls "Monday morning quarterbacking," I call an "after-action report"  based on information the police have released to the media. Yeah, I linked to the Williamson piece because he made an experience-based point, but my own "recommendations" were in the form of questions I believe legitimate and fair:

So what can be done?  Raise police awareness? More training? What about when hesitation proves a fatal mistake?

In re the comment that "the ability of law enforcement to know everyone in his assigned area is virtually impossible," the same can be said in spades for the military. A previous comment by "Tim Allen" seems relevant:

I served in the first Gulf war under strict rules of engagement and I had my butt puckered tight a few times with the slack out of the trigger, but I could not pull the the trigger until all three of the required items were clearly present. Remembering those three things probably kept me out of Leavenworth prison, because there was danger and likely ambushes 24/7. The times I withheld fire, the threat passed and I was relieved that I would not have an unnecessary kill investigated for being trigger happy.

In re his assertion that the "reference to LaVoy Finnecum is apples and oranges," no, it's not. Read what the men who shot him reported as their "justification". Just to be logically consistent, how does my critic calling it "an assassination" (which I don't disagree with) not qualify -- by his own criteria -- as"Monday morning quarterbacking"?

And how is it "vilifying police" to call for transparency, accountability, a complete public record to include the name and relevant information about the officer who shot an unarmed citizen, and the release of bodycam recordings being withheld?

As for his assurance that "the vast majority [of "good" police] operate in a world that you cannot understand," juxtapose that against his admonishment against the victim's noncompliance.  First of all, without a better look, I can't say what the victim did or did not do and how that matches with what police are telling us -- and neither can he.

And as long as it's fair to dismiss qualifications to observe and form an opinion based on my lack of professional qualification (i.e., I'm not an "Only One" so I just can't possibly know), how he'd fare over the first few seconds of being rousted from minding his own business in his own home to the terrifying experience of being screamed at with lights shining in his face is unknown. People react in automatic ways sometimes, until their brains can start to make sense of the immediately improbable and unfamiliar.

As for "educating the public to comply," wouldn't that fall on those putting the public at risk? Anybody see any "instant submission" training being provided by those who demand it?

I'd actually like to see that, making it as realistic as possible -- while it would lack the essential element of surprise, it would sure wake a lot of people up.