As usual, real life experience doesn't bear a lot of resemblence to what you think should happen. blah, blah...
no
blah, blah
Thank you for answering the question. Now, if you, as a lawyer, do not recommend people running from the police when they attempt to arrest them, then we can look at the fact that 99% of the "police murders" took place after the suspect began resisting or fleeing from the police.
That aside, I do agree there needs to be reform for how police engage and do not disengage when they should, resulting in people being shot and potentially killed. However, all of those events are secondary AFTER the suspect began resisting arrest or fleeing.
This despite all the comments from BLM about how Black Americans have to have "the talk" with their kids.
As a lawyer, would you not have the expectation of "the talk" including, even emphasizing, that the receiver of "the talk" should not resist in any way. That they should comply with the police demands or risk being killed. Is that an unreasonable expectation that such information would be included in "the talk"?
Yet, time and again the suspect in question is seen resisting arrest and attempting to flee the police, and then people become upset that the police - usually after attempting to use force and then tasers - end up resolving that their last option available is their sidearm?
Regardless of whether the use of their sidearm should not happen in these circumstances, the first domino to fall is the suspect resisting arrest. So, as you said, we should work on the initial problem, correct? That would be to not resist or flee from police, which you agree with as a lawyer.
That said, to some extent I agree many of the past year's police shootings would have benefitted from a Reform where the police use more self-control and recognizing they will get the guy later. The Atlanta Wendy's shooting is a prime example.
However, the incident where the guy was violating a restraining order and had a warrant for his arrest, fought with the cops, tasers had no effect, goes into vehicle where he had previously admitted to having a deadly weapon...a vehicle which also had two children...and was in the process of potentially fleeing with those children...do these demonstrate circumstances where the police are left with no further options in no small part due to the potential and probable harm to 3rd party individuals? Would you agree?
If you agree, how does Defunding police save those people? We already are seeing dramatic increases in crime from merely drawing down police presence...what would the crime rates be without any police? Keep in mind, no police will mean no arrests for murders...something White Supremacists would absolutely love to have afforded to them. How many additional Black Americans will be killed if White Supremacists realize it is essentially Open Season for them to murder Black Americans without any concern of being arrested?
I, for one, do not wish to see Black Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, or other non-whites become the focus of these attacks. Yet I am considered a white racist POS to many Liberals who are supporting "Defund the Police". No, I just recognize the long term way that plays out and I actually prefer the minorities remain protected by the police, while realizing they are imperfect humans who will still likely make unfortunate mistakes. To be clear, they should be held fully accountable for such mistakes, as Chauvin has been.