That’s why I said we could try unarmed psychologists paired with scary looking mother fuckers that no one would dare cross.
Make it known that if so much as a hair is touched on the psych, the full power of the enforcer WILL result in immediate extermination.
That could be true, could get fired though.
Which is stupid in itself. If your society decides he did nothing wrong and did his job, why fire him. Again - just PR and hypocrisy
Because there are different standards for criminal conduct, civil harms, and employment.
There essentially aren’t any - whether it’s legally justified is determined after the fact based on a ‘reasonable fear’ standard.
Doing nothing that rises to being convicted doesn’t mean you didn’t do anything wrong with regards to your job. But I doubt he gets fired either.
Just hypocrisy. They can’t explain it to people who’ll ask inconvenient questions. So it’s easy to fire and say oh he doesn’t work here anymore. That’s why nothing will improve.
If you judge him to do no wrong, there’s no reason to fire.
Then there should be one. Including procedures of justifiable use of force. They’re police, not soldiers. You don’t open fire just because “he’s reaching for something” especially when soldiers must deal with much more danger and is more restricted in what they can do.
And some of the officer involved shooting just makes me mad. Like lots of cases where suspect is shot 20 times. So is the officer in so much danger that he has to empty the magazine, and reload? Pretty sure their duty sidearm carries 15 round if they are carrying Glock 19 (which is probably the most common law enforcement service weapon).
No, it’s not hypocrisy. It’s different standards, for different situations, as there should be. Having a conviction being required to fire someone would be an asinie standard.
Just as firing someone for doing no wrong. That’s also asinine.
And if has done something wrong … well 
that’s what they want to avoid answering that what exactly has he done wrong. If they do, they’ll find systematic flaws. And will have to acknowledge that.
That’s why it’s hypocrisy
Again, not convicted is not the same as doing no wrong. This is not complicated.
Like if he went around calling everyone an asshole, he should be fired, even if that’s not illegal. That’s obvious, right?
Nopes. He’s not found to do any wrong. That’s not hard to understand. It’s the tool of the hypocrite.
That kind of behavior would be covered in a work contract I suppose.
You’re not understanding what the legal system decides, or being deliberately obtuse - it decides whether you’re legally culpable, not whether you did anything wrong, especially with regards to employment standards.
You’re not understanding why they haven’t accused him of doing anything wrong, even beyond the legal. They will have to officially say what standard of employment did he break. Let’s see the reasoning.
Maybe a better solution is that cops should only be issued batons, tasers, and pepper sprays, and no guns. Until they get screened by a psych and deemed to be responsible enough (after a lot of training) to be issued firearms.
If they can’t tell gun from taser apart they should not be cops.
Blanket the US in cameras.
Hasn’t worked. A while ago they required cops to wear body cams and that hasn’t dropped the number of officer involved shootings.
I wouldn’t want to approach a possibly armed suspect with a stick and some gunk.
If you can’t tell your right hip from your left hip you shouldn’t really be employed in many occupations.
In any countries where cops are not armed, if they have to approach a heavily armed suspect they would call for backup that include armed officers.
You simply do not approach them but follow them and call for backup.
