What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?
Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people? Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter? Or do they presume their lives matter to the cops, therefore whatever happens to other citizens won't happen to them?
WRT the cop in the OP story: if she wasn't convinced the guy posed an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked, she should not have shot him. If she was convinced he presented an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked and/or once he did attack, she should have used a taser, a nightstick, or her sidearm to stop him.
It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.
Not ever case will present itself as a clear cut choice between 100% right and 100% wrong. Sometimes cops will have to guess, and no one wants them to guess wrong. But ffs, no one sensible wants to give the cops free rein to fire at will.
If #BLM has no other effect than to reduce needless killings of civilians by cops, then it's a worthwhile cause.
She knew he posed a threat but knew shooting him would make her life hell, so she was willing to risk death to prevent that.
Once your head is being slammed against the pavement very hard like that, it is pretty much too late at that point, you are dazed and confused. The time to act is before something like that happens.
The whole controversy is whether a lot of the killings that have happened are "needless" or whether they were to stop a legitimate threat.
We have three categories of cases:
-There was no threat and the cop shot the person anyway because they had it out for a black guy (extremely rare)
-The threat was minor and the cop made a bad decision in the heat of the moment because they perceived a threat, much like a surgeon has a slip of the knife and harms someone by mistake (not surprising that it would happen every now and again given 318 million people and about 1 million employed law enforcement)
-There is a legitimate threat and the cop acted in self defense (most common scenario)
Notice how the BLM movement rarely, if ever, distinguishes these types of cases. They rush to judge and condemn the cop before the facts are known. The end result is that more cops will be afraid to defend themselves and thus less shootings, but more dead and injured cops, and more bold attacks by criminals knowing more cops will be fearful to shoot. Yes, you will also reduce the mistakes that happen, but you will also discourage legitimate self defense putting far more cops in danger.
Where is the right balance? And who the hell would ever want to be a cop were perfection is demanded in dangerous situations, asking for something that isn't humanely possible in every single scenario.
