A cop comes up on a rock-throwing guy who pulls out a knife, takes about one step towards the cop, then catches a bullet. I think in the strictest sense, this was a legitimate shoot; cop told the guy several times to drop the knife, and instead he advanced towards the cop. But it all happened *real* fast. Britlanderish blog readers might well point out that their cops deal with knife wielding criminal types all the time and hardly ever shoot them… I believe the approach is the bring in a whole lot of backup and whallop the tar out of them with billyclubs (or to just let them go; I’m not really sure). And of course there are Tasers, of sometimes dubious reliability.
So, what should be the preferred approach in such circumstances? The subject is armed and aggressive, but if the cop retreats the subject probably does not pose an *immediate* threat. But if the cop retreats, the subject, who is clearly a menace to society, could get away. BUT simply being a probable threat may not be adequate cause for the deployment of deadly force. And on and on.
My view: I’m all in favor of “no duty to retreat.” Someone comes at you with a knife, *especially* if you are pointing a pistol at them, you – any form of “you,” from cop to soldier to housewife – have every right to do whatever you feel you need to to defend yourself. And on the other hand, those who are tasked with enforcing the governments’ will should probably be held to a reasonably high standard.
At least they can’t fault the cop for shooting off a wild volley of rounds. One shot and the guy seemed to be dead before he hit the pavement.
Once again, a situation that could have been more peaceably resolved if we had access to phasers with heavy stun settings. Or dart guns that fired transporter-lock tags: shoot the guy and he gets beamed directly into a jail cell. Sigh. It’s the year 2021, but where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars. I don’t see any flying cars.