Fine. Fine. A number of points I wouldn’t argue with. However I was specifically commenting on the comment you made at the end (which I specifically cited – its in the box at the top of my previous response).

However, I would counter that the lumping together of the Al Sharptons and the like (as you put it) with presumably every case of a person (again, as you put it) “NOT LISTENING”, resulting in their death, is a massive oversimplification.

I’m questioning the culpability on both sides, which you are suggesting is lopsided and in the ballpark of “bringing it on yourself”, while I agree with Aura Wilming ‘s measured and insightful point that training (2 yrs less than Dutch police) is clearly falling short of preparing those officers of the law, who (in some kind of in-the-moment self-justified panic) are choosing to kill as the most appropriate response, when that response may not only be legally unnecessary, but also morally or ethically indefensible. ie. unjust.

Frankly, the waters are muddied when a person is carrying a gun due to recursive justification (the dead can’t mount their own defence) but what about those who aren’t? You surely can’t be suggesting that armed police forces are entitled to unlimited power that shouldn’t be questioned when or if their actions seem or prove to be unjust. We’ve tried those systems before and without trying to be too incisive, they commonly only flourish under dictatorships (fascist or otherwise).

Also, wouldn’t it be better to deal with these issues before the fact, when (after such a death) everyone is reacting to a social dynamic that is irrevocably framed by the death of a person at the hands of those legally entitled to use such force? Questions, sir… It seems to me easier to pick a side from a reactionary position, rather than ask questions which might shine a light on degrees of shared culpability…