Rules of engagement under fire

So the voters may get to decide police reform. That’s great! Would these be the voters who have no idea on how to handle or diffuse escalating physical situations with angry, unstable people who want to harm them, kill them or at the very least, run when being questioned. The public has no idea what officers train for, prepare for and experience in life and death, split seconds.

Perhaps instead, the voters should decide if our officers should just walk away from the real serious situations, those which always end up with a physical confrontation. As it is, the powers that be have already asked our officers to pull off of high speed vehicle chases, so why not also excuse them from foot chases or even bother to ask suspects such questions as, “Did you just shoplift some beer from Safeway?”

We pay the police to protect us, to do society’s dirty work on our behalf then we don’t support them. We don’t even acknowledge they too have families who depend upon them. Why is it, no one blames the suspect’s who initiate and escalate these conflicts?

Based on what I read from the group “Not This Time,” they want to charge officers with attempted murder, even if they are defending themselves. Why not charge them with premeditated murder, claiming most officers start their shifts with the intent to shoot someone. In short, the public should not be allowed to decide an officer’s actions in crisis situations.

This story was originally published April 15, 2017 at 6:24 PM with the headline "Rules of engagement under fire."