Are they, or are they protecting themselves first and foremost? Imagine firefighters that refuse to go into a burning building as people scream from in it for help because they "fear for their lives".
Show me where the firefighter is obligated to do so if they perceive an immediately deadly situation. Are firefighters obligated to go into structures deemed in immediate threat of collapse? Are you so callous that you assume no one who accepts an inherently dangerous job has ANY right to avoid or mitigate the threats they face?
If you think anyone knowingly walks into danger like a lamb to slaughter, you don't understand human psychology.
Well do the numbers: how many cop killers get away and kill again, take hostages, etc?
No, you're right. Police do tend to stop criminals as soon as possible. But you seemed to prefer them let suspects escape rather than employ the force necessary to do so. If no cop is willing to take the shot, more cops die and the criminal remains a threat at large.
This is nitpicking on your part, sometime it leads to riots sometimes not, for whites or blacks, irrelevant. Do you not think that when police kill citizens and the community think they were unjustified that leads to reduce trust in the police? At the very least these lead to wrongful death lawsuits which cost millions of dollars to the city, would it not be more cost effective if the officer took greater risk?
So now you want to put a price tag on life? Again, callous...and/or grossly utilitarian. And if race is irrelevant, please, show us something that demonstrates parity. Instead, it seems you've just backpedaled to legal lawsuits, when you began with criminal activity and potential harm to others.
You can't claim nitpicking to justify moving your own goalposts.
No one, I would think that would be a good compromise, that we have cameras on all cops recording all encounters, thus when a pig fucks up the administration can punish him harshly and show the people that the police are not above justice. And when a police officer does good in a complicate situation there won't be riots.
Where have there been instances of a bad shoot not being prosecuted? Just like the "gentle giant" narrative, some people will take advantage of any lack of information to assume the worst. That's not the cops' fault, and yes, body cams would bear that out.
Even if he was a criminal that does not give the police the right to kill him, they need enough evidence that he was a deadly threat to get away with that, and people simply aren't taking the police's word anymore. So again had their been video of him being a thug trying to take the gun, there would be no riots. Then again Ferguson was a pile of matches waiting to burst into to flames, decades of regressive taxation via police fines had made the community livid.
And all the evidence justified the shoot, including by Eric Holder's DOJ.
So the riots were the cops' fault, huh? No blame whatsoever to the liars, whose news interviews and agitation obviously instigated it. Riots occurred because narrative trumped facts. A narrative that appealed to the worst of their emotions precluded any sense of proportion or patience for the facts. A perfect storm of instant gratification and pandering.
Oh goody and how do you enforce that?
Legal carry licenses require training.
This is an interesting theory, so if they all had guns and were "well trained" they would not be killing each other for fear of dying?
What, pray tell, would prompt criminals to get proper training? Are there an overwhelming number of ex-military that turn to crime? Do you think criminals kill primarily in self-defense?
LOL! Your understanding of human psychology is upside down. For thousands of years people had lots of spears, swords, clubs, axes, arrows, and you better believe they trained to use them, disputes were settle via tribal warfare, the murder rates for men were between 15-60%, then came civilization and its neutral third parties, judges, government, police to settle disputes and murder rates dropped by orders of magnitude. You want to return to everyone being armed and settling their problems directly with each other because you think they will make an accurate risk assessment over brutal human nature?
That's an inconsistent comparison. Not only do we have many more police than we once did, they will arrest vigilantes. Police do not stop crime, they respond to it. If you face an imminent threat, you will likely die before police respond.
And another benefit of firearm training is knowing your legal liability and deescalating conflicts with that in mind.