• Zorque@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    That supposes that there are only two options: shoot a deadly weapon or don’t shoot a deadly weapon.

    There are a ton of less lethal options available that can be used. Why weren’t those considered instead? There may have been less innocent casualties that way.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Strongly disagree. They literally shot him in a less than lethal way (he was only slightly wounded, according to the article) and he stopped attacking. It’s entirely possible that other countermeasures would have been sufficient.

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yes, which is why I explicitly said I do not blame the person for making the split second call. You do what you can with the tools you are given at that moment.

            But it’s a very compelling case to analyze what went wrong and try to learn from it. Saying “there’s no other way” is silly, because in this case it sure seems there could have been several other ways.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You don’t have to respond to lethal with lethal, especially when the lives of innocents are the price you may end up paying for your imperfection. As was the case in this instance.