Yes, both of those things can be true, but the cops didn't seem to have any issue giving people like Rittenhaus or the Buffalo shooter the benefit of the doubt when they were responding to active shootings and came across white dudes armed with AR-15s who had just killed people. Why is it that a black dude with a pistol pointed at the ground in his own home needed to be shot immediately rather than be given the same opportunities that Kyle Rittenhaus and Payton Gendron were given? Like, if we're going to be cool with the cops shooting people whenever weapons are present, then can we at least have them shoot *everyone* whenever guns are present? Why the unequal treatment between encounters?
You said it yourself. The ones allowed to surrender share one thing in common: they're white (including Dylann Roof, the Mother Emmanuel Church white supremacist killer.)
A worthy question. Many answers and reasons, as there are many cops, many circumstances and people involved, every situation is different. No doubt that the split-second threat assessment decision for some cops in some situations is influenced by their instantaneous perception (including based on race) of the person holding the gun. And in some cases, the cop may be some combination of recklessly aggressive, blatantly racist, panicked, and/or poorly trained. In other words, human despite the badge and gun.
Glad we can agree that more guns is not the solution, and neither makes us safer nor reduces gun violence overall. In fact, it may well be part of the problem - more guns means more encounters between people with guns, including cops and law-abiding citizens. Every minute debating "more guns is the answer / cold dead hands" NRA propaganda is a minute not spent on intelligent discussion on how to reduce gun violence, including the unequal treatment concern you mentioned.
"In fact, it may well be part of the problem - more guns means more encounters between people with guns, including cops and law-abiding citizens."
I 100% agree, which is why I'm opposed to constitutional carry. In fact, that so many unhinged people *are* carrying is one of the reasons that I carry differently from the way I used to (went from a 5-shot revolver to a 15-shot semi). I won't need all 15 shots against a singular threat because I actually train a lot and can get the job done against a threat with way fewer shots than that, but I *did* need a handgun capable of better accuracy at greater distances because of how many dudes are out there with 15+ round capacity and *don't* have good accuracy or emotional control and will shoot at you from 20 yards away over road rage while family members are in my car. For all the talk about how "mental health is the problem" and not guns, I sure as shit don't hear many gun-owners talking about the necessity for psych therapy as a factor of their gun ownership. I'm in therapy on a bi-weekly basis in addition to making sure my accuracy is on par in the event that I did need to employ lethal force in a life-threatening incident.
Yes, both of those things can be true, but the cops didn't seem to have any issue giving people like Rittenhaus or the Buffalo shooter the benefit of the doubt when they were responding to active shootings and came across white dudes armed with AR-15s who had just killed people. Why is it that a black dude with a pistol pointed at the ground in his own home needed to be shot immediately rather than be given the same opportunities that Kyle Rittenhaus and Payton Gendron were given? Like, if we're going to be cool with the cops shooting people whenever weapons are present, then can we at least have them shoot *everyone* whenever guns are present? Why the unequal treatment between encounters?
You said it yourself. The ones allowed to surrender share one thing in common: they're white (including Dylann Roof, the Mother Emmanuel Church white supremacist killer.)
Yea, I forgot about that asshole. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there too.
A worthy question. Many answers and reasons, as there are many cops, many circumstances and people involved, every situation is different. No doubt that the split-second threat assessment decision for some cops in some situations is influenced by their instantaneous perception (including based on race) of the person holding the gun. And in some cases, the cop may be some combination of recklessly aggressive, blatantly racist, panicked, and/or poorly trained. In other words, human despite the badge and gun.
Glad we can agree that more guns is not the solution, and neither makes us safer nor reduces gun violence overall. In fact, it may well be part of the problem - more guns means more encounters between people with guns, including cops and law-abiding citizens. Every minute debating "more guns is the answer / cold dead hands" NRA propaganda is a minute not spent on intelligent discussion on how to reduce gun violence, including the unequal treatment concern you mentioned.
"In fact, it may well be part of the problem - more guns means more encounters between people with guns, including cops and law-abiding citizens."
I 100% agree, which is why I'm opposed to constitutional carry. In fact, that so many unhinged people *are* carrying is one of the reasons that I carry differently from the way I used to (went from a 5-shot revolver to a 15-shot semi). I won't need all 15 shots against a singular threat because I actually train a lot and can get the job done against a threat with way fewer shots than that, but I *did* need a handgun capable of better accuracy at greater distances because of how many dudes are out there with 15+ round capacity and *don't* have good accuracy or emotional control and will shoot at you from 20 yards away over road rage while family members are in my car. For all the talk about how "mental health is the problem" and not guns, I sure as shit don't hear many gun-owners talking about the necessity for psych therapy as a factor of their gun ownership. I'm in therapy on a bi-weekly basis in addition to making sure my accuracy is on par in the event that I did need to employ lethal force in a life-threatening incident.