Brave Sir Robin

Answer honestly, what would you do?

Shoot they black guy? Good luck with the rest of your life in today's climate.

Stand there and try to de-escalate an armed man for 61,800 a year? Remember, be honest, your life is on the line for not a lot of money.

GTFO and know you will probably lose your job in Chicago, but you won't be followed by claims you are a racist murdering pig for the rest of your life.

I personally would have had the woman go down the stairs while I backed down, gun drawn. I would have tried to de-escalate, but I would also be ready to shoot.

At least that is what I hope I would do. The decision isn't that easy though, no matter what the smug narrator wants to say. Look at the shit the cop who shot the girl about to stab another girl had to go through.

even as you say (i agree)... you would shoot if needed, luckily he is not required to protect. stand or run - win win. but bootlickers will still come to defend him.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia#:~:text=The%20trial%20judges%20held%20that,plaintiffs%20and%20dismissed%20the%20complaints

I would attempt to get some form of training for similar situations before being given a gun and a bulletproof vest.

The guy should not be thinking about what to do, just doing it.

I'm sure they get a small amount of training for situations like this, probably as much as the city will spend.

The point is, even with that training, there are no good options. If he shoots the black guy, he is simply the latest racist pig murdering 'innocent' people of color.

If he stands there and tries to talk the guy down, a vest doesn't cover your entire body. You can bleed to death from arm or leg shots, plus at that range the head is not a hard to hit target.

Maybe he isn't fit to be a cop. But the point is that because we haven't figured out a way to stop cops from kneeling on someone until they suffocate or shooting people in the back, all cops now have to make a split second decision on whether they can act as they were trained to do or act as protesters, the government, and the media want them to do.

We also judge them on what we think we would do, even though I doubt we will ever be in a similar situation.

I think the public has unreasonable expectations. In order for him to do his job he needs to protect himself. He is not there to protect you.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
https://ehlinelaw.com/blog/do-police-have-a-duty-to-protect-me

Also: RadioLab No Special Duty - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-special-duty

And if the cop shot the black gunmen there would be riots. Choices.

So what you're saying is... DO WHAT YOU WANT TO THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!!

I'm not saying it. This is how it works. I was surprised. Read the article, hear the podcast and tell me what you think. Did I get it wrong?

So what you're saying is, the law says... DO WHAT YOU WANT TO THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!!

What didn't happen here.

Basic rule of first aid:
Remove the danger from the victim.
If not possible remove the victim from the danger.

There's never been a riot when cops shot a black man who was on camera pointing a gun at them point blank before they shot him...never.

Stop with the idiotic trolling, Bob. We know it's you, no one else is that diametrically opposed to reality while displaying this level of ignorance.

From what I read, even if you're correct about federal and state law (I'm not sure, but I hope you're wrong), most departments require officers to engage armed preps, not run, and that's why he will be fired. It's dereliction of duty. That might even negate immunity, lucky him no one was hurt to sue him personally for damages.

"There is a duty to protect and intervene. You have sworn and taken an oath of office, so you are required to do this.”
Thomas went on to say that most law enforcement agencies have a policy on cowardice in the line of duty, which could result in disciplinary action (being fired).

https://chicagocrusader.com/officer-abandons-black-woman-being-threatened-with-gun/

But did he know he was on camera? Did he have a bodycam? The only reason the suspect was seen on camera holding a gun was because the cop backed away. If he had drawn his gun and fired the moment he saw the suspect holding the gun, it wouldn't have been caught on that camera because the suspect was still in the room. Then you would have a situation of only eyewitness testimony. And you would have riots.

You have to make a Hell of a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. 1) that he has no camera. 2) that the victim/witness wouldn't be believed. 3) that physical evidence wouldn't prove it was a good shooting. 4) that there weren't other cameras.
It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. Abandoning a black woman leaving her to be murdered on camera is FAR more likely to spark riots and accusations that he would have stayed and protected a white woman.

Edit:police scanner traffic does provide some information. A dispatcher indicates that a man “pointed the gun at (a) mother and (a) father multiple times” and was in the stairwell when police were called.
It should not have been a surprise when the responding officer encountered a man with a gun.

3 people are killed by police every single day. There aren't riots every single day over it. It's not an honest position to claim every time a black man is shot by police it's cause for a riot. That's total nonsense intended to delegitimize a legitimate movement against inappropriate police violence...that's not ALL police violence. Sometimes police violence is necessary...just not >half the times it's used, and usually not to the extent (like shooting someone 142 times).

There's a middle ground between swat teams going in shooting over a nonviolent mental health call and a cop abandoning a victim to run like a coward from an armed attacker.

Maybe if he shot, but not to kill, outcomes could be better....or tried non lethal methods first. Maybe if he followed policy and didn't go to a domestic violence call alone. The one thing certain to not work is turning his back (probably making his vest useless) and running away from the victim and armed attacker. That put him at the most danger of being shot in the back and her being murdered, and it violated his oath, and it indicates black victims won't be protected.

Not making any assumptions, just raising possibilities that goes through the mind of any cop facing such a situation. And I'm not condoning his behaviour, but I do see how the recent racial unrest would make some cops second-guess their actions, and become reluctant to respond the same way had they faced a white guy.

Also, you never shoot to wound. Shooting is lethal force.

The cop was probably thinking "If I shoot him, I could lose my job."

He correctly determined that the guy wasn't seconds away from shooting him, but just standing there with two people holding guns on each other is just dumb. He de-escalated, which is what we want our cops to do right?

So this is it then. Personally I am glad that it turned out as it did since obviously everonye is still alive. That being said, if you ask yourself the question above and then back down like he did, you are likely not cut out for civil service while wearing a gun.
High standards, but that's the price of authority.