A Stitch in Haste

My father, a retired New York City police officer, enjoyed an extremely blessed career. In 22 years on the force he was never shot at, only fired his weapon once (and missed), and was only injured on the job once, a minor injury in a motor vehicle accident.

Civilians are generally willing to ask themselves the "big questions" when it comes to military combat — "Could I really shoot at another human being?" "Would I be brave or cowardly in combat?" "What if I inadvertently killed civilians?" "Could I face the family of someone I killed in war?" And so on.

But for some reason it seems we are less likely to ask those questions in the context of police officers. "How would I react in an armed shootout?" "Could I kill a criminal, even to save the lives of others?" "What if I hit innocent bystanders?" "What if he hadn't been reaching for a gun, but for his wallet?"

Is the combat of a "hot" crime zone any less challenging than the combat of a "hot" war zone? Are we to expect more flawlessness of our police in situations of armed violence than we expect of our soldiers? Are the bullets in a bank holdup any less deadly than those in Fallujah?

I hope people keep that in mind when they are tempted to pass judgment on these poor Men in Blue:

A toddler has been shot and killed in the US during a three-hour gun battle after her father used her as a human shield against police gunfire.

The 19-month-old girl's mother, Lorena Lopez, said she had pleaded with officers to hold their fire.
...
"I told them that he needed help, he needs a psychologist, but please don't shoot. They didn't understand, and the police fired, like, 300 shots."

The perpetrator was also killed in the shootout; one police officer was wounded by gunfire.

It's very simple really: If you're being shot at, then you shoot back. Whoever's bullet struck and killed that innocent child, it was her father who killed her, not the police.

Yet these dedicated public servants, being human, will no doubt be haunted and traumatized by the girl's death, perhaps for the rest of their lives. No different than any combat veteran, or perhaps worse.

They do not deserve to have their remorse compounded by any media histrionics, lawsuits or activist protests. Now is not the time for any "No Justice, No Peace" gobbledygook.

And as for the "300 shots" remark, much the same garbage was chanted over the (entirely justified) killing of Amadou Diallo in 1999. "Was 41 shots really necessary for an unarmed man?" Without going into too much detail (e.g., the fact that he was propelled backwards into a vestibule and was propped up even after he had been shot, making it appear as though he might not have been wounded), simply ask yourself the combat questions: How would you react in a hostile combat situation? Are you really qualified to pass judgment on those who were?

If not, then shut up.

UPDATE #1: The discussion continues at this post.

UPDATE #2: And so it begins...