In this case we're operating off minimal levels of information, so it basically boils down to - who do you believe?
I don't take the word of a criminal over a cop, as a rule.
Salient point- Let's take it a step further.
You take the word of the cop over the word of the
alleged criminal (due process and all) because you are a cop and your experience leads you to take this position. Makes sense.
Now:
I generally assume that it is equally possible that the LEO in question is at fault. Why? Because the majority of the stories I read demonstrate (in my opinion) an overreaching tendency and complete lack of concern for the safety and security of the average citizen. Not to mention a 100% willingness to adopt an extremely dangerous approach to solving problem despite the risk it place on the citizen, simply so that the LEO "goes home at night."
Now, does that mean that that is what always happens? That the average LEO is cavalier with the lives of all Citizens? No, probably not. There are, no doubt, quality upstanding LEO out there (and here). The point is Most Americans run around talking about the "Heroes" in blue.
Bull,
The "heroes" ran into the WTC to save people AT GREAT RISK to themselves. That is what made them heroes. They didn't stand around and say, "gee that looks dangerous. Let's wait until the fire gets put out." No, they took a risk, as they are paid and expected to, and that is why they are heroes.
On the flip side we have an ingrained contempt for citizens prevalent in almost every strain of Law Enforcement which leads them to engage in behavior that is high risk (for everyone involved) yet, when their pernicious action leads to the death of any non-leo involved, we get endless..."so sorry" if we're lucky. Most of the time we get "no comment" or worse, "these things happen."
Point is, you see it from your side based on personal experience and media.
I see it from my side based on personal experience and media.
Who's right? I guess we both are.