> I disagree. I think part of the fundamental disagreement you and I have is that I think giving someone a badge does not put them above the law or above ethics. Just because someone is an LEO doesn't mean they should shoot everyone who displays a gun in their presence.

First of all, I don't believe I made any such logical leap of 'display gun' -> 'get shot by a cop'. In fact, it's probably worth sticking to this specific situation of an armed and unstable man "waving a gun" at law enforcement. Yes, we absolutely have a fundamental disagreement as to how a person exhibiting that kind of behavior should be treated. I think he should be shot before he can harm anyone else (including a lone cop responding to the situation). Period. It's not even a close call in my opinion. And, as noted, Mader is a trained law enforcement officer who at least understands why that response is justified.

>This is, again, a straw man. You're the one who wants a law enforcement officer to be fired because he exercised his best judgment. I'm for trusting law enforcement to exercise it's best judgment instead of allowing pencil-pushers to determine absolutist protocols.

That's a hopelessly shallow argument. Let's allow a sole officer with a limited degree of personal situational expertise to ignore decades worth of accumulated research, based upon an order of magnitude higher number of cases and codified into a protocol. In fact, I hope you realize your assertion that cops should be allowed to wing it is profoundly, laughably ironic in the broader context of everything you've said. The next thing you're going to tell me is they should only 'wing it' when it meets your ethical standards lmao.

> 1. When an officer encounters an armed suspect, the decision to shoot or not to shoot should be the officer's decision, because the officer has the most skin in the game, and the most information to make a good decision.

Only to the extent that his interpretation of that specific situation is relevant to the subjective aspects of decision-making. When there's a higher order protocol, with specific situational guidance that deviates from what he might personally want to do, he should follow it. Period.

> 3. An officer is justified in NOT shooting the armed suspect, because it's the officer's decision.

Oh in that moment anyone can do whatever they want to do of course. A fairly inane thing to enunciate really. That doesn't exempt them from post facto repercussions.

> 4. Someone who sits behind a desk is not justified in firing the officer because he didn't shoot, because it is the officer's decision.

Actually, there's a great word we have for this in the civilian world: management. Review the play. Decide if it constitutes acceptable behavior. You would want cops choking unarmed black men to death to be held to account, right? It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same holds true in reverse. Cops are not unilaterally responsible for their actions. The very insinuation of such is carelessly misguided.

I'm fine with leaving this conversation as is. Anyone who reads through it in its entirety will witness you progressively moving the goalpost further away from an achievable law enforcement reality.