The Shooting Of J T Williams - Murder by Cop ?

[alt]

Did you guys hear about this ? Saw it on one of our news channels today.

I generally am the first to support police and armed services, rule of law, etc, but this, IMO, is plain murder. The cop is a psycho - should never be allowed near a gun ever again.

 

[russ_watters]

Dunno - not being able to see what is happening, it is tough to judge. I suppose a cop would have to be "psycho" to shoot someone for absolutely no reason, in broad daylight and in front of witnesses, but I suspect there must have been something behind his decision.

 

[WhoWee]

The video doesn't show what happened. Did the officer know the man? Was there a history between the two? Apparently the man had a knife - but it was closed? Lot's of speculation - not enough direct evidence.

 

[NobodySpecial]

No officer has been charged with a crime over use of force since the early 1970s, according to O'Neill, the guild president.

That's an impressive record, they should offer seminars on their recruitment and training methods.
Imagine if we had politicians, business leaders or doctors where there had been no crimes commited for nearly 40years.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's an impressive record, they should offer seminars on their recruitment and training methods.
Imagine if we had politicians, business leaders or doctors where there had been no crimes commited for nearly 40years.

you mean charges, not crimes

 

[alt]

I made a further posting yesterday, with a late report titled along the lines of ..

"Woodcarver's shooting by SPD officer ruled not justified in preliminary finding"

.. which answered some of the queries, made by other posters, above. I provided the full text of that report, and the source (Seattle Times ) and the reporters, Steve Miletich and Jennifer Sullivan, but I didn't provide a link, as the ST news page had expired .. or something ..

Anyway, the post here was apparently deleted by a moderator.

I'll try to find the report again, and the link, in the meantime, read this one from the ST letters editor before it too falls in some crack.

‘I am now officially scared of all of you’

We're on the slippery slope.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2013732296_spdvideoofjohntwilliamsshooting.html

 

[Char. Limit]

I made a further posting yesterday, with a late report titled along the lines of ..

"Woodcarver's shooting by SPD officer ruled not justified in preliminary finding"

.. which answered some of the queries, made by other posters, above. I provided the full text of that report, and the source (Seattle Times ) and the reporters, Steve Miletich and Jennifer Sullivan, but I didn't provide a link, as the ST news page had expired .. or something ..

Anyway, the post here was apparently deleted by a moderator.

I'll try to find the report again, and the link, in the meantime, read this one from the ST letters editor before it too falls in some crack.

‘I am now officially scared of all of you’

We're on the slippery slope.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2013732296_spdvideoofjohntwilliamsshooting.html

Is it sad that I thought that SPD was the Spokane Police Department? This is just like them.

 

[alt]

Is it sad that I thought that SPD was the Spokane Police Department? This is just like them.

Other than just confirming through Goolge that Sprokane exists, I have no idea what the place is like - same goes for Seattle (I'm in Australia).

I have no opinion on any place - just the conduct of this police officer. I've been handling firearms for over 35 years. I maintain my opinion that he's a psycho and should never be allowed near one again.

There's a lot about this in the Seattle Times. Here's another interesting link ..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013443640_policeshooting16m.html

It has the statements of numerous witnesses, whose account is obviously very different to the police officers - here's an exerp of the wittnesses statements;

Some witnesses whose accounts were included in Ford's filing told police investigators that Williams didn't appear to pose a threat.

"Never turned around. Never approached the cop. Might have looked over his shoulder," one witness said of Williams.

Another witness said what was "really surprising to me was that the gentleman who was walking on the sidewalk did not turn around really and face the policeman."

Williams was "actually sideways to the police officer," another witness said.

According to an autopsy report, Williams was shot four times, all in the right side of his body, indicating he was not facing Birk.

Another witness told police she never saw Williams make movements toward Birk, turn his head or acknowledge Birk.

"It just looked very unaggressive," the woman said, noting that Williams "looked like he was facing the sun, looking down at his hands."

All of the events happened "very quickly," she said.

"And I just did not believe that the punishment fit the crime," the woman told police in a transcribed statement. "Inside I was screaming, 'no, no, no' as the shots were being fired because the level of danger wasn't, just did not seem to warrant five fatal shots to the chest."

As I said, it is my view that this is just plain murder by the policeman concerned.

 

[Borg]

Wow. A harmless alcoholic minding his own business while carving a piece of wood with a small penknife while wearing headphones. What was that cop thinking? And what warrants firing a weapon five times in rapid succession?

 

[russ_watters]

Other than just confirming through Goolge that Sprokane exists, I have no idea what the place is like - same goes for Seattle (I'm in Australia).

What is it that makes you so interested in a police shooting that occurred just about on the opposite side of the world from you?

 

[DanP]

What is it that makes you so interested in a police shooting that occurred just about on the opposite side of the world from you?

Murders committed by cops re always interesting, no matter where they take place.

 

[DanP]

Dunno - not being able to see what is happening, it is tough to judge. I suppose a cop would have to be "psycho" to shoot someone for absolutely no reason, in broad daylight and in front of witnesses, but I suspect there must have been something behind his decision.

Yes, there must be something. But what makes a cop tap a unarmed target 4 times, unless he was determined to *kill* ? (Or whatever, drunk, high on drugs, or any other things which would make him see Godzilla attacking him).

 

[alt]

What is it that makes you so interested in a police shooting that occurred just about on the opposite side of the world from you?

Are you not interested about events outside your immediate environs ?

But anyway, to answer - several days ago I heard about this event in a topical discussion program about human rights, police powers, etc. I looked it up on the web and found the info on it. It doesn't matter whether it was on the other side of the globe - it still shook my moral compass!

If the event had occurred in, say North Korea, or some militant Islamic state, I would have still been incensed by it, although probably unable to engage in discussion of it. But this was in OUR - yours and mine supposed free republic, democratic western civilisation, where police states don't exist .. do they ?

I'm not trying to put America down. Australia and America run fairly parallel in ethics and laws concerning these issues. But as a member of a free society, to see something like this and to not be shaken to the core (on the evidence available thus far) is anathema to such a society, and portends it’s eventual demise, IMO.

Either the cop is a psycho or the society that permits or even acquiesces to such an event, is psycho. Sorry if that offends you, but that is my view.

 

[alt]

The video doesn't show what happened. Did the officer know the man? Was there a history between the two? Apparently the man had a knife - but it was closed? Lot's of speculation - not enough direct evidence.

If the officer knew the man and / or had a history with him, that could more than likely add to the officers guilt, wouldn't you think ?

Photo of the knife, in this recent Seattle Times link

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013443640_policeshooting16m.html

shows knife closed. All 7 photos in this link are quite interesting.

 

[Proton Soup]

If the officer knew the man and / or had a history with him, that could more than likely add to the officers guilt, wouldn't you think ?

Photo of the knife, in this recent Seattle Times link

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013443640_policeshooting16m.html

shows knife closed. All 7 photos in this link are quite interesting.

the clip looks like a spyderco, but missing the typical thumbhole on the blade.

 

[russ_watters]

Murders committed by cops re always interesting, no matter where they take place.

Are you not interested about events outside your immediate environs ?

I guess, but are they really that rare that it makes international news when one happens? Honestly, I don't think I'd be very interested in an Australian police shooting.

But anyway, to answer - several days ago I heard about this event in a topical discussion program about human rights, police powers, etc. I looked it up on the web and found the info on it. It doesn't matter whether it was on the other side of the globe - it still shook my moral compass!

"Shook your moral compass"? Really? Your moral compass is that sensitive?

If the event had occurred in, say North Korea, or some militant Islamic state, I would have still been incensed by it, although probably unable to engage in discussion of it. But this was in OUR - yours and mine supposed free republic, democratic western civilisation, where police states don't exist .. do they ?

I'm not trying to put America down. Australia and America run fairly parallel in ethics and laws concerning these issues. But as a member of a free society, to see something like this and to not be shaken to the core (on the evidence available thus far) is anathema to such a society, and portends it’s eventual demise, IMO.

Either the cop is a psycho or the society that permits or even acquiesces to such an event, is psycho. Sorry if that offends you, but that is my view.

No, it doesn't offend me, it just confuses me that you'd think this is something that would portend the demise of society. That's pretty drastic for a single event that in the grand scheme of things isn't terribly unique or significant. There are seven hundred thousand police officers in the United States. To conclude that anything less than absolute perfection from them is a sign of the demise of society is pretty irrational, to put it midly.

Cops are human, alt. They are subject to human flaws, even as much as their commanders try to filter them out. That every now and then one commits an unjustified shooting (assuming this was), should neither be particularly surprising or distressing.

 

[russ_watters]

But what makes a cop tap a unarmed target 4 times, unless he was determined to *kill* ?

Um, well, cops only use their guns to kill.

 

[Galteeth]

Cops are human, alt. They are subject to human flaws, even as much as their commanders try to filter them out. That every now and then one commits an unjustified shooting (assuming this was), should neither be particularly surprising or distressing.

"Now and then" is the key term there. What level of frequency does it have to rise to in order to become a problem from your perspective?

 

[DanP]

Um, well, cops only use their guns to kill.

Yeah, cause it makes no sense to tap once a subject, giving him a chance, even if potentially deadly force was used; you have to tap 4 times to make sure he reaches the hospital as a cadaver.

From the limited data it seems that the target was unarmed, has no intention to flee, or pose a direct threat to the officer in question.

And IIRc the case Tennessee vs Garner had a Supreme Court ruling that even in the case of a subject fleeing:

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or othe

.

I hope the shooter will stand trial, and the case will not be attempted to be covered or hidden behind loopholes usually used by police to cover each other asses (thing which I understand perfectly, I don't blame then for sticking together )

 

[vish_al210]

If u find an imminent threat, or perceive a threat and do a "pre-emptive attack" to decapitate the threat.. (I have sort have gotten used to this phrase from a psycho) I still think firing below the knee (though painful and takes long to heal is not exactly as deadly as a shot fired towards the face or sternum.) is an option that is part of the policeman's training programs.. Well isn't that an option any human should undertake.
And I aint commenting anything about morality or humanity as well a lot of junk also happens in my country... if it is also 1 in a million it still is... aint it...

 

[Borg]

Um, well, cops only use their guns to kill.

It depends on the specific police department and their training. Several years ago, I attended a http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/services/citizens-police-academy.htm" course in Fairfax County VA. The first item listed on that page is "Police training including weapons and driving". We were told that they are trained to fire once and reassess. However, neighboring departments don't train their officers this way. The following year, there were two nearly identical standoffs that resulted in police shootings in Fairfax County and the neighboring county. A single shot was fired by the FCPD officers. In the other county, several officers unloaded their weapons on the suspect. Guess which one died.

 

[alt]

I guess, but are they really that rare that it makes international news when one happens? Honestly, I don't think I'd be very interested in an Australian police shooting.

Does every thread here have to be the subject of international news ? Also, are you saying that because they aren’t all that rare, we shouldn’t be very interested ? I would have thought that if police shootings in these circumstances are common, that should be much reason to be very interested.

"Shook your moral compass"? Really? Your moral compass is that sensitive?

“other side of the globe .. compass .. morals” .. My obviously poor attempt at simile.

No, it doesn't offend me, it just confuses me that you'd think this is something that would portend the demise of society.

Societies change over time, all the time. They evolve, devolve, demise. Yes, I do believe the shooting event here, and acquiescence to it such as you suggest, contributes to a societies demise, no matter how incremental that contribution might be.

That's pretty drastic for a single event that in the grand scheme of things isn't terribly unique or significant.

That’s confusing. If it’s a single event, it IS unique. If it isn’t terribly unique it ISN’T a single event. Though I would think the latter is more true. So to speak of many (not terribly unique) police shooting dead of citizens as not significant in the grand scheme of things is just .. what can I say ..

There are seven hundred thousand police officers in the United States.

.. And there is precisely ONE thread by alt on an unjustified police shooting. Admittedly though, over the last three decades or so, I have been actively involved in argument in Australia, concerning two other unjustified police shootings - in Australia.

To conclude that anything less than absolute perfection from them is a sign of the demise of society is pretty irrational, to put it midly.

I agree. Did you see such a conclusion from me ?

Cops are human, alt.

Nazis are too. But please don’t infer from that, that I’m calling all, most, or even a few cops Nazis - though I would readily describe this one cops (Birk) behaviour as very Nazi like.

They are subject to human flaws, even as much as their commanders try to filter them out. That every now and then one commits an unjustified shooting (assuming this was), should neither be particularly surprising or distressing.

Maybe not to you. I reckon though, that to most people, the proposition that a cop shoots dead a citizen every now and then unjustifiably, would be a terrifying prospect, not just a distressing one.

 

[Galteeth]

Maybe not to you. I reckon though, that to most people, the proposition that a cop shoots dead a citizen every now and then unjustifiably, would be a terrifying prospect, not just a distressing one.

In my opinion, the police in America are a big problem. The attitude is not the presumption of innocence, but the notion that anything less then immediate unquestioned compliance is treated as a deadly threat. Police do indeed "look out for each other", regardless of right or wrong, no different then a gang mentality. I would not say this shooting in Seattle was an isolated incident.
Which is why I brought up the question of frequency. I am familiar with the few bad apples argument and the problem with it is that no amount of examples will be sufficient.

Unfortunatey, there aren't reliable statistics for this sort of thing, because every group that keeps stats has an agenda (and yes, that includes government and law enforcement).

 

[russ_watters]

"Now and then" is the key term there. What level of frequency does it have to rise to in order to become a problem from your perspective?

I'm not sure how frequent it would have to be, but here we have a case that happened on the other side of the world from the OP and it was noteworthy enough to warrant a thread. That makes it extremely rare.

 

[DanP]

I'm not sure how frequent it would have to be, but here we have a case that happened on the other side of the world from the OP and it was noteworthy enough to warrant a thread. That makes it extremely rare.

It doesn't really follows , maybe it's one of the cases which he heard about. There is enough police shootings and tasering to make countless articles from it, maybe even for a PhD in social psychology.

 

[russ_watters]

Does every thread here have to be the subject of international news ? Also, are you saying that because they aren’t all that rare, we shouldn’t be very interested ? I would have thought that if police shootings in these circumstances are common, that should be much reason to be very interested.

Actually, since this one incident on the other side of the world was notable enough to start a thread about, this thread tends to show that they are rare, doesn't it?

Societies change over time, all the time. They evolve, devolve, demise. Yes, I do believe the shooting event here, and acquiescence to it such as you suggest, contributes to a societies demise, no matter how incremental that contribution might be.

Really? What if the rate of unjustified shootings is actually decreasing - would it still signal the demise of society?

And you're backing away from what you said before. I'll let go the "moral compass thing", but were you just joking when you said "shaken to the core"? You still posted this thread, alt.

That’s confusing. If it’s a single event, it IS unique. If it isn’t terribly unique it ISN’T a single event. Though I would think the latter is more true. So to speak of many (not terribly unique) police shooting dead of citizens as not significant in the grand scheme of things is just .. what can I say ..

.. And there is precisely ONE thread by alt on an unjustified police shooting.

Exactly. That's why I expressed confusion about the logic behind this thread. Since there are millions of police officers out there, one should be able to accept that every now and then there will be an unjustified shooting. But on the othere hand, it would appear that they are so rare that this one made news from the other side of the world. In my mind, that means that means they aren't significant enough in the grand scheme of things to be that much of a societal problem.

Admittedly though, over the last three decades or so, I have been actively involved in argument in Australia, concerning two other unjustified police shootings - in Australia.

So three police shootings in three decades have caused you significant concern about the demise of society? Really?

I agree. Did you see such a conclusion from me ?

Yes. this thread is indicitave of that.

Nazis are too. But please don’t infer from that, that I’m calling all, most, or even a few cops Nazis - though I would readily describe this one cops (Birk) behaviour as very Nazi like.

C'mon alt, I know you know that's not what I meant: in any sameple of a million normal humans you are likely to get a handful of murderers. This should be obvious.

Maybe not to you. I reckon though, that to most people, the proposition that a cop shoots dead a citizen every now and then unjustifiably, would be a terrifying prospect, not just a distressing one.

I recon that you're wrong about that. To be that distressed about such a rare event requires one have a lack of distress about more common and therefore more personally relevant events. That's irrational.

 

[DanP]

in any sameple of a million normal humans you are likely to get a handful of murderers. This should be obvious. I recon that you're wrong about that. To be that distressed about such a rare event requires one have a lack of distress about more common and therefore more personally relevant events. That's irrational.

Surely, no one needs to panic or feel under siege from such incidents. It would not be healthy. Although some of the acts of law enforcements can have dramatic consequences, which can implicate thousand of ppl and alter their lives forever. (Anyone heard of LA Riots ? )

My point is that it would be very interesting to look at law enforcement units from a social psychology perspective.

It would be enlightening to see real statistics (for example you claim the occurrences are very rare, but I keep hearing of such cases time and again. Both are subjective perceptions), and it would also be very interesting to see whatever having a gun and badge and sometimes questionable dept. polices and chain of commands has implications over the behavior (as in leaning towards what Zimbardo calls "psychology of evil" ) of said officers. (Which taken as individuals could very well extremely decent human beings )

 

[vish_al210]

Well would all your responses have changed if "God forbid" was one of your very own... touchy subject aint it... So don't hit the wrong bell, just cause u been lucky..
Or would u folks have thought of it differently if one of my friends had posted this after I was shot by atrigger happy cop. Well regardless of your response to my death... I detest the fact that sometimes bad things have to happen on a large scale for people to notice.. and on a larger scale even for people to accept and legalise it... And yes I detest my death being your response triggering device.. "That is not funny" to me...
It is a problem... Why didn't the cop try shooting once in the leg, or even before that shooting in the air...??
There is a problem... and a bigger problem if we do not consider it to be a problem but a one off incident that happened to someone we didn't know...
How we//our govts//law makers decide to tackle this issue is maybe of debate.. but was this incident unfortunate.was it avoidable... is this a problem that could happen to either to me or my kin...
WELL Y E S ! ! !
No debate on that folks...
So should the officer be hanged or suspended... dunno... it was something the system taught him to do and something the system didn't interfere in when he was doing it earlier...
So is he alone the clprit... Well think again...
There are many sides to a situation...many perspective and unlike math... the equation, the solution and the inference is not always one... Possibly open the horizons and teach the cops that all life is precious... and nothing is one off... But its not that simple...
I don't know how a system can allow an officer to fire on the sternum or above the knee... But it is a progression that needs to happen... and it won't be geometric or logarithmic but much much slower.. But it has to start to happen towards the better,... or it won't ever...

An old quote..
Nothing wrong can become right just because everyone does it.. or well in this case accepts it or believes it or tolerates it...
Choose what u r debating...
This is nothing personal on any post... just general...

 

[alt]

To russ_watters

Actually, since this one incident on the other side of the world was notable enough to start a thread about, this thread tends to show that they are rare, doesn't it?

To clarify, again, I heard mention of this matter several days ago, in a topical news program within a much larger discussion context concerning human rights, police powers, etc. This incident was only one of many discussed. It was hardly Earth shattering news (it occurred in August if I recall ?). Having a passing interest in human rights, and wishing to discuss it with some intelligent people, and more to the point, Americans, since it happened in America, and recalling that similar issues are sometimes discussed here, I decided to start this thread.

Really? What if the rate of unjustified shootings is actually decreasing - would it still signal the demise of society?

That's not quite what I said. I said;

“I do believe the shooting event here, and acquiescence to it such as you suggest, contributes to a societies demise”

To answer your question, and to state the obvious, yes, if the degree of unjustified shootings is actually decreasing, that would be a good thing for society - less contribution to any demise, rather than more.

And you're backing away from what you said before.

I don’t think so - What ?

but were you just joking when you said "shaken to the core"?

Is this something to joke about ? A man chases another down the street and in a few seconds shoots him dead through his side for no good reason. Contemplation of such a thing would shake some people to the core - and more so if the killer was a cop.

You still posted this thread, alt.

Yes, I did, Russ.

Exactly. That's why I expressed confusion about the logic behind this thread. Since there are millions of police officers out there, one should be able to accept that every now and then there will be an unjustified shooting. But on the othere hand, it would appear that they are so rare that this one made news from the other side of the world. In my mind, that means that means they aren't significant enough in the grand scheme of things to be that much of a societal problem.

Aside from your ‘confusion’ about this thread, which I hope I’ve addressed earlier, yes, there are millions of police officers out there. We occasionally are shocked at the actions of one of them, and say so.

So three police shootings in three decades have caused you significant concern about the demise of society? Really?

Is that what you think I’ve said ? That’s really taking me out of context. I was making the point that out of a multitude of police shootings over several decades, I’ve been involved in argument against three of them. OTOH, I’ve been involved in many more arguments expressing support for police, armed forces, rule of law, etc.

C'mon alt, I know you know that's not what I meant: in any sameple of a million normal humans you are likely to get a handful of murderers. This should be obvious.

C’mon on Russ - I know cops are human, just as you know Nazis are human. Now you’re making another obvious statement, that causes us to write more on things obvious . Yes, in a sample of millions of normal humans some are going to be murderers, and some of those are going to be cops. In the same sample of millions of humans, some are going to be outraged and shaken to the core about such a thing.

I recon that you're wrong about that. To be that distressed about such a rare event requires one have a lack of distress about more common and therefore more personally relevant events. That's irrational.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[Galteeth]

On a possibly related note, there was recently a big bust of a police steroid ring in my home state of new jersey.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/26/illegal-steroid-use-among-police-officers-a-big-problem/

 

[alt]

On a possibly related note, there was recently a big bust of a police steroid ring in my home state of new jersey.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/26/illegal-steroid-use-among-police-officers-a-big-problem/

I guess the main relevance here, is that they WERE busted.

A few days ago in Australia, a number of sailors in the Australian Navy were busted for trafficking in large quantities of narcotics. Again, the the good, the comforting thing here, is that they WERE busted.

 

[mheslep]

Alt: Above you have made the statements "We're on the slippery slope", and "portends it’s eventual demise" about the consequences of this shooting for US society. In response to RussW you seemed to contradict any such conclusion. Can you clarify what you do, in fact, mean? Please - just on these points and not another.

 

[alt]

Alt: Above you have made the statements "We're on the slippery slope", and "portends it’s eventual demise" about the consequences of this shooting for US society. In response to RussW you seemed to contradict any such conclusion. Can you clarify what you do, in fact, mean? Please - just on these points and not another.

OK - and thanks for the unambiguous question.

“We’re on the slippery slope”

I made this comment immediately after having quoted the Seattle Times letters editors bi-line .. ‘I am now officially scared of all of you’ .. in post #6 (link was provided). That’s a pretty powerful wouldn’t you say ? And not from some ‘know nothing / know it all” from the other side of the world, but from the ST editor. My comment was directly in response, even if rhetorical and exasperated response, to that. Please let me know how you get on after you’ve queried the ST editor (for balance, of course) about his use of that powerful bi-line.

"portends it’s eventual demise"

You seem to have inadvertently taken me out of context. I did not say "portends it’s eventual demise" about the consequences of this shooting for US society” as you have stated in the above post. In post #13, I said

But as a member of a free society, to see something like this and to not be shaken to the core (on the evidence available thus far) is anathema to such a society, and portends it’s eventual demise, IMO.

See the difference ? Not the shooting, but awareness of it, followed by unconcern, inaction, or even ennui, would be anathema to a society, and would portend it’s demise. I stand by what I said.

I hope I have sufficiently answered your questions.

Anyway - though I appreciate the debate, I am perplexed as to why the main contributors here, have chosen in the main, to dissect my words, but have largely avoided the elephant in the living room.

 

[zomgwtf]

Off topic but serious question:
Why does every thread involving russ involve some sort of off-topic completely unrelated debate?

 

[mheslep]

OK - and thanks for the unambiguous question.

“We’re on the slippery slope”

I made this comment immediately after having quoted the Seattle Times letters editors bi-line .. ‘I am now officially scared of all of you’ .. in post #6 (link was provided). That’s a pretty powerful wouldn’t you say ?

No?

And not from some ‘know nothing / know it all” from the other side of the world, but from the ST editor. My comment was directly in response, even if rhetorical and exasperated response, to that. Please let me know how you get on after you’ve queried the ST editor (for balance, of course) about his use of that powerful bi-line.

Do you note that's simply a quote from a letter writer to the paper, who may be ill-informed about the event, and of whom we know nothing but a name?

In post #13, I said

But as a member of a free society, to see something like this and to not be shaken to the core (on the evidence available thus far) is anathema to such a society, and portends it’s eventual demise, IMO.

See the difference ? Not the shooting, but awareness of it, followed by unconcern, inaction, or even ennui, would be anathema to a society, and would portend it’s demise. I stand by what I said.

What inaction? From quickly reading some references it looks like the cop has a lawyer and is forced to defend himself. If inaction is your true cause for concern here, you haven't discussed it in your posts.

Anyway - though I appreciate the debate, I am perplexed as to why the main contributors here, have chosen in the main, to dissect my words, but have largely avoided the elephant in the living room.

Nobody is under obligation to accept your assertion of the elephant dejour. Consider that there are similar such "don't bother me 'bout the details, how can you all fail to see ..." claims on this forum all the time. Take the trouble to show here how this is so.