[maxerickson]

Imagined scenarios shouldn't ever be used to justify lethal force. That's all there is to say.

Police probably shouldn't ever fire their weapons first...

Of course that would make being an officer slightly more physically dangerous, but only slightly. Most never have cause to fire their weapons in the line of duty anyway.

[davemp]

This is just fantasy. Sure in nice places where you likely live this may work. These areas are not where police homicides tend to happen though.

Some areas of the USA are actually very dangerous. In these areas there is a much higher likelihood of suspects being harmed and dangerous.

You’re basically asking other humans to implement a sound system (where false negatives mean they die) in an area with relatively high event rates. This doesn’t give me any moral clarity.

In cushy neighborhoods sure police officers likely do implement a complete system and no one gets shot. That’s much easier to justify based on basic probabilities.

[maxerickson]

(where false negatives mean they die)

This study finds a substantial difference in high crime areas, but still most officers never discharge their weapon in the line of duty:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-loo...

About one-in-five officers (22%) in areas with at least six and but fewer than 10 violent crimes per 1,000 residents in 2015 have ever fired their service weapon. By contrast, about a third (32%) of officers who work in areas with a lower violent crime rate have discharged their gun. In areas where the violent crime rate is 10 or more, 28% of officers have fired their weapon. However, that proportion is not significantly different from the share that works in communities with fewer than six or six to fewer than 10 violent crimes per 1,000 residents.

Maybe the best way to stop them firing first is to not let them carry a firearm.

[davemp]

I’m not convinced that firing a weapon is that useful of a statistic.