D-FIN said:
Unfortunately some nitwit call the cops in the first place or this would probably have been a non-issue to begin with. So the cops had to respond. I think we can assume he was acting a little weird just be cause he was carrying a sword (Weird does not have to mean dangerous). I doubt he did anything that would be considered illegal until after the encounter with the cops began.
Not all people are capable of acting in a calm rational manner around cops especially when they feel they are being treated unjustly. Just look at the lady at UVU who was confronted about vandalizing the sign. She obviously didn't think her actions warranted the response she got or that she could be taken into custody for it. In this case I think the the cops may have escalated something rather than trying to deescalate it. Taking someone into custody just so you and those who called FEEL SAFE is not deescalation.
Beyond that who knows maybe he flipped out and pulled his sword or maybe he just tried to leave either way I think the who think could have been avoided with a little bit of patience.
There is a lot of stuff that isn't illegal that probably warrants a little checking out.
There is nothing illegal about Joe random parking in his car on the public street directly in front of my house for hours on end. And there is nothing illegal about me, my neighbors, or our agents the police, investigating a bit to determine what is going on. Ditto if some guy parks in a windowless panel van next to a grade school playground. And such investigation doesn't give the subject any right to engage in violence against us.
There comes a time when grand theory gives way to reality.
Maybe sword dude wasn't doing anything the least bit dangerous or concerning. Maybe whomever called 911 was just a racist, sword hating bigot with deep paranoia issues. Or maybe, something about the overall comportment of the fellow carrying the sword on his back was sufficient to give any reasonable man some cause for concern.
Maybe the cops initiated contact without any good reason at all. Maybe they should have just stood back and observed for a while and decided there was no reason for contact. Or maybe they observed something in over all comportment that gave them legitimate cause for concern regarding either the public safety, or even the welfare of the young man.
It is entirely possible that their request/order for the young man to surrender his sword was not legally sustainable.
It is possible that had the police never made contact this obviously troubled young man would have gone about his day and gone home and nothing would have happened. It is also possible that he would have eventually shown up, sword in hand, at the home of the young woman he was apparently stalking online, or lashed out at whomever declined to hire him, or who knows what.
I don't know. And the bad that might have happened maybe isn't reason to shoot him.
But, something you wrote highlights a very important concept. You wrote:
D-FIN said:
Not all people are capable of acting in a calm rational manner around cops especially when they feel they are being treated unjustly.
Such people then have no business carrying deadly weapons around in public, and maybe not even owning them at all.
With rights come responsibilities. And when we talk of the right to own and carry deadly weapons, the responsibilities are most grave (no pun intended).
Life is full of seeming injustices. These come daily to most of us and from a variety of sources including family, co-workers, bosses, rush hour traffic, and yes, sometimes "the man" in the form of a cop with a badge and gun. The vast majority of us learn as children to deal with these injustices without hitting or otherwise lashing out. A few don't and end up in prison, mental hospitals, on the streets, dead, or otherwise in less than ideal circumstances.
I'm no cheerleader for the cops. I still think the Danielle Willard case in WVC, and the Ogden "knock and announce" then bust down the door case involving a few pot plants stick to high heaven.
And I'm downright radical when it comes to defending rights. How many times have I said, "Any man allowed to walk the streets unsupervised is entitled to exercise all of his rights including RKBA"?
But if someone is "Incapable" of (or simply chooses not to) acting calmly when confronted by life's multitude of injustices, he really ought to think twice about having a deadly weapon close at hand. Because while I'll defend his legal rights up to the point he is jailed or committed, I will also demand his responsibility.
We don't get to lunge at cops with swords just because they tell us to lay the sword down. We don't get to attack store owners or bosses just because they tell us to leave our sword outside, or fire us for violating company sword policy.
Maybe the cops made a small mistake somewhere in the long chain of events that lead to a young man getting killed. Maybe.
But it is looking quite indisputable that the fellow with the sword made at least a couple of really big mistakes and quite possibly, walking around with a deadly weapon when he was incapable of maintaining civilized conduct when life wasn't exactly what he wanted might have been a big one. Not as big as taking a swing at a cop with the sword. But pretty big.
Charles