>He put himself in a situation with "a high likelyhood of getting shot" the moment he did that.

Do you think that I think that cops should never ever put themselves in danger no matter what?

I'm saying there's a line, of course. Every society in the world already agrees with this. Every society in the world with law enforcement, allows law enforcement to take action, including deadly, depending on the situation, often including potential harm to themselves, and even if only they (law enforcement) are the ones in danger.

What we'd argue about is where that line is. When is it reasonable for a cop to use deadly force? That's a good debate to have. But it's impossible to have with 99% of people, who generally, have the emotional intelligence of day old dog shit.

> Or, more to the point, he put himself in a situation with high likelyhood of needing to kill the kid.

That the cop should have done something other than give chase? I agree the child likely wouldn't have been killed in that case. Of course that would've been such a better outcome. But if we say that, we need to say that cops shouldn't chase after someone who has a gun (that is likely loaded) and is running.

I don't know, but I lean towards no. That it's too much of an ask and probably does more harm than good. There's so much in that ask. How many murders go free from that? How many rapists? Or even broader, how do you make that call? Also is this for every case or only specific cases? Like is there a criteria list that has to be met before you give chase? It seems like a huge can of worms. I grant it might be right. There might be better protocol. But unless I were to hear it, I have to err on the side of this being a horrible accident caused primarily, by the man who gave the child the gun and told him to run.