friends Lareli and Wanda,
Thank you for pointing out what I should have made clearer in my initial comment.
Lareli is correct that my illustrations were not comparable considering the lack of necessary detail.
Wanda is correct in her assessment of my intent and thanks for that.
I was hoping to compare the way we administer justice from the human perspective compared to what scripture says God would do...both in the Old Testament economy and the new. More on that and deterrents later if any are interested.
In my own view with only partial information available to the public, the woman police officer likely had been trained to respond in exactly the manner that she did, but with the caveat that she over-reacted out of surprise and fear for her own life rather than in a manner that we incorrectly would expect from a highly trained police officer, as portrayed in the movies.
In the mind of the public, an officer, especially one wearing a "bullet proof" [?] vest should hold back any deadly response until they are fully assured that the threat to themselves is real and deadly before themselves responding with deadly force.
e.g. only return fire after shots have been first fired at you. Not very practical if one expects to enjoy their retirement.
That expectation is to say the least unrealistic and based upon the ignorance of the average member of the public.
Consequently, IF we the public are expecting this type of event to be much less likely, then it would seem to follow that we need to change the system that sends, duty bound police officers into deadly combat with little protection for themselves.
Yes I know that she was off duty, but combat training is ingrained 24/7 or is ineffective and not useful!
If I myself walked into such a situation it is likely that I would turn and run back to a safer position OR would simply freeze and then be subject to whatever assault might come from the supposed intruder. It is my guess that the jury was made aware of several situations such as this for them to consider in their deliberations. The officer made a deadly mistake and the result was the death of an innocent person. However in judgement the public should be concerned mainly with whether there was premeditation or any other unlawful conduct on her part that would make her act reckless rather than a human error.
If the judgment is human error then correct the training and the duty assignment so that it may not happen at a future time. Punishing a person for being afraid or incompetent or just not suited for certain responsibilities is counter productive for the whole of humanity. Part of the solution is to stop expecting police officers to play god or superman and to provide them with ALL the resources we would wish for ourselves were we held to the same standards of conduct.
Isn't this really a societal problem that the police have to contend with, that has come about with our dismissal of God's law from our schools and family life?
Respectfully offered, Indiana Bob
Perhaps it is done in our society to placate the relatives and prevent revenge as well as hoping to prevent other careless or accidental acts by others in society who, seeing her punishment, will be more careful to avoid consequences of careless acts.
A non related illustration might be confinement for "users" of illegal drugs after a third offense.
The result of which is to punish an addiction or illness with the hope that the individual will learn self control in prison.
What I see is a comparison of possible reasons our society punishes such cases by imprisoning people. Not that the crimes are comparable in there severity. In both scenarios Bob gave, each was imprisoned as a possible deterrent,