There is some good debate and conversation happening in the wake of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. But there is also plenty of arrant nonsense. Consider this gem from the New York Times editorial of this morning about police arrests: "there can never be a justification for any lethal assault on an unarmed man." How absurd.
In Ferguson, there is evidence that Michael Brown was attempting to wrest the officer's gun away. Should Darren Wilson have waited until Brown was successful before defending himself? Whatever the facts from Staten Island, if a single officer finds himself in a struggle with a suspect the size of Eric Garner, is he not entitled to fight for his own life?
Although the Times editorial focused on police activity, what if someone breaks into the home of a private citizen. Must the homeowner wait until it can be determined that the intruder is armed before taking action? Should the standard be different for the police?
If the members of the Times editorial board were to spend a few days accompanying police officers on the streets of New York, experiencing what they experience, I wonder if they might come away with a different perspective from the one they pontificate on from their safe aerie?