The recent acclaim accorded an Ohio police officer who refused to shoot a dangerous felon who was advancing on him is troubling on many levels ("Ohio officer praised for restraint, refused to shoot suspect," April 18)
The officer is called a "hero," but that is just wrong. The suspect, who was obviously intent on a "suicide by cop," was described as a felon wanted for two murders. The officer knew that.
He began retreating while pointing his pistol at the suspect and repeatedly told him to stop and that he wasn't going to shoot him. At that point, he put his fate in the hands of a criminal.
As the officer backpedaled, he fell. That offered the suspect an opportunity to seize a gun if he did not have one in his pocket. There is always a gun on the scene when the police arrive; most officers take this wisdom to heart.
The gamble paid off this time, thanks to luck and a suspect not motivated to kill at that moment. Expecting wiser and more savvy officers to follow suit put an impossible burden on them — yet one that will be expected by many since it was "heroic" for this officer to act the way he did.
If he worked for me, my size 11 Danner boot would be applied where it would do the most good. The known felon would have been warned that if his threatening actions continued and his hand remained hidden, several projectiles of 180 grain jacketed lead at supersonic speed would be applied.
Ironically, the camera would show ample justification for such a remedy. The Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor offers police a wide latitude when acting to protect themselves or others.
Jeff Rosen
The write is a retired commander of the Baltimore City Police Department's homicide unit.