This situation takes me back a few years as I began my career in Law Enforcement. Any time you hold a position of any capacity in Law Enforcement, there is always much training and education that accompanies that pursuit. Before a Police Officer can officially wear a uniform and badge with "Police Officer" across the banner, much training via a police academy is required to take place. During this police academy many things are learned about how to handle different situations, including how to make last second decisions about the denying of one's liberty due to a crime that was committed, or to take another's life in the defense of your own or another's. Much of this training always includes training on the application of the use of force, which is an ongoing process. The "use of force" is a phrase that is used by many people. In some cases, people use this phrase not really comprehending the totality of what this encompasses. Any time the use of force is used against another, even from a police officer it becomes an ugly monster that inflicts fear in many of the bravest people in existence to take on this issue (phrase) amongst great scrutiny. This phrase surrounds civil liability and always puts social issues to the forefront. It takes a wise and formidable person to venture into this area. City Managers, Police Supervisors, and those that have received the training, are some of these brave souls that can challenge the justification of a specific use of force or an incident. Having this training, experience, and education, in this arena gives these people a certain "perception" about what is justified and what is not. If you have not existed in this arena and are considered civilian, your perception about what is viewed in the media is different. Therefore, what many may see as factual on a video clipping, or front page, may even qualify as their own perception, based on what they know from their own experiences, education and training.
