See, this could be interseting, though…

Let’s say that the cop was a 5’2" female holding a gun, and she opened fire on a much larger man who was coming to engage in a fist fight. The logic being, how am I at my size going to win a wrestling match against a much bigger opponent?

This same answer would be viable for a cop who is male and small of stature, right?

What about for an older cop who isn’t confident in his ability to win the fight?

Now, what about in this scenario where he has yelled for his son to go and pick up the gun, and there is a fear that the gun could be retrieved and used on him while engaging in a prolonged wrestling match with the suspect?

… And if it is understandable that a cop who is too small to win a physcal fight with the suspect can shoot him so his own gun isn’t used against them… Can the same logic apply to a cop who is roughly the same size as the opponent?

Regardless, there have to be standards that treat all equal before the law, and this is an example where you could debate either way… But, ultimately, are you comfortable asking officers to risk their own lives on a wrestling match with an erratic criminal that may just shoot them if they win the fight?

And dare I say… Do we want to write laws that err on the side of people attacking cops, or do we want laws that err on the side of cops being attacked?

What would it mean if the word was out: If you run at a cop with your fists up, he can’t shoot you…! He has to fight you! You can beat 'em down