THERE MUST FINALLY serious consideration should be given to the ease with which some members of the armed forces draw their firearms as soon as a conflict threatens to get out of hand. An altercation, traffic dispute or bruised ego should never be sufficient reason to point a loaded weapon at an unarmed citizen. Yet incidents in which exactly that happens occur with disturbing regularity. Sometimes shots are even fired.
The video that is currently going viral fits into that disturbing image. A plain-clothed man, reportedly a penitentiary officer, holds a young man at gunpoint and orders him to lie on the ground. The young man refuses and even challenges the gun bearer to shoot him.
“Then shoot!” shouting at someone who can actually shoot is the greatest stupidity: stupid, life-threatening bravado
What preceded it obviously needs to be investigated. But one question cannot be avoided: why does a confrontation between an armed official and an unarmed civilian so quickly end up in a gun-pointing situation?
A service weapon is neither an extension of the ego nor a tool to win an argument. Anyone who loses his self-control due to an insult, provocation or disobedience so easily that he reaches for his service weapon, poses a safety risk himself.
That is why the selection of people who are admitted to armed forces must be critically examined. How thorough are the psychological tests? Is mental suitability only taken into account upon commencement of employment or does this happen periodically? And how much attention do de-escalation, impulse control and conflict management receive during training?
Moreover, the leadership of armed forces may not only take action when an incident goes viral. Every time irresponsible use of weapons is downplayed or dismissed internally, the dangerous signal is created that a uniform or service weapon elevates someone above normal rules of conduct. That is unacceptable.
The young man in the video also does not deserve applause for his attitude. Parents must teach their children that challenging someone with a gun is not toughness or courage. “Then shoot!” shouting at someone who can actually shoot is the greatest stupidity: stupid, life-threatening bravado. Immediately trigger happy armor bearer could have ended this confrontation with a body on the street and a family in mourning.
That is precisely why the greatest responsibility lies with the government. It arms these officials and grants them special powers. It must also guarantee that those involved are mentally fit, professionally trained and continuously monitorable.
A firearm should provide protection. As soon as it is used to instill fear, obedience or respect, something is fundamentally wrong.
