Unarmed suspects

Debates over "police brutality" (insert your favorite) adjective are often framed in terms of police shooting an "unarmed" suspect. 

The implication is that an unarmed suspect is no threat to an armed policeman. 

Now, I do think that when a policeman shoots an unarmed suspect, that needs to be investigated. There are certainly situations in which the suspect posed no threat to the policeman. In that event, a policeman should be prosecuted the same way a civilian would be prosecuted. 

BTW, I'm using "suspect" as a placeholder. Sometimes police accost drivers or pedestrians who aren't even suspects. You also have innocent homeowners shot in no-knock raids. 

That said, the comparison is misleading. An armed individual only has an advantage over an unarmed individual so long as the armed individual is prepared to use his gun. If he's not prepared to shoot anyone, then he's effectively unarmed. In that situation, it's equivalent to a confrontation between two unarmed combatants.

To complain that police sometimes shoot unarmed suspects is circular. For if the criticism is that a policeman should never shoot an unarmed suspect, that that amounts to unilateral disarmament of the police. 

And when you have a confrontation between two unarmed individuals, that can obviously be an unequal contest. These are not necessarily evenly-matched combatants. 

Take a female jogger who carries a handgun in her fanny pack to defend herself against potential rapists, muggers, or serial killers. Without a gun, she's no match for a young, strong male assailant.