"Police Shooting," another headline read this week. It's sad, and any loss of human life is heartbreaking regardless of the circumstance. The headline is also tragic. Rather than being an informational headline that provides answers, it is usually a sensational headline that induces questions. However, these questions are rarely the helpful type. You know the ones, the type of questions that provide solutions or at least drive conscientious, well-meaning people towards real conversation in hopes of finding solutions.

The funny thing, a term meant euphemistically, is that the solution is often found in the moments proceeding the sensational headline. The moments before the "shooting" are usually when the inevitable is not so inevitable. At that moment, a series of facts tie together to provide a picture differently. They create an image of a way where nobody shoots, and nobody gets shot.

“Blame never finds an answer, only a scapegoat. ”

Sadly, the articles I read today don't reach this obvious conclusion, and they are not written as cause and effect, solely effect. It is almost like the writer watched the titanic sink, forgot to mention navigating through iceberg-laden waters, and instead went straight to blaming the iceberg. Sure the iceberg is partially blamed for the sinking ship, but who is to blame for striking the iceberg.

Again I pause. "Blame" why is that the first word out of my mouth. It is bitter as I write and increases in bitterness as I meditate on a society torn apart. The problem with "blame" is it is a nonstarter, a conversation ender, and it immediately assumes that you rather than me is the cause of the issue and removes me from the solution. Blame never finds an answer, only a scapegoat.

If I blame McDonald's for making me fat, I can continue to eat at McDonald's because my stopping is not the solution, only the absence of McDonald's. Until you remove Mcdonald's, I remain fat and must continue eating double cheeseburgers. The actual problem is now acceptable until I remove the theoretical problem, which will never happen, thus allowing me entirely off the hook for my behavior and choices.

What a world! I can enjoy my reckless and counter-productive behavior, and should I face any consequence, I then can blame the effect of my choices rather than the cause, allowing me to continue acting as I wish without repudiation. It is not only in the sad arena of law enforcement-involved shootings that this is true. This tenet of blaming the result rather than my corresponding actions have become a norm in American society, and it is fraught with disastrous consequence.

I could bore you with statistics and figures that support unquestionably that most officer-involved shootings are different than the original media reports. These sensationalized incidents often target certain races or demographics. The media loves the overused and misunderstood term "unarmed," which should not be assumed to mean "not a threat." Furthermore, the overuse of the word "unarmed" rarely provides an accurate picture of "was armed," "recently disarmed," or "in possession of a weapon." All of which would reframe the term "unarmed."

Police-involved shootings are tragic. It's sad for the officers involved, it is tragic for the victim and their families, and it is tragic for the community. I have never known an officer who wants to use their weapon in the line of duty, but I have also never met one who is unwilling to use their weapon in the line of duty to save their life or the life of someone else. There are no winners, and there are certainly losers.

However, this article's design is to be thought-provoking and ask a more important question in hopes of sparking change.

What kind of society is the kind of society in which you want to live?

The last few years have repeatedly brought me to this question and made me realize that the response to many of these incidents has less to do with the incident and more to do with bad actors promoting societal change. The unrest, the attack on civil servants, and the guaranteed chaos and outrage without fact or clarity feed an intrinsic plan of destroying the society where ALL can enjoy the freedoms of this great country.

“It is time for us to emit light in the darkness and for reasonable people to be heard and not cower over a fear of being shunned for not purporting a particular narrative. ”

When a police shooting occurs, watch the coverage of the incident. Look at the descriptors and language media outlets use. Instead of simply ingesting news as fact, read the titles, read the narrative, and then pause and ask yourself some questions. Is everything clear here, or are there still facts I need to understand to understand the incident? If there is a video, is it coming from only one source or multiple sources? Is the source fully reliable, even if the source is a so-called "news" organization? Can I say that the context is clear and the video or accounts are unedited? When I read this article, does it feel like the reporter is providing facts from multiple viewpoints and allowing me to conclude, or is it intentionally incendiary or one-sided? Is the apparent response from the media and community reasonable?

I find this last question one of the most powerful. If the cries are not of blind justice, a release of all facts, and a plea for time to make sure that the entire fact pattern you receive is as factual as possible, then a prudent person should question the whole narrative. I further submit that "questioning" is not enough anymore. It is past time for us to speak the truth in love. It is time for us to emit light in the darkness and for reasonable people to be heard and not cower over a fear of being shunned for not purporting a particular narrative.

What is the kind of society in which you want to live?

I know it is one where the words "police shooting" never have to be uttered again. However, not because of some Utopian and faulty wish that we disarm all the cops or abolish the police. The mistaken belief that if we eliminate law enforcement, magically, all crime will go away, and there will be no more shootings. No, I still want to live in the real world and wait until a later time to mount my unicorn and ride off into the suns-set (I figure if you get a magic unicorn, you can have more than one "sun" as well.)

I want the end of police shootings to come because society has decided that they don't want to force a law enforcement officer into a life and death decision to protect their or someone else's life. I want a world where people choose to abide by the lawful commands of the police. A world where the sinful heart of man desires a better way. A world where police don't have to use their weapon because no one would ever dream of shooting at them.

I get it. My dream also has a utopian vibe; however, the most significant difference is that it is possible. We can decide as a society that this experiment of diving headlong into humanism, destroying the family unit, celebrating evil and destruction, and eliminating consequences for evil behavior, can all be stopped. We can go back, but the answer doesn't lie with the police anymore: being fat cannot be blamed on Mcdonald's. If you don't want to get fat, set the cheeseburger and fries down. If you're going to bring an end to a police shooting, well, let's start with controlling what we can control. Let's try first to comply with law enforcement's lawful commands.

If you would like to say “Thank You” for the content Wayne is creating click here to buy him a coffee.

Wayne Mulder is a law enforcement officer, speaker, writer and the host of the On The Blue Line podcast. Wayne is an advocate for law enforcement officer total health programs and a believer in empowering law enforcement officers in their personal lives. For more on his mission visit OnTheBlueLine.com.

BLOG: Police Shooting. The dangers and realties of this tragic headline.

BLOG: The Last Line of Defense. Writing about divisiveness and the role of Law Enforcement in Society.

BLOG: Speaking the truth in love. Free Speech is not just a Right, it’s a Responsibility.