Should law enforce be allowed to brandish a firearm in order to command compliance from an unarmed and non-aggressive "suspect"?

Don't know what the rules are for officers on situations they are permitted to draw their weapon, but it seems that the LEO should be in danger of his life, or fearful for the life of another, etc before drawing, and then the next logical step would be to fire in such a situation . Drawing a weapon to intimidate a person into getting back, or such does not seem like a reasonable thing to do.

I worked private security for a few years. We were taught a "use of force continuum". It started with talking and deescalating the situation. We could then deploy our asp or pepper spray accompanied by a sterner warning. If the situation warranted it, we could then use the asp or pepper spray, only up to the point where the situation was contained. If the situation had not changed, we could place our hand on our holstered weapon and inform the individual that he would be shot if they continued. As a final gesture, we could deploy our weapon and if the situation warranted it, we could shoot as a last resort. I saw many inexperienced security officers either put their hand on their weapons or deploy it as their first action. I rarely had to use pepper spray or deploy my asp. I never had to deploy my pistol.

The problem with pulling your gun is that there is no "up" level from there that doesn't involve firing it.

Firearm safety rules apply in life just as much as they do at the range. They're taught at ranges so that they are committed to muscle memory. No, you shouldn't just brandish weapons at people to inspire cooperation unless threatened with physical bodily harm, or defending others from bodily harm.

A few years ago, I attended a SWAT course taught by a certified DOE badass. In the years I spent operating on police tactical teams before that, I was always taught that wherever your eyes go, your barrel goes. In the course, he questioned my thought process behind that. I told him it was so I would be ready to engage if a target presented itself. He said "You don't point a weapon at anything you aren't willing to destroy, right?" I said yes. He asked if I was ready to destroy the door I was pointing at. And what if a child walked out, was I ready to destroy them too? Of course I wasn't! It was that day I got an in depth explanation of sypathetic flinching and the wonders of reaction time. The bottom line is... pointing a gun at stuff doesn't actually always ensure safety. In the case of many police encounters, its a weak excuse not to use your words. I don't condemn the action. Its necessary, and its needed. But it can't be the "go to" move for every single encounter.

"Should law enforce be allowed to brandish a firearm in order to command compliance from an unarmed and non-aggressive "suspect"?"

Are those the actions of an individual or a department? If department, is it written policy or established norm?

Employees commonly take actions and / or make statements that the employer does not condone, do not approve of.
The employer should act to correct the inappropriate action and it should not be a larger issue..other then addressing the person(s) that have a grievance and come to a satisfactory settlement.

So the question was: Is it apropret to use a firearm as a compliance tool on a non physically threatening suspect?
Most any rational person will say....Of course not... and I doubt you will find policy in any department that allows for such a thing, nor any LEO training academy that teaches such a thing.

So I say again, is this the action of an individual? if so address it and move on. Is it the policy of the department? Then let an outside investigation come to that conclusion, hold the apropret leaders accountable, retrain as needed and move on.

In the specific example you have listed, no the behavior is not acceptable. But I have no issue with police brandishing their weapon. All it takes is a single second for a peaceful suspect to turn into a violent offender. Now I'm not saying that I'm cool with cops waving their weapons around because they can. Proper training is key. Weapons are on safe. Fingers are straight and off the trigger. You know all the stuff we've been trained to do.

Remember, we currently have mainstream media painting all cops as abusive authority figures who would rather put a bullet in your head over writing you a ticket when we all know that's not the case. Cops have become public enemy number one and I'm not going to begrudge an officer holding his means of self defense.

Proper training is key.

The only time an officer is justified in drawing and pointing a firearm is when the officer reasonably perceives circumstances which indicate that the officer is likely to face a situation that could require the use of deadly force. In short, if there are facts that indicate a person is armed and/or likely capable of inflicting serious injury or death to someone, then it's ok. Keep in mind that drawing a firearm is (or should be) ALWAYS a tough judgment call. It's not ok if it's just to scare a non-violent but non-compliant suspect whose actions do not present a serious threat. I'm an attorney and former large-city police legal advisor.

Only time you show a weapon is when your ready to attack

Police brandish their firearms at inappropriate times because they haven't been provided with sufficient training and alternatives. It is a reflex born of fear, fear at their inability to manage a situation. They threaten the safety of others when they fear for their own. They also need the support of the communities they serve. Of course they are fearful patrolling communities that are hostile to them, protective of perpetrators. So, not only do we need to better finance them, train them, equip them, but also step forward and assist them.

There are conditions which warrant deadly force other than simply encountering an armed individual. If the individual you are encountering does not obey commands and is also wanted for a serious offense and you believe him/her to be likely to escape and/or cause harm to others it is justifiable to use deadly force and at a minimum draw your weapon during the encounter. For example, a "high risk" traffic stop where the vehicle's license plate read back states the vehicle is stolen.