I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons:
1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person with the toy gun (or wallet, cell phone, etc) is still a member of the public.
2) After a car chase, the police have the ability to position themselves defensively until the situation becomes clearer (e.g. shots are actually fired at them). They also could be wearing unusual protective gear like body armor, which would further reduce their personal danger.
Now, if the person was actively threatening an innocent third party with a realistic toy gun in some way, then I think it would be much more justifiable for the police to shoot. Ditto if a person brandishes something clearly gun-like at an officer at close range.
Police officers shouldn't be shooting people on the off chance that a suspicious bulge might be a gun, but it seems pretty unreasonable to expect police officers to put their self-defense as the very lowest priority and wait until bullets actually come out of a gun-like-object being pointed at them before shooting.
The police are after all are the ones with the experience and training: they shouldn't ever be killing kids with toy guns or people with wallets, which they in fact are. The thinking that enables that needs to change.
I disagree. That's not an achievable standard without putting officers' lives at undue risk. Cops can not tell the difference between toy guns and real guns without a close inspection.
...in the US. In other countries you can fuck with the police and not get killed.
And, for the sake of clarity here, "fucking with the police" is for example asking if you're being detained or if you're free to go, or asking what grounds they have for a stop and search. It's baffling to me why asking police to obey the law is described, by police, as fucking with them.
It's far too common in the US.
And while it's stupid to point a gun (toy or not) at police (I agree that death is a likely result, because you should never point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them) that doesn't excuse all the people who had cell phones in their hands, or the people shot within six seconds of a police officer arriving on the scene, or the people with no weapon and their back turned.
Yet in many of these cases we see officers closing ranks and claiming the victim somehow deserved it, and was somehow responsible for their death because they were arguing with police.
The US is unique in first world nations in murdering its citizens. It's an abuse of human rights when it happens after lengthy court cases; I can't imagine why it's okay before an arrest is made.
(Unless someone's life is in real and immediate danger).
The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone.
If a car chase ends the suspect hiding behind a door with a "gun" in their hand, there are actually many possible scenarios, for instance:
1. The "gun" is not actually a gun, and was misidentified.
2. The gun is fake or a toy.
3. The gun is a real gun and the suspect will not shoot at anyone.
4. The gun is a real gun and the suspect will shoot at the police or others.
Some people say the suspect should be shot in all four scenarios (after all, he might shoot!). I disagree.
It did not involve an actual gun in that particular instance. I would like you to explain exactly how the police may identify whether the object that appears to be a weapon is an actual weapon other than waiting for the suspect to fire first.
Again, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment? Police officers and innocent bystanders don't always fare too well when the police are obligated to follow stupid rules of engagement.
> Some people say the suspect should be shot in all four scenarios (after all, he might shoot!). I disagree.
See, that's where I agree with you. Because none of the scenarios in your list is a reason for police officers to fire as you list them. But tack on the end of each item that the suspect acted in a threatening manner with an object that appeared to be a weapon then the police officer may choose to fire their weapon. To be fair, if the suspect tried to run down other people or cops during the chase to show that he was a threat then just getting out of the car with an object that appeared to be a weapon will get him shot. It's all about context.
However, a in lot of recent videotaped incidents, it's been shown that many police officers are shooting and often killing people merely because the officer falsely "thought" they had a real gun. That behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop, even if that means police have to take more personal risks themselves.
But I still have problems with your wording. In your examples above you feel 2 is more important than 3 and you disagree with people that reverse it. I agree with you. The difference is I see the possibility that the police may think the unarmed suspect is armed and is a direct threat to the officer or bystanders. By your wording you seem to suggest that scenario is not possible, and just in case the officer should wait until fired upon to determine whether the suspect is armed or not. That's a bad rule of engagement.
So you are correct when you say armed with a toy and armed with a functional weapon should be treated in the same way. But I don't think possessing an object that may or may not be a weapon is sufficient justification in itself for the use of lethal force. I think police need to exercise every available opportunity to de-escalate conflicts, with the goal being to deliver the suspects alive and unharmed to the courts for arraignment. That may actually mean that the cops have to let the suspect fire a shot before he gets a lead shower. That would leave no doubt that yes, it is a real weapon, and yes, the suspect is willing to use it inappropriately.
I don't want 750k Judge Dredds on the street, acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
When a man takes cover and points a gun, he should be ordered to "show me empty hands" [0], then given a reasonable opportunity to assess his situation and comply. If he even fires the gun, and injures a cop, he should still be given an opportunity to surrender and make it to the courtroom alive.
[0] As "drop the weapon" is confusing to a person not actually carrying one.
How often does this happen?
A much more common occurrence is when someone sees a suspicious-looking dude walking down the street, calls the cops and says "I think he is armed!" and the cops arrive and shoot him without first verifying if he's actually armed with a real weapon.
Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law.
Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-...
So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.
As a comparison, here in The Netherlands, all citizens are expected to know the law. Not knowing it is never an argument as far as I know.
Way to miss the point. Of course being armed isn't against the law. But most states don't allow open-carry, and if someone is reporting you to the cops and saying you're armed, that means you just broke the law by failing to conceal your weapon. Furthermore, if the person reporting you says you're acting suspiciously or in a threatening manner, that's enough justification for most cops to shoot you.
How exactly do you define "provocation"? I'm curious because you seem to have a very lenient definition when talking about police using deadly force. This is remarkable to me when there have been a number of highly reported incidents involving police shooting a civilian without provocation that warrants deadly force (by my definition and video evidence). Here are a few to consider:
1. Tamir Rice
2. John Crawford III
3. Levar Jones
4. Laquan McDonald
Seriously, I could go on. It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate and credible mortal threat. Sadly, there are too many high-profile cases in which cops fire before even bothering to assess the situation. Videos of these incidents abound.
Now, I assume we all agree that police are charged with serving and protecting their communities, right? I believe that also includes suspects and criminals. The bar for determining provocation that warrants deadly force should be very high.
If we are being rational and reasonable, I think there are behaviors that we can agree are not provocations of mortal danger. A few such behaviors:
1. Running away from police
2. Verbal altercations
3. Suspicious behaviors of any kind that are not posing credible mortal threat to other persons or officers
4. Reaching for waistbands (of what are too often excessively sagging pants that frequently need to be pulled up)
I think it is reasonable to have a civil, national conversation about better training for police, and a national charge and expectation to keep every potential suspect alive until a situation is properly assessed and resolved.
If ranchers in a standoff, or bikers in a gun battle, can make it out alive, I think many more can, too.
Funny story from my childhood in Southern California, around 1990:
I was playing in the yard with my toy gun. I hated the orange cap at the end of the barrel and had pulled it out with pliers. It was a metal rifle. A cop came down the neighborhood street, and I took cover behind a tree and pretended to shoot, as if he was my new imaginary enemy. He slowed down and stopped in front of the yard. I was within earshot, so he called out to me in a friendly way. Asked if I was shooting at bad guys. I nodded. He asked if I'd like to see his gun and might be interested in a trade. I thought that was cool, and ran over to his car with my metal toy rifle. He opened his car door to me and stepped out, asking if he could see my gun. I handed it right over, and he invited me to sit in the drivers seat of his squad car. Looking back, I'm sure he was checking if I had a real firearm. He then showed me the shotgun he had secured between the front seats. He talked to me about being careful with guns. Then he suggested there were some bad guys sneaking around my house, and I should go get them with my gun. And I ran off to chase them down.
I shudder to think what would happen to my 12-year-old in the same situation today.
> It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed
> by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate
> and credible mortal threat.
If you want to really shut up the naysayers, try showing this data:
Interactions between civilians and LEOs: __________
Of those, how many involved physical force? __________
Of those, how many resulted in fatalities? __________
Of those, how many were unjustifiable? __________
Of those, how many went unpunished? __________
That being said, if you want to claim that we need "a civil, national conversation" about this, I think the onus should be on you to prove that the last number above has risen to a national crisis level. Maybe it has, but I don't think this article (or even your 4 examples) makes a very good case for it.
When a 12-yr-old boy with a toy gun is shot by police after being on the scene for a few seconds, and the cop doesn't wind up in prison, there is a problem. And that problem extends from bad policing to the justice system as a whole.
Unfortunately, on polarizing issues like this where clear communication is paramount to prevent people from wasting time arguing similar points, it seems people are more prone to comment without fully considering their wording (possibly due to high emotional investment).
He was walking away from the police when they shot him -- 16 times! Fortunately this was caught on camera, but a lot of shootings are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...
I'm certainly not suggesting that we encourage violent responses from law enforcement. (I'm relieved injury and harm were minimized in both of the above instances.) But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but that particular argument doesn't work at all. There's a huge difference between a protest (even with armed protesters) in broad daylight surrounded by cops and news media, and a split-second confrontation between a police officer and a suspect in the middle of the night. You cannot boil down both situations to "a person may have a gun."
(To be clear, that's not to make any moral judgements about the people involved in those two different situations, or what cops should or should not do. Just saying they are different, and it's dangerously simplistic to line them up next to each other and believe you've proved anything.)
not("breaking law" or "pointing guns at other people") == not("get shot")
which is what you were snarkily making it out to be.
There are whole fields of study devoted to the issues at hand, neither you nor I will convince each other or make an airtight case in a single post regarding the full spectrum of input into all armed encounters with police that result in the output of either dying, or being arrested without incident, or anything in between.
Interesting.
...but I won't, because I know the situations are more complicated than that and if we were speaking in person instead of over the Internet you'd probably agree with me on that, even if we didn't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.