# "California cops cannot open fire if the suspect's gun is unloaded" - true or exaggeration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 5, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874 "2018-04-05T16:07:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/21 "2018-04-06T16:33:39Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > One would think “reasonable” and “necessary” would be one and the same, or at least sufficiently close to not require legislative distinction, but regardless, just passing a law to make minor semantic distinctions isn’t going to prevent anyone from being shot by overenthusiastic police. What is needed is better training in conflict de-escalation and the use of non-lethal force methods to subdue a suspect who isn’t presenting an imminent threat to officers or bystanders. > > Pointless bill, manufactured outrage. Score is 0-0. > > Stranger Over the years I have seen this often. Something happens that is people don’t like. And it is lets pass a law to keep it from happening. Does not matter if the law is useless because it is unenforceable, or because there are laws already in place that are not being enforced, or the law id just plain dumb. But everyone is happy because we now have a new law. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/22 "2018-04-06T16:49:48Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Over the years I have seen this often. Something happens that is people don’t like. And it is lets pass a law to keep it from happening. Does not matter if the law is useless because it is unenforceable, or because there are laws already in place that are not being enforced, or the law id just plain dumb. But everyone is happy because we now have a new law. Well, except that it does just about fuck-all to deal with the fundamental problem, so it is really just a waste of everyones’ time and exists purely to allow some group of politicians to claim that they did “something”. Since the text of this hypothetical bill is not available any assessment of it is purely speculative, but a useful bill would seek to require POST to more clearly define use-of-force standards and provide funding for training and development and adoption of better less-than-lethal force methods rather than relying on some punitive measures to correct behavior _post hoc_ after a shooting. Sure, that would take time and thought and debate over how such a measure could be practically applied, and so it isn’t ideal for political grandstanding, but if you just want to be on stage go to the Grand Ole Opry. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/23 "2018-04-06T17:05:55Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Use of a large screwdriver is fairly common in muggings, by the more experienced type of mugger. A while back - perhaps 20 years ago - I recall that there was a spate of carjeckings, either here in the UK or perhaps in France, and people started carrying screwdrivers as a defensive weapon. The police were not impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/24 "2018-04-06T17:33:55Z")
It’s hard to judge the proposal without seeing the bill text but there is real concern that the current standard used to determine whether police are allowed to shoot someone to death is too lax and gives wide latitude to police officers to kill people willy-nilly when they get scared. Police are allowed to kill someone when they reasonably believe that the person is a threat to themselves or others. One problem is that this standard ignores whether the police created the circumstances that posed the threat. I highly recommend this Slate article on justification in police shootings. [The Supreme Court suggests cops’ use of force is always justified.](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/06/the_supreme_court_suggests_cops_use_of_force_is_always_justified.html) Some of the cases in that article are heartbreaking. Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old kid in a park with a toy gun. It was “reasonable” to shoot him because the police feared for their lives. However, it was not necessary to shoot him because the police could have addressed him from a distance instead of driving right up to him and putting themselves in danger. Police shot a nearly homeless couple sleeping in their friend’s shack when one of them raised a BB gun to confront what they thought were home invaders but that were, in fact, police entering illegally unannounced and without a warrant. It was “reasonable” to shoot the couple because the BB gun looked like a dangerous firearm, but it wasn’t necessary to shoot anyone because police should not have barged in unannounced without a warrant. In another case, police forced their way into the room of a mentally ill woman with a knife who had threatened to kill anyone who entered. It was “reasonable” to shoot her but it wasn’t necessary because the police could have kept their distance and talked to her or just waited her out. I’ll close with this quote by a prominent law enforcement officer who agrees something needs to change. > [@Ronald Davis](#): > > We have to get beyond what is legal and start focusing on what is preventable. Most [police shootings] are preventable. [Police] need to stop chasing down suspects, hopping fences, and landing on top of someone with a gun. When they do that, they have no choice but to shoot. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/25 "2018-04-06T17:50:24Z")
I do wonder if drones would help at all. Not armed, not even with non-lethal weapons. But sensors and cameras definitely. Give a 360 degree view in visible, infrared, low light, and anything else you want to throw in. Audio of course would be not just recorded, but be two way as well. Police can give instructions through the drones, they’d be harder to evade, and since there is no life at stake, suspects don’t need to be killed because a cop misunderstood their actions. If someone is being actually hostile and dangerous to the public, then cops with guns can go do what needs to be done to subdue the threat, but for dealing with non-violent or petty criminals, putting people in the way of danger increases the danger for everyone, cops and suspects alike. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/26 "2018-04-06T18:11:08Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > I’ll close with this quote by a prominent law enforcement officer who agrees something needs to change. That’s in the running for dumbest quotes I’ve ever heard but it would certainly make the job easier. Of course when that guy with a gun kills someone else it will also be the fault of the police. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/27 "2018-04-06T18:21:37Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > That’s in the running for dumbest quotes I’ve ever heard but it would certainly make the job easier. Of course when that guy with a gun kills someone else it will also be the fault of the police. I missed the part of the quote where it talked about that guy with a gun. The quote was talking about changing the way that we pursue suspects in such a way as to reduce the danger that the cops put themselves in. I disagree that finding ways of reducing the danger that cops put themselves in is in the running for your competition. That the cops reduce the danger that they put themselves in also reduces the danger that they put both the suspect and members of the public in, and that’s a pretty good idea too. In fact, I am not seeing anything in that quote at all that is dumb in the slightest. Could you please point out what it is that you find to be so dumb about it? Is there a particular reason that you are resistant to finding ways of preventing unnecessary police shootings? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/28 "2018-04-06T18:26:29Z")
Yes and no. The problem is that a lot of the whack-a-doodles who end up wielding a knife in a gunfight with police have mental problems that interfere with their ability to act rationally, follow instructions and drop weapons. A gizmo hovering 10 feet above them might actually get them to drop the weapon by flinging at the device. But generally, the problem requires a decent amount of talk to conciliate the confrontation… Or you could just shoot the guy, like Indiana Jones. Of course, this does not solve the problem of cowboy cops who trespass or enter without knocking, or shoot someone brandishing a cellphone. If black lives matter and blue lives matter, how is it that only one of those groups ends up black and blue? But I call BS too. A person brandishing what appears to be a firearm, and makes no effort to disarm when instructed, is the definition of the type that police can appropriately use deadly force on. Whether a gun is loaded or not is not something a police officer can ell with a glance. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/29 "2018-04-06T18:29:20Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Since the text of this hypothetical bill is not available any assessment of it is purely speculative, but a useful bill would seek to require POST to more clearly define use-of-force standards and provide funding for training and development and adoption of better less-than-lethal force methods rather than relying on some punitive measures to correct behavior _post hoc_ after a shooting. Sure, that would take time and thought and debate over how such a measure could be practically applied, and so it isn’t ideal for political grandstanding, but if you just want to be on stage go to the Grand Ole Opry. > > Stranger The problem is, those sorts of standards already exist. Police forces in other countries have had them for years. But for some reason, cops in the US, and their supporters, keep insisting that, for some indefinable reason, such standards are (or would be) completely inappropriate for use in the US. This proposed law is the end result of such intransigence: if they keep refusing to take the reasonable steps needed to curb excessive police shootings, at some point, people will get pissed off enough to just impose a solution on them, even if that solution is sub-optimal. If the police don’t want to go to jail because “the suspect’s gun was unloaded”, then they need to step up, and actually try implementing the more reasonable suggestions that they’ve been ignoring up until now. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/30 "2018-04-06T18:36:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I missed the part of the quote where it talked about that guy with a gun. > > The quote was talking about changing the way that we pursue suspects in such a way as to reduce the danger that the cops put themselves in. I disagree that finding ways of reducing the danger that cops put themselves in is in the running for your competition. > > That the cops reduce the danger that they put themselves in also reduces the danger that they put both the suspect and members of the public in, and that’s a pretty good idea too. > > In fact, I am not seeing anything in that quote at all that is dumb in the slightest. Could you please point out what it is that you find to be so dumb about it? Is there a particular reason that you are resistant to finding ways of preventing unnecessary police shootings? I may have misread the quote. I thought it was saying the suspect had the gun. However still stupid just not in the running for stupidest I have ever heard. Unless you want to outfit every shift of every department with a helicopter flying overhead there is literally no way to get a fleeing suspect other than to go get him. This isn’t tv where they chase someone through scene after scene and always catch them eventually. In reality if a suspect gets a 30 second headstart they are very often just gone. If you want to change policing to where suspects are allowed to just run away that’s one thing. Personally I think that’s a very bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/31 "2018-04-06T18:52:26Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I may have misread the quote. I thought it was saying the suspect had the gun. > > However still stupid just not in the running for stupidest I have ever heard. Unless you want to outfit every shift of every department with a helicopter flying overhead there is literally no way to get a fleeing suspect other than to go get him. This isn’t tv where they chase someone through scene after scene and always catch them eventually. In reality if a suspect gets a 30 second headstart they are very often just gone. If you want to change policing to where suspects are allowed to just run away that’s one thing. Personally I think that’s a very bad idea. There is a grand canyon worth of excluded middle there, between putting yourself, the suspect, and the public in danger to catch a petty thief and changing policing “to where suspects are allowed to just run away.” If those are the only two possible options, then I could see your resistance, but as there are many other options that can be followed, we could try exploring some of them, rather than just keep doing what we are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/32 "2018-04-06T23:49:08Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I may have misread the quote. I thought it was saying the suspect had the gun. > > However still stupid just not in the running for stupidest I have ever heard. Unless you want to outfit every shift of every department with a helicopter flying overhead there is literally no way to get a fleeing suspect other than to go get him. This isn’t tv where they chase someone through scene after scene and always catch them eventually. In reality if a suspect gets a 30 second headstart they are very often just gone. If you want to change policing to where suspects are allowed to just run away that’s one thing. Personally I think that’s a very bad idea. Based on the police reports in my town, our cops seem to be able to set up perimeters and find suspects hiding in back yards all the time, often with the help of dogs. And sometimes helicopters, but not often. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/33 "2018-04-07T01:53:26Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > [This article](https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/proposed-law-says-suspects-with-imitation-weapons-can-t-be-shot-by-police-Wz28jHQvuUuIVTOlvhs83A/?full=1) is posted by a website called Blue Lives Matter, so you can already guess which political angle they are coming from and take several grains of salt with it, but they claim that California’s new law will hold police officers to an unreasonable standard - namely, that police officers will not be allowed to open fire on a suspect who points an _ **unloaded or malfunctioning gun** _ at them, even if the cops could not possibly have known that the gun was an unloaded or malfunctioning one. > > Setting aside the debate over BLM and politics - GQ forum - is this actually true? That if the law passes, cops who open fire on suspects will be held accountable due to later facts unveiled during investigation that they could not have possibly been aware of at the time, such as the fact that a suspect’s firearm actually didn’t contain bullets? It is obvious to me that this article is someone trolling. But I will point out that absent the absurd bit about requiring the police to know something they can’t know, the idea on it’s face would clearly apply to cops in any state or anyone else for that matter. No one, police or not, is allowed to shoot someone who is known not to be a threat. So it is trivially true that California cops can’t shoot someone who has an unloaded gun. Of course the comments about the law applying if the cop did not know the gun was unloaded is ridiculous and can be ignored-as can the entire story. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2018, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874/34 "2018-04-09T23:53:32Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > One would think “reasonable” and “necessary” would be one and the same, or at least sufficiently close to not require legislative distinction, but regardless, just passing a law to make minor semantic distinctions isn’t going to prevent anyone from being shot by overenthusiastic police. What is needed is better training in conflict de-escalation and the use of non-lethal force methods to subdue a suspect who isn’t presenting an imminent threat to officers or bystanders. > > Pointless bill, manufactured outrage. Score is 0-0. > > Stranger There were several swings in the training of police officers after guns were introduced to the vic.aus police force, so I don’t know what they are dong now. But certainly at some times, our police force was trained that it was _necessary_ to shoot anyone that it was _reasonable_ to shoot, and that it was both reasonable and necessary to be “in fear of life” when confronted with a person you had reasonable grounds to believe was armed (including reasonable grounds to believe had been armed in the past) (Part of the reason that these training philosophies were so clear here is that this is an unarmed society, so you have to start with an explicit training philosophy. Because new entrants don’t have any independent ideas of gun discipline. So they will just accidentally shoot each other – as happened when guns were first introduced – unless you give them clear guidelines.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-cops-cannot-open-fire-if-the-suspects-gun-is-unloaded-true-or-exaggeration/811874.md?page=1)