Someone started a thread in the Pit, but I would like to have a non-Pitting discussion about the issue:
If someone wants to argue that cops shouldn’t be shooting kids with guns, that’s one thing, but let’s look at the other issue - the fact that there are “toy guns” that look, externally, exactly like real, bona fide, deadly weapons.
If someone wants to argue that such “toy guns” shouldn’t be permitted, that’s another debate, too - and I think you could make a reasonable case that they shouldn’t - and if someone wants to argue that cops are trigger-happy, there’s certainly a case for that - ***but - suppose that we’re talking about an adult pointing what appears to be a 100% real weapon at the cops - when it comes to distinguishing a fake toy gun that looks exactly like a real gun, isn’t it unfair to blame the cops for not being able, in split seconds, to distinguish the two things apart?
Much, if not all, of the outcry of “Cops shoot person carrying toy gun that looked like real gun” are essentially levying the unfair charge that the cops should have been able to, in a split second, distinguish a fake gun from a real gun from 20 feet away when it reality such a fake gun and real gun might be difficult to distinguish even with careful, lengthy examination from mere inches away.
Are these critics saying that cops should wait for a gun to fire real bullets first, in order to take that as proof that guns are real? Are they saying that cops should err on the side of assuming that a gun is fake, until proven real? Most of these critics are offering up criticism with no viable alternatives of their own.
I’ve often thought, that if one could read minds, a lot of people believe in their private thoughts that a “don’t fire until fired upon” rule for police is reasonable. I’ve heard one person say – just once, mind you – that “Cops are paid to get shot”, as if were a comparable occupational risk to, say, carpenters hammering their thumbs.
As I understand it, the US military is often on such rules of engagement - “do not fire unless fired upon first” - in situations such as peacekeeping missions, etc., so that’s where the idea might have come from, and why people might think it’s reasonable for cops to abide by similarly.
I should have mentioned this in the OP too:
I would surmise that, the vast majority of the time, when a cop sees someone brandish a handgun, it’s a real gun, not a fake toy gun. So even just merely on the basis of sheer probability, it’s more reasonable for a cop to assume that a gun is real than to assume that it is fake.
The question is whether or not the cops can reasonably do something else besides shooting without risking their lives. The details matter here. Could they have backed off and taken cover? Were other people in danger if it was a real gun? Before the kid pulled out the gun did they instruct him to stop and put his hands where they could see them? I’d have to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case based on the minimal information available to me now.
It is a very sad world that we live in that this incident happened at all.
Unfortunately many people think that. It’s precisely what is wrong. We expect cops to be attack dogs to protect us from the ills we have created. We created a society that breeds crime and we send the police out as whipping boys rather than face the consequences of our own failures. Even worse in so many cases the victims have little at all to do with creating the circumstances. So rather than light a single candle we prefer to shoot at the darkness.
I agree with this. There’s a middle ground between shooting immediately anyone holding something in their hand that could maybe be a gun, and waiting until a bullet actually hits you to fire at a suspect. And the line is drawn at different places in different situations. I’d expect the cops to fire sooner at someone who’s in the middle of a crowd of people and threatening to shoot someone compared to someone who had just been walking down an empty street with a gun at his side.
Also, it’s ridiculous to say that cops are paid to get shot, but I would say that they are paid to take on more risk than the average person. I don’t want cops who are so scared of being shot that they immediately shoot anyone who has a gun. I’m sure that most cops aren’t that scared and ready to fire on anyone, but the ones that are can cause some major damage.
Cops should assume that every gun is real until proven to be fake. But they should also take reasonable safety precautions and see if they can de-escalate the situation before shooting the suspect.
Yes, they are paid to take risks. That’s why when trouble starts, everyone runs away from the danger. Cops run towards it.
What reasonable de-escalation can they do in the one second interval between someone pulling a gun, and firing the gun?
I don’t know if it has been established that Tyre King was the robber in the incident reported. It’s possible - maybe he was robbing people with a realistic-looking BB gun. That kind of thing has been known to happen. But I don’t think we know that with any degree of certainty.
Well, the military has it because them firing on someone could literally start a war.
I remember the words of the late George Carlin. "They’re gonna ban toy guns…and keep the fucking real ones!! But I can see no reason why toy guns and BB guns should look like actual guns. I have a BB gun at home that looks exactly like a 9MM handgun. Color, feel and weight are all the same. I could rob people with this gun. I cannot understand why this thing is legal. If I pointed it at a cop, he would be right to shoot me.
It will vary from situation to situation, but I tend to agree that de-escalation should be given a chance where circumstances will allow it. If you’re in the middle of a foot pursuit, and the perp pulls a gun out of his waistband, there may not be much opportunity for de-escalation. OTOH, if you get a report of a kid like Tamir Rice sitting in the middle of a park with a gun, you’ve got options. Should you:
A) skid your squad to a stop right fucking next to him so that you have no choice but to shoot him when he reaches for his gun (possibly because you startled the crap out of him), or
B) park fifty feet away and take cover behind your squad car where you can issue commands in relative (albeit not perfect) safety?
Keeping also in mind that it is going to be relatively more difficult to arrest someone from fifty feet away. And arresting people with guns is what the police are there for.
Sure, but why not try yelling “Place the gun on the ground and put your hands on your head.” from 50 feet away first? If he complies, the act of arresting him just became much easier and safer. If he doesn’t, the police can proceed from there.
Because most of the time, people aren’t dumb enough to pull a gun when the police arrive even if they are carrying. They usually surrender, or run. The police don’t want them to get a head start.
They also don’t want a gun battle from far enough away that either side misses. Stray bullets are a danger to everybody else who might happen to be in the park.
Fair enough. But ISTM that when the cops know (or suspect) guns are involved, they don’t typically roll their car up right in the middle of things and not leave themselves with any cover at all.
Come on now, isn’t it rather unfair to blame cops when a “toy gun” looks exactly like a real gun?
Yes. That cop shooting looks proper. Quite unlike the murder of Tamir Rice.
The cops had no way of knowing it was a non-lethal toy. Suppose, hypothetically, they knew it was a gas-charged BB-gun, or whatever it was, harmful though unlikely to cause serious injury (unlikely, not wholly impossible). Would the shooting have been justified then?