Rules of engagement of “do not fire unless fired upon first” might result in more police fatalities annually, but it might also significantly cut down on the policing controversies that we’ve seen recently.
A cop shooting because he felt threatened, or saw a toy gun that looked real? Recipe for controversy. A cop shooting because he was* actually being shot at first, *with real bullets? Doesn’t get more justified than that.
The military uses similar rules of engagement - “do not fire unless fired upon first” - so why not cops? If it’s not practical, then why criticize cops for shooting when a suspect raises a gun or real-looking toy gun?
So if a guy who is 100 yards away is about to burn down an orphanage, you let him?
What about three guys that are currently stabbing you?
Also, I’d like to see a cite for the fact that the military do this.
Under what specific circumstances does “the military” use this rule?
Whoa! You jumped from what seemed like a strawman allllll the way out to an argument the other way with a big excluded middle there.
Asking cops only to ever fire when fired upon first seems like an unwise strategy to me. But saying that if you don’t agree with that, it’s questionable to even criticize cops for shooting when a gun or realistic toys are raised is a leap. Context means a lot.
Not for the first time, either.
It is a ridiculously stupid idea. And also shows a total misunderstanding of military ROE as well.
Studies of police shootings show that 90% of them occur within 15 feet. 50% from 3-6 feet. So if someone 6 feet away pulls a gun on a cop he is supposed to squeeze his eyes close and hope for the best? The suspect already has the upper hand since he knows what he is going to do. And what happens when the bad guys find out about your new rules? Police officers understand there is danger involved in taking the job. Commiting suicide should not be a job requirement.
And of course that is also assuming that being attacked with some other weapon can’t cause death or serious bodily injury.
Exactly. The two extremes are “Don’t shoot until the suspect does something which might theoretically lead to the suspect attacking you” and “Don’t shoot until after the suspect has already attacked you”.
How about a reasonable middle ground like “Don’t shoot until you actually see a gun” or “Don’t shoot if the suspect has a weapon like a knife and you’re twenty feet away.”
Is this when police are shot, or do the shooting, or both?
I must agree.
But that’s what cops were criticized for in the Berkeley shooting, and the shooting of the person who had a realistic-looking toy gun.
The specific one I got those numbers for were when police got shot. But the numbers using all police shootings are very similar. The vast majority involve handguns. Most of the time at very close range.
Leaving aside the fact that the military only uses such tight ROE in specific circumstances (and that the ROE can be changed and updated as the situation changes), soldiers and police have different missions. The police are there to prevent a suspect from doing illegal things as well as protect the public from someone using a weapon that could endanger other civilians. If a cop waits until a suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting then that violates the part of their mission dealing with protecting the public. Unlike Hollywood, your usual suspects aren’t crack shots and are as likely to miss the cops and hit someone else as not.
More significantly, it might result in more innocent civilians being killed while the cops wait around for the suspects to shoot first. You cool with that as well as a higher level risk to the police? You planning to pay these police more as well for the increased risk, or just ask them nicely to take one for the team?
And a cop holding fire and having his or her partner shot is going to put a hell of an emotional strain on said cop. Or, a cop holding fire and being shot at before returning fire (hastily) where either the suspect or cops shots go wild and strikes, say, a baby or a pregnant mother/nun/hard working father of X children/bus full of puppies is going to be pretty controversial as well (‘why didn’t this police officer do his/her job and protect the public???’).
Who has criticized cops under those circumstances?
You mean, aside from the Crawford shooting at Walmart?
You can’t just go around shooting everybody who has a gun. How about “don’t shoot until you’re threatened” aka, they pointed the gun at you or threatened others? That 12 year old with a BB gun didn’t even have it out of his pocket. He shouldn’t have been shot.
Agreed with others though, the premise is crap. And I know from experience this is not what the Army does.
Guns are for defense, and you should be able to defend yourself or others without waiting to be shot first. This is not a good policy for police or anyone else who carries.
Being we’re a nation of guns (estimates of 500,000,000 circulating with 10,000,000 being sold annually) and the stated recommendation of the NRA is to have everyone armed, how can we expect our police to not assume everyone they encounter is armed? Police should not have to take that big of a risk for their job. We wouldn’t insist window washers on high rises work without a safety line. It makes no sense and isn’t humane for us to ask police to take such risks for their job. Responsible parents need to teach their kids when a cop yells “stop” or “halt”, they must immediately drop to their knees with their hands in the air. Anything less WILL get them shot. No resisting, no acting squirrely or unpredictable or you die. They can sort it out in court if they’re innocent but running or resisting = death. In our heavily armed society, how can we expect less? Why should a cop “wait” for a volley of gunfire before he can fire?
This is madness. Running means they’re not a threat and resisting does not imply they’re a threat either. Use the force necessary to arrest someone and no more. And fleeing suspects who aren’t murderers? Chase them, but don’t shoot.
I don’t understand why “don’t shoot people who aren’t a threat” is even in question, to be honest. It’s not a difficult concept.
He was carrying it. You can watch the video. Carrying a weapon is not a threat. It’s legal to carry openly in Ohio even if it was a real rifle and not a toy. He didn’t point it at anyone and was killed for no reason.
How exactly is that determined? If someone is resisting, then they’re a threat. Running or resisting is always threatening to police, at that point it becomes a physical engagement. And has resisting worked? Have the cops ever thought, “he’s resisting (or running or fighting) so he must be innocent. He’s so adamant I guess I better just let him go.” It NEVER is that way and it always escalates the situation, and can even endanger others all around.
Everyone that is stopped has the potential to be lethally armed. It’s on them to make the police feel they can be trusted and running, fighting, resisting should not be tolerated.