But, unless you read one (or both) of the articles, you won’t see what’s wrong with those headlines. No, only by reading the stories, do you learn that from a distance of two meters, about six fucking feet, the police managed to hit him only ten times (according to the NY Times) or maybe eight (according to the Star). Indeed, we learn further from the Times, that one of the ten hits was in the chest. The other nine were not even on the kid’s torso!
It’s patently obvious, then - the headline should have read:
NY Police achieve stunning 40 percent firearm accuracy despite yawning six foot gap.
I suspect that the 6 foot gap is a somewhat inaccurate description of the shooting distance. There were 5 officers shooting, and they were taking cover behind police cars. You don’t get 5 cops and a car all stuffed within 6 feet of a single person.
That isn’t to say I’m OK with 40% accuracy, but it’s not quite as bad as you make it seem.
Why were they taking cover behind their cars? Were they afraid of the unarmed teen shooting spit balls at them? Or more likely afraid of the other officers because they were aware of the accuracy rate from the last proficiency test.
The suspect claimed he had a gun during the 911 call, his mother described him as crazy and out of control, when police arrived he was carrying an object that the police presumed to be a gun, and he refused to either drop it or stop approaching officers.
It turned out to be a hairbrush, but at least the police were somewhat justified in being paranoid that the guy would shoot at them.
It could be that the teen barricaded himself in his home, claimed to have a gun, threatened to shoot the police and was seen carrying a couple of knives before ducking out a back window.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect the police to stand out in the open when a guy who claimed to have a gun, and threatened to shoot them with it is wandering around. Get the public out of the way, yes. Subdue the person, yes. Drape a target on your chest, no.
Even a cursory look at either of the articles makes it pretty clear that the kid in question was doing everything in his power to convince the cops that he did have a weapon.
The question I have is: why didn’t one of the several officers use a taser, which the NYPD does have authorized to carry? Given that the call was to control a mentally ill teen, whose mother suspected him of being suicidal - wouldn’t it make sense to think that there’s at least a chance that the guy would be trying “suicide by cop”?
Would it have been somehow better if the cops had thought he had a hairbrush and it turned out he had a gun and one or more of them were shot? If it was me, and several cops showed up and pointed guns at me you can bet that any small, dark objects that I might be carrying are going to get dropped pretty quickly and my ass is going to be on the ground faster than a raindrop.
Anything else and you’re asking for trouble. I have no problems with cops erring on the side of caution and dealing with an aggressive subject who appears to pose a threat to their safety and well being with equal aggressiveness.
[channeling Sean Connery in the Untouchables]
Isn’t that just like a cop? Brings a taser to a gunfight.
[/Sean Connery]
Tasers are pretty unreliable weapons, you get one shot, limited range, it’s easy to miss and even if you’re on target, there’s a reasonable chance it won’t take him down. If you wait for the guy to draw his gun, then tase him, then see if it worked, the officers with guns are going to be a few seconds late in reacting, and that’s not what I would want when a gun is being waved in my direction.
I can see why no individual cop would ever want to depend on a taser when the suspect is waving around something he’s claiming to be a gun. OTOH, with the growth of suicide by cop (if only in media reports, vice actual growth in the behavior in reality) I think that when there are five officers responding to a call - there might be a reason to try the non-lethal method if it appears that negotiation won’t work.
Having said that - it seems that there are a number of people who view any use of a taser as being worse, somehow, than using a firearm. Which can lead to another emotional barrier to their use.
And, alas, it’s hard when Monday morning quarterbacking, for me to forget that the “gun” the kid had was actually a brush - which is part of why I asked the question in the first place.
According to a story I read yesterday, but cannot find a cite for at the moment, his mother had called 911 about a “family dispute with a gun,” and the boy had told her “I’m going to say I have a gun, I’m not afraid to die.” When police arrived, the boy shouted, “I have a gun!” several times. Police asked the mother whether he indeed had a gun, and she said something like “You heard it from him,” I might not be quoting that correctly; it sounded somewhat evasive when I read it.
He then advanced on the police holding the black hairbrush “covered by his clothing” so that it wasn’t readily visible.
Assuming that story is a true representation of events, this event seems less like police villainy and more like the kind of crazy that’s very difficult to prevent/avoid/mitigate.
My husband and I participated in our local “Citizen’s Police Academy”, and a story was told about a suspect they had figuratively pinned up against the wall of a building. Several police officers opened fire at the guy, and when all was said and done and the perp was eventually taken into custody, there was a perfect outline of his body in bullet holes on the wall. Not a single shot even so much as grazed the guy. Incredible.
Here’s what a simple Googling of the words “taser opposition” gets me. It’s been my impression that the vast majority of law enforcement departments that have chosen to endorse taser use have done so in spite of vocal opposition. Some of that opposition is to people complaining that a specific taser use was innappropriate, but much of it is simply opposition to giving the police tasers at all, because they’re not 100% safe.
My opinion is with yours - I like giving police more non-lethal tools, and I do believe that the taser opposition is a vocal minority, not a majority. But they can get pretty damned annoying.
Please note: I’m most emphatically not against giving the police tasers, nor many other non-lethal weapons. But I’m also not an idiot - I don’t expect them to be 100% non-fatal, just more forgiving than guns. Some people really do seem to think that non-lethal weapons or devices must be 100% to be used at all.
I really don’t think it’s a new phenomenon, either: Look at bean bag rounds, tear gas, pepper spray, or rubber bullets. All of which were designed to be less-lethal weapons for law enforcement or crowd control, and all of which can be lethal. Every time, it seems, that there is a death associated with those weapons there are people who start calling for them to be taken away from the police, because they’re not 100% safe.
Let me just say, too, I’m well aware the issue is more nuanced than I’m presenting it: There are people who will hear “non-lethal” and think it’s acceptable to use those weapons in situations where something else might have worked, since they are “safe.” I do believe that’s an issue that should be dealt with by implementing proper training - not an issue with the weapon per se.
The argument is not that guns are “safe”, per se, but that when guns are used, they are expected to cause serious, if not lethal, injuries. Tasers, OTOH, are expected to merely immobilize. When a taser causes a serious or lethal injury, that would be considered “not safe”. YMMV.
Thanks for the links. My position is the same as yours, Otaku. Not wanting them used because they’re not 100% safe just seems ludicrous (to me) on the surface, given what the most likely alternative is.