If you’re carrying a firearm or even if you aren’t, if a cop tells you to freeze, you FREEZE! and if he tells you to put your hands up, you PUT YOUR HANDS UP! You know you’re a good guy and don’t plan to harm a police officer but they DON’T know that. You do NOT reach for the gun to disarm yourself because the cops are NOT mind readers.
While I was in the Coast Guard, I managed to obtain a Federal Pistol Permit which covered concealed carry. Before they issued it to me, I had quite an interview going over what my obligations were and were NOT. And one situation we went over was what to do if I’m carrying and I’m stopped by a police officer. I got it right the first time: 1) Keep my hands in plain view, 2) tell the officer “I have a permit and am carrying a pistol”, 3) tell the officer “My pistol is in a holster under my left arm and the permit is in my wallet in my right hip pocket”, 4) and tell the officer “I’m keeping my hands in plain view until you tell me I can move them.”
i feel that expecting a 12-year-old to respond in a calm and adult manner when ambushed suddenly by a car coming out of nowhere is a bit much. i’m not sure adults would respond correctly when surprised by a car screeching to a halt right next to them. all this happened in a time shorter than some would take to say “oh.my.god”.
i’m all for an opposing view defending a position not immeditately apparent in a short video, but at least watch the video. what you say is true, but it doesn’t apply here at all. unless they practised or something, no one knows their own reaction when stressed in such a short time frame. the boy was role-playing with his toy gun just moments before, i wouldn’t be surprised (nor blame him) if he reflexively pulled his toy gun as a defensive gesture.
it is for a similar reason why there is a controversy over no-knock warrants.
Before I respond I wanted to clearly state that this is a fucking tragedy. It is shitty for all involved.
I’m using this version of the video for reference. At the 1:03 mark, the kid is shown clearly with his hands reaching to his waist area. The police car is already there. They stutter the video a bit so you can see what he’s doing. You are right the video is clear. He is reaching for his waist.
It does appear to be very quick because the video is only showing 2 frames per second, compared to a normal 24 from broadcast TV, IIRC. That makes it seem like it happened even faster than it did.
Just so I’m clear - there are two claims I think that are the crux of the police story. The first is that they ordered the boy to show his hands 3 times. The second is that the boy reached for his waist band. You say you “dispute their claims”. Does this mean you dispute both of these claims?
Are you implying that Tasers were promoted to be used in situations where they were threatened with firearms? I’ve never heard this claim, do you have a cite? Using a taser against a person with a firearm would be foolish if you have more effective means of defense. A police use of force continuum would advise in response to lethal threats that the responding level of force would also be lethal.
Sure sometimes armed suspects can be apprehended without killing them. Without using a hypothetical that **Hentor **appears to dislike, it would be situational.
Was this an attempt to answer the question posed? It was a direct question - your failure to address it makes it seem like you are avoiding doing so intentionally. Are you?
Let me ask again - Are you aware of the police protocol with a person actively brandishing a firearm? Do you think the police violated their protocol in this incident?
Just to move things along, the OP asked your first question and AFAIK it has not been answered. By anyone. If I’m in error perhaps that contribution could be re-posted.
I found a general discussion of the police threat assessment here. ISTM that the officers in question need some work with rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
I am unaware of the official police protocols of that city concerning events of that nature, and had not to my knowledge made comments concerning them prior to your initial asking of that question. Now that I have answered that question, can you tell us what those procedures are so that we may know why it was so damn important that I in particular answer it?
Bully for you. Did you miss the part where people are discussing the reaction of a 12 year old boy?
You seriously expect him to behave with the suave insouciance and shaken-martini cool that you showed in your heat-packing days?
He was, to the best of his knowledge, playing with a harmless weapon when all of a sudden the world goes “sabotage” on him.
Don’t know what was going through his mind at that point but I’ll bet dollars to donuts it was panic above all and any police officer let loose with a gun should at least be able to a) recognise a 12 year old boy, b) a least be aware that a avoiding panic might be a good idea in such a situation.
If that means the police putting themselves in additional danger…good, that is what I pay them for. That’s the deal I expect them to take. “I will put myself at risk if it means less chance of killing a 12 year old boy”
As for the boy, he was naïve and silly…but of course he was, he’s fucking 12 for christ’s sake. Was fucking 12.
Bingo. The most favorable interpretation of that video is that the officers in question were so unmanned by terror that in their minds the situation really did escalate from moment to moment, each of the boy’s startled movements appearing to their fear-clouded minds as the deliberate threat they prejudicially anticipated. Then boom, one and a half seconds later, one dead kid.
I will echo and perhaps amplify a sentiment expressed further upthread: if this is the result of police training, we need to pull our officers off the streets immediately, or at least disarm them, for the safety of the public.
I’m very sympathetic to people who find themselves in stressful and fluid situations. They do things that are irrational and unhelpful, they are not in full possession of the facts and their actions can be ignorant and downright dangerous. Thing is, the cops should be the ones attempting to calm down and clarify the situation. Why induce panic? They aren’t a SWAT team using the element of surprise, what possible benefits did their approach have? Even worse is the fact that they had time to discuss how they were going to handle it beforehand…and THAT was the best they came up with?
I don’t know that disarming them will be helpful or possible but certainly this is a learning point that shouldn’t be shunned. The officer is the one with the training and expertise (or should be) and should be seeking to avoid conflict wherever possible. If that means more cops get shot due to a softer approach…that is a price society needs to assess, balance it against the likely reduction in wrongful shootings and consider if it is worth paying.
What may help above all is the introduction of POV cams for the police. That alone may modify police behaviour and give them pause for thought before acting.
I’m not sure why people think tasers are a good weapon in this circumstance.
Tasers are more for situations where a cop thinks you might pull something on him and has time to pull his first (before you do anything at all). I’m no expert on the topic, but my guess is also they are more likely to use one when there are multiple officers - so the cop with the taser might try and use it first when it looks like you might be going for something. But his buddy is going to shoot your ass as soon as you get to the point where you might be able to shoot.
As soon as you grab something or reach the point of no return where a cop thinks you are going to possibly get the drop on him or others - all bets are off.
I’m not in anyway excusing what happened here. I don’t know/ can’t tell what happened. Solely looking at the video - it seems like they made some bad decisions at least.
I can see the author shaking his head sadly at the cops involved in this incident - they are literally a text-book case of cops who failed to control the situation, imposed unnecessary time-compression on themselves, were “emotionally captured” by events and lacked “situational awareness”.
Close enough to communicate with the suspect, but not so close as to require an instant deadly response should the suspect not instantly react to their (alleged) orders. Close enough to be able to assess the situation, but not so close as to impose unnecessary “time compression” on their decision-making and assessment.
Why is the specific number of feet significant? It isn’t like they carried a tape measure. The point, as explained by the author of the article, is not to “… rush into a situation when you do not have to”. There was nothing about this incident that required the cops to drive right up to a suspect sitting in a gazebo in an apparently mostly deserted playground.
Still, you must have some idea of the actual distance described by “Close enough to communicate with the suspect, but not so close as to require an instant deadly response should the suspect not instantly react to their (alleged) orders.” What is that distance?
The point, as explained by the author of the article, is not to “… rush into a situation when you do not have to”. There was nothing about this incident that required the cops to drive right up to a suspect sitting in a gazebo in an apparently mostly deserted playground.