Multiple officers is exactly the situation we have here: Let us assume the first officer shoots the taser instead of firing the gun and has the second officer holds the gun on the kid. And note that the officers are wearing body armor. Where exactly is the danger to the officers?
Far enough so as their judgement isnt to immediatly shoot this child down. Barring that, at their respective houses.
Quite frankly such an efficient, on-arrival, execution shouldn’t be allowed. That kid could’ve had a banana for all these cops knew.
The caller to 911 stated he had a gun and was pointing it at people.
Is that all the caller said?
but that was inncorrect no? What if wasn’t even in the ballpark of gun. An Apple, or Wii remote… Such a quickness to shoot on arrival shouldn’t be possible.
Hell let’s go another route and say the children had a nuclear rocket launcher. I still wouldn’t see why an on-arrival shooting like that is allowed.
As far as anyone could tell, it was a real gun. And many areas treat airsoft as real firearms.
Beretta M92
Airsoft M92
And when they treat them like real firearms, do they act as speedily and recklessly as the officers we are discussing in this thread?
…and that he was probably a juvenile and that it was probably a fake gun.
I assume it would vary with the situation.
Determining that distance would, I again assume, be part of the calm, clear-headed “situational analysis” that the policing expert quoted upthread appears to be requesting cops undertake, right?
Whatever that distance may be, I know one thing - the cops in that video were under it. In my opinion at least, the video does not depict cops acting with cool professionalism, after undertaking a calm, unemotional, rational analysis of the threat posed (by a kid possibly armed with a gun sitting by himself in a gazebo in a deserted playground). Rather, it depicts cops rushing in, almost literally going off half-cocked. Pretty well every example of what the policing expert in the article states cops ought not to do, they do.
Unfortunately the police officers didn’t even give Tamir first aid after shooting him. A detective and an FBI agent who arrived on scene 4 minutes later did though. Another bad decision.
You act as if the police officer didn’t feel remorse and won’t have to live with his decision for the rest of his life. :rolleyes:
If the priority, as some seem to feel it should be, is protecting the lives of the police officers, why warn the suspect at all? Would the officers not have been safer simply hitting Rice with their car? They had the opportunity to, and they are claiming to have been able to see the gun before they stopped the car. So why not run him over? That would have reduced, even further, the likelihood of the suspect shooting them.
This is absolutely serious question, by the way. It’s the logical extension of the “any threat to the police officer is justification for deadly force.” Rice was apparently an imminent threat. Would striking him with the cruiser not have been a safer and justifiable course of action?
What color should we paint fake guns, when real guns are painted to look like fake guns. :rolleyes:
(my bold)
You said in Post #53:
To which I responded directly in Post #60 and you quoted above:
(my bold)
Did you read what you were responding to? I stated directly that I’m not aware of the protocol. It is important that you answer the question since you imply knowledge of it in post #53. You are implying first that it is bad for officer safety to arrive the way they do. You are second saying they did not analyze the situation. As I stated in post #60, I don’t know the protocol. Maybe the way they arrived is bad or against protocol - maybe it isn’t.
I actually think their approach method is the biggest area of potential failure in this situation. If their protocol directed them to take a more cautious approach then it would be that violation of protocol that lead to the death. If their protocol directed them to approach a ‘man with a gun’ type call with all the urgency available and immediately engage the potential threat then can you really complain that these officers specifcially made some error of judgment? That’s why I believe this to be the crux of the issue - to which I don’t know what the answer is.
How do you know they did not have to? One thing police departments learned from Columbine was that some scenario required an immediate response. I do not know if this is one of those situations.
Do you really believe that a person with a firearm does not present a danger to officers wearing body armor? That’s fantasy.
I think there could be times when running a person down would be appropriate. I don’t think this situation warranted it. The officers stated that they saw the kid put the replica firearm in his waistband. I’m curious if there will be dashcam video released or if it is even available.
Huh? We know more or less what the officers on the spot knew at the time - that a suspect was allegedly scaring people with a gun (in fact we know more than they - know that gun was “probably a fake”).
From the video, we know that the kid was basically sitting in the gazebo by himself when the cops arrive.
Is there anything at all to suggest an “immediate response” was required?
“Hey, there’s a kid sitting in the park with a gun stuck in his pants.”
“Holy SHIT! Remember Columbine?!? I’ll whip this car right up to his sorry face, while you roll out and start firing, just like they do in the movies!”
I’m normally quite opposed to armed police, but I want to second that a taser is inappropiate for a gun fight. I feel the same way about unreliable limb shots with a pistol… if someone is trying to kill you or others, you should shoot to kill.
Tasers should not be used if they already have a gun out, muscle spasms are a bad thing when someone has their finger on the trigger.
When did you get this “Federal Pistol Permit?” What agency issued it to you? Who interviewed you and explained your obligations?
Guys, total SJW here, but I am going to go on the record here as saying that I do not see a disparity between the video and the officers’ account. The officers’ command for him to raise his hands, I’m assuming (and as I think has been indicated already?) came through the speakers on the officers’ car, and was issued before the car stopped. I can very clearly see the child grabbing something at his waistband. This is all exactly in keeping with what the officers’ said happened.
Carrying a firearm is not a threat, and in fact is a Constitutionally enshrined individual right. Carrying a real firearm is not a threat, so of course neither is carrying BB guns or gun-shaped toys. Furthermore, reaching into you pocket or waistband is not a threat either. Pointing a weapon at someone is a threat.
So, don’t kill people who aren’t threatening others. Pretty simple really.