Should Police be Required to Confirm the Threat Before Shooting.

I think one MAJOR problem leading to most questionable police shootings is the concept of "well he might have had a weapon..."

I just don't see how that is enough of a threat for a police officer to pull the trigger.


Now I'm not saying do not draw your weapon and take aim the second the officer feels threatened, but shouldn't they be required to confirm the threat before actually firing????

For example,

A police officer encounters someone acting squirrlie. He orders them to put their hands up, but instead they fidget and reach behind their back.


At that point there are 2 reasonable options.

1) it is a rapey serial killer, wanted by the law, who "isn't going back".

2) some nervous citizen reaching for his ID to give to the officer.

Well shouldn't an officer be required to confirm it is a gun before squeezing the trigger???


I just don't find "well he might have had a gun," good enough...



I've called in with this to a couple of talk radio shows, only to have them claim "every cop would quit..." which I think is just insane...

I really hate the way the left and right have sold this issue as a black only issue. Your never gonna fix a problem by attacking it as a black only issue, when it never was in the first place.

It is an issue that effects blacks more, so when you tell 83% of the US population,

" nothing to see here. This doesn't concern your children. This only concerns black children.."

It is no surprise very little gets done.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Let me have a sim gun and play the "bad guy", you get one too and be the "officer".

We can put your theory to the test and I bet I get a "fatal hit" 10 out of 10 times.

Action will ALWAYS beat reaction.

The other issue is that Graham v Connor is enshrined in American jurisprudence, and all they got to say is "I thought I saw a weapon" or "I felt afraid for my life".

The standard for "Your judgement sucks, and we find you guilty anyway" is so high as to be nearly insurmountable. Thus do we need a disinterested party that has no conflicts of interest that oversees and certifies police.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Confirm in 1 second? Stupid idea...if a 8 yr old points a black toy gun towards you me/them?

Sorry...but one pointing second? I'm shooting. 8 yr old, toy gun or not...sorry.

One can die in one second...confirm 1st? No way....you've never fired one I'm guessing...

Absolutely they should confirm the threat before firing.

Sure, the cop stands a higher chance of being shot, but hey, that's the job. For which they don't get paid enough. That's why the cops are issued vests, to give them a better chance of living through such events.

If they can't deal with the danger, they need to find other jobs. This may seem cold, but once again, that's the job. As a cop, they need to be willing to endanger themselves to protect the citizens, even from police.

Silly world, innit?

a reply to: subject x

Nowhere in any contract does it state that "the job" involves putting yourself at a disadvantage so that people who weren't there when something goes down can maybe, but probably still will, not armchair quarterback you so much.

236 cops have been killed/injured in the US this year, no wonder they shoot first ask questions later.

SOURCES

a reply to: subject x

As a cop, they need to be willing to endanger themselves to protect the citizens

Yes but not if it endangers their own life . A dead cop is not protecting anyone .

a reply to: subject x

What degree of confirmation would be appropriate? During sterile conditions? During a nighttime rainstorm? Do you require that the officer be shot/stabbed/assaulted first as confirmation?

Vests generally only protect against handgun rounds and only cover the vitals. They are not perfect. Head, shoulders, hips, legs and all related arteries are not covered. It is a bandaid at best.

If a citizen is not taking a threatening posture and following a lawfully given command, then what danger is the citizen in? Random police shootings on a truly innocent citizen are a rare occurance.

Prosecute police when necessary, jail them if need be. Absolutely demand accountability. But at the same time be realistic and understand that conflict doesn't occur in sterile conditions and "ideal" is rare.

Policing is a job where you may only have a split second to decide if you will shoot another human and live another day ( justified ) or shoot another human and lose your freedom/possessions in a heartbeat. And you only have a split second to make a judgement on whether something is a threat in less than optimal conditions.

Don't give police a pass, but at the same time realize that they aren't perfect and aren't robots.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I doubt every officer would quit. Though many would, I imagine.

I think a far more likely scenario is that officers wouldn't answer calls until several officers were in the area and available to respond. As bedlam said, it comes down to split second judgement and decision making. If you're going to take away the ability to exercise that judgement when it matters most, guys would probably wait until they had as many pairs of eyes involved as they could get.

No, because their life is more important than your's or mine. Why? Damn good question and one I've been wanting an answer to for a long time.
Let's face it, cops can kill someone in situations that would get you or I sent to prison and 99.99% of the time, get away with it.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Let me have a sim gun and play the "bad guy", you get one too and be the "officer".

We can put your theory to the test and I bet I get a "fatal hit" 10 out of 10 times.

Action will ALWAYS beat reaction.

So you think a trained armed officer already cocked and aimed. Loses to some thug who hasn't even drawn his weapon yet?!?!?


You must have a very low impression of police officers..

Clarifying above....one doesn't have time 2 assess whether real, toy, b.b. gun, TV remote control....doesn't matter.

Black or any dark color object pointed at someone....sadly? That's enough because it just is too hard to assess.

Ever hear the phrase " Shoot first, ask questions later?"

Sadly so in life or death split second situations....

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Confirm in 1 second? Stupid idea...if a 8 yr old points a black toy gun towards you me/them?

Sorry...but one pointing second? I'm shooting. 8 yr old, toy gun or not...sorry.

One can die in one second...confirm 1st? No way....you've never fired one I'm guessing...

I didn't say let them point it at you...

I said confirm there is actually a weapon at all...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Who said the officer was "cocked and aimed"? I don't see very many officers just carrying around guns and pointing them at people.

If we were standing, hands at side, and I "the bad guy" grabbed for a hidden gun in order to pull it and shoot you, you the "trained officer" would have to quickly recognize that threat, choose to act, get the gun out of the retention holster, get a flash sight picture and fire at the threat... All this while possibly taking rounds and having a helluva adrenaline dump.

Action beats reaction, period.

Did I mention that if I have a jacket or baggy pants and my hands in my pockets that if I were standing within 20 feet, I could fire from my pocket and have a good chance of getting a hit? All without ever exposing a firearm to view.

I had a black smithing class last night where we made "Texas nose pickers"- 18" long or so iron rods with a sharp bit on one end. For flipping steaks.

After class, I got into a chat with a friend in the parking lot who is also in the class- it's around 9pm, so it's dark.
Two guys in a high school parking lot after 9 - so a police officer shows up to kick us out.
He starts getting nosey, asking why we were there and what not, so I tell him we just got out of the black smithing class where we made Texas nose pickers.
I don't think he believed me, and he wanted some proof.

Me? I politely decline. If the police can shot someone they think has a weapon, they can shoot a guy holding an 18" sharp piece of iron.
The rest if the conversion didn't go well, but nobody was hurt or arrested so I guess it's the best outcome I can expect from an encounter.

originally posted by: Mianeye
236 cops have been killed/injured in the US this year, no wonder they shoot first ask questions later.

SOURCES

The year isn’t over yet, and police have already killed at least 790 people — many of whom were unarmed, mentally ill, and people of color.

This number comes from The Guardian’s police killings database, but the Killed by Police database counts 844 people who have died at the hands of police so far this year. The Washington Post reports that 706 people have been shot and killed by cops.

thinkprogress

At this point in USA history I have no idea why anyone would be a cop? Your life is in danger everyday, you get called to do ridiculous things cops shouldn't have to do (family disputes??), pay is crap.

So bad working conditions, terrible pay, and people wonder why the quality of cops is going down.

a reply to: Shamrock6
Nowhere in said contract does it sat they can shoot because somebody "might" have a weapon.

If they're worrying about armchair quarterbacks in such a situation, they aren't focused on the problem at hand.

Being I was a cop My views 'may' be viewed as 'biased' but can reveal this nugget:

The cop's primary JOB is to go home at the end of the shift.

I'll also agree 100% that there are many in the Law Enforcement community that have no business being IN the business, let alone a job that deals with the 'public'. e.g. If You identify as "White" and have even a tad bit of animosity towards anyone of a different shade, join the ARMY™ real "gung-ho" then the Marines™ are also hiring.

I'll even add this: It isn't that more illegal substances are being used/sold in the lower income communities, it is just "more likely" that those contacted and arrested in these communities won't hire LEGAL REPRESENTATION, they will 'roll the dice' with a newbie from the Public Defender's office who will have a "plea deal" already worked out. I ONLY mention this because until this is changed; the way snip gets handled will NOT change. Rinse; Repeat; Get Gov't. Grants; Rinse; repeat...

In closing, more cops nowadays are 'impatient' (in a hurry to get nowhere quicker..) this leads to 'rash judgements' I'd also suggest the Officer NOT drag the badge around. Not everyone needs to go to Jail...

Vaya Con Dias...

Proud Member of LEAP• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition