Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
I think that this is where the disconnect lies, though. They generally are following their training (like it or not)but the problem is they start at the top and work backwards as things are proven. Don't know if the suspect has a gun? Assume he does until you know otherwise. Don't know if there's a knife? Assume there could be, until proven otherwise. Don't know if the guy is a black belt in 5 different forms of martial arts? Assume he is until otherwise proven. No gun? Great, step down a response level. No melee weapons? Great, step down another response level. Keep proceeding until the situation is resolved.
But folks seem to be thinking that they should start at the bottom, and work their way up. Assume the person can't do anything or has anything on them until it's proven that they do. Sadly, given how fast most weapons work, this really is 'backwards', unsafe thinking that, if the suspect has a weapon they intend to use, will more likely than not get the officer killed.
So while every situation IS different, it's approached as if the people involved have guns, knives and black belts and are willing to use them until proven otherwise. To do otherwise is unsafe and unwise for all involved.
(This part got cut off, for some reason)
|
But this is the issue. Officers are going into situations as if they're against militant opposition. They're literally going in with tanks at this point.
They're jumping straight to 'maim or kill' before assessing a situation. If they want to go in cautiously as if every person is armed and extremely dangerous, fine--but don't act immediately as if the person is firing on you unless they are. The issue is that a lot of the major police issues that have come up are because officers aren't going through that system you just said--they aren't assessing the situation and deescalating the response as need be. They're overly aggressive in situations which don't call for it.
If the actual response from officers was what you listed--there wouldn't be much complaint. But when a couple of officers jump out of a car at a 12 year old with a bb gun and open fire on him in under 5 seconds--none of that assessment you listed is actually happening, and that is a problem.
Quote:
How do police know he got it off the shelf? Is it loaded? You realize you can actually kill with a bb gun, right? How do you KNOW, for certain, that he's not a threat?
Dancing idiot. roll your eyes, chuckle, turn to walk away...and he pulls out a gun and shoots you in the back or a knife which he attacks you from behind with.
Thing is, most folks don't think like that, they don't HAVE to, but Police do. Or if you don't, you highly risk going home in a box.
|
I wasn't saying you can't kill someone with a bb gun. I was referencing the case in Ohio where the man was in Walmart, some racist moron calls 911, and rather than walking in calmly and assessing the situation and realizing he wasn't a threat, officers shot him down before doing any kind of deducing to see what the reality of the situation was.
All three of those cases I mentioned were based on reality--the only one where the guy got away without any issue was the one who was actually waving a loaded firearm and threatening to shoot people.
The innocent guy with a bb gun in Walmart is shot to death on sight, and the dumb guy dancing got shoved around needlessly.
How is it that one officer is able to talk down a nutjob with a loaded weapon but other officers can't handle non-threats without issue?