While these instances are always troubling, I can't really fault the cops on this one. Risking letting it go beyond that means risking getting shot.
They absolutely should be better trained for these situations.
While these instances are always troubling, I can't really fault the cops on this one. Risking letting it go beyond that means risking getting shot.
Let's assume everybody is going to kill us sounds like a great way to serve and protect.
I find it perfectly reasonable to draw your gun on a non-cooperating suspect who is potentially armed and potentially mentally impaired/instable thus making a sudden, irrational act more likely.
What makes him "potentially armed"? Police approach people all of the time without assuming they are armed.
Let's assume everybody is going to kill us sounds like a great way to serve and protect.
What should've happened in this specific instance? Not that I would be against better training though.
Let's assume everybody is going to kill us sounds like a great way to serve and protect.
The subject refused multiple instructions by the first officer on scene to remove his concealed hand from in his pocket. Because the subject did not comply the officer drew his firearm and pointed it at the subject while continuing to give him instructions to remove his hand from his pocket.
Identify the object in the suspects hands before discharging your weapon?
Which is easier said than done. In the time it may take to identify an object if it *is* a firearm....they may have time to discharge it.
What makes him "potentially armed"? Police approach people all of the time without assuming they are armed.
Unfortunately we don't have superhuman police officers who can clearly identify an object someone pulls out of his pocket and aims it at you within a split/second.
This is very true. If people really respected police officers, they would be for gun control to make their jobs easier.If it wasn't possible for every citizen to potentially be carrying a gun then perhaps the police wouldn't be so trigger happy.
Again it comes down to the stupid 2nd amendment.
"Protect and serve"?
Kill or detain.
I don't get it. A man can shoot up a church and murder 9 people, and people are so quick to cry, "Oh boy, mental illness sure is out of control! That boy needs help!" But an unarmed man walking in traffic showing clear displays of mental distress gets shot to death? It's absurd. Cops are the professionals here. I have family and friends that are police officers, and last I remember, they had to go through pretty rigorous training of all kinds before they earned their badge and gun.
I apparently linked to 7 superhuman officers able to take in White subjects w/o killing them.
"Protect and serve"(whites)?
Kill or detain(blacks).
I think he's talking about the pocket thing.
I did.
In that report, they already have weapons drawn.
Why? Why is somebody not listening to you means to draw your weapon?
Do we have statistics on how many times cops open fire at a suspect and he survives?
Gaf only posts the fatal shootings so the feeling is skewed but it seems like there is a problem with shooting itself, where cops shoot to kill, not to disable the suspect. Not taking the escalation of the situation into account, as it's a different can of worms.
No it shouldn't, at times police are baited into these situation and put themselves in a bad spot where they "feel" the need to resort to deadly force. So very, very sad and unnecessary.Still shouldn't be a thing.
That's exactly what they should do.Yea, from that photo, what were the cops supposed to do? Take the potential bullet?
you don't shoot to "disable". that's not what guns are for.
Preparedness, I'd say. If someone has their hand in their pocket and are acting erratically, you would prepare to defend yourself - and yes, I mean literally you would do the same.
I think the police of this country need to be reformed. That said, this situation in particular doesn't play out much better regardless of the situation. If the officer hadn't drawn his weapon and the man DID have a gun, pulled it and shot, this would be a dead cop instead. You can't train against that. .
Preparedness, I'd say. If someone has their hand in their pocket and are acting erratically, you would prepare to defend yourself - and yes, I mean literally you would do the same.
I think the police of this country need to be reformed. That said, this situation in particular doesn't play out much better regardless of the situation. If the officer hadn't drawn his weapon and the man DID have a gun, pulled it and shot, this would be a dead cop instead. You can't train against that.
The only other option we've got here is to disarm the police force entirely. No more civilian casualties, but a hell of a lot more police dying. I just have trouble finding the alternative, even as I can recognize there needs to be one.
That's exactly what they should do.
Not to mention both cops were likely wearing Kevlar, which would stop pretty much any handgun caliber round fired at their torso. Plus the situation was 2 v 1; if he did hit one officer, the second could neutralize him.
Or how about, instead of immediately drawing on a man who showed no signs of aggression, they talk to him like a human being and find out what might be troubling him?
When all you train in is using hammers, every problem looks like a nail.
Why do cops approach non violent people with their guns drawn?
We hear time and time again how cops can't shoot to disable. So why are the guns out in the first place unless the intention is to kill?
Sorry but that is insane. It is not a police officer's job to take a bullet and die. And again, "no signs of aggression" - either you didn't either the article or are being purposefully obtuse. Someone who has been reported as behaving very off and has his hands in his pockets and refuses to cooperate is a threat, end of story. A civilian life is not worth more than a police officer's life.
That's exactly what they should do.
Not to mention both cops were likely wearing Kevlar, which would stop pretty much any handgun caliber round fired at their torso. Plus the situation was 2 v 1; if he did hit one officer, the second could neutralize him.
Or how about, instead of immediately drawing on a man who showed no signs of aggression, they talk to him like a human being and find out what might be troubling him?
When all you train in is using hammers, every problem looks like a nail.
Because if you take this very same situation but have the suspect actually be armed the result would be two dead police officers.
Yeah
But he wasn't armed.
That's the point.
They came weapons out. To a call about someone that didn't even a weapon.
They absolutely should be better trained for these situations.
So the first officer asked him to take his hands out of his pocket and follow some basic commands, refusing to do so while phasing around, as the other officer arrive on scene, the first pulls out his gun in fear of a concealed weapon? while the other officers prepares to deploy a taser. While the other officer is about to deploy his taser the male pulls out a object from his pocket, holding it like a gun, taking a stance and pointing it at the cop with his pistol already out, in which both him and the LTL guy react by shooting and tasering at the same time.
Have I got that right?
We know that because we read a report afterwards. Police officers can not read the future.
Now you are just making shit up. Read the damn report.
Its a shame but you gotta stop calling the police if you want to help someone while keeping them alive. It just not what they do, you call the police when you want someone dead.
Maybe we should try calling the fire department or hospital.
If you're going to shoot someone then you aim for center mass. Shooting to disable isn't viable outside of films.Do we have statistics on how many times cops open fire at a suspect and he survives?
Gaf only posts the fatal shootings so the feeling is skewed but it seems like there is a problem with shooting itself, where cops shoot to kill, not to disable the suspect. Not taking the escalation of the situation into account, as it's a different can of worms.
*edit* Read your edit, nvm.They don't have to. There wasn't a gun. They weren't a called for violent behavior. He wasn't acting violent. Hands in pocket is not violent or threatening and if they're so afraid they should get another profession.
All the training in the world would have still led to an officer retaliating against someone making the exact motions of shooting a gun. It's survival instinct. You can't override that fear that you're about to die and the powerful urge to protect yourself when someone is erratic and very abruptly gestures to blow your head off.
So the first officer asked him to take his hands out of his pocket and follow some basic commands, refusing to do so while phasing around, as the other officer arrive on scene, the first pulls out his gun in fear of a concealed weapon? while the other officers prepares to deploy a taser. While the other officer is about to deploy his taser the male pulls out a object from his pocket, holding it like a gun, taking a stance and pointing it at the cop with his pistol already out, in which both him and the LTL guy react by shooting and tasering at the same time.
Have I got that right?
Either suicide by cop or one of many mental illness persons killed by cops because US can't seem to pick up and provide services for those who need it at all before we even get this far.
That's not saying US police force don't need better training, but the image provided so far, I don't see how he wouldn't react like that under the current circumstances and lack of proper training. Maybe not even better training could prevent this current circumstance.
Why not Taser first?
Why not Taser first?