8 ms·

I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a

I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a toy and armed should be treated as the same thing. When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot.

tptacek 11y ago
There is probably a better way to word this.
rodgerd 11y ago
There are regularly displays by men armed with AR-15s around cities in the US. Yet the police seem to be disinterested in shooting them. I wonder why?
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?
  - drumdance 11y ago
    Look at this guy: http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.... He was walking away from the police when they shot him -- 16 times! Fortunately this was caught on camera, but a lot of shootings are not.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    And people like these guys weren't pointing guns at other people or breaking the law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confrontations_and_suspension_of_roundup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren... I'm certainly not suggesting that we encourage violent responses from law enforcement. (I'm relieved injury and harm were minimized in both of the above instances.) But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      "But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun." Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but that particular argument doesn't work at all. There's a huge difference between a protest (even with armed protesters) in broad daylight surrounded by cops and news media, and a split-second confrontation between a police officer and a suspect in the middle of the night. You cannot boil down both situations to "a person may have a gun." (To be clear, that's not to make any moral judgements about the people involved in those two different situations, or what cops should or should not do. Just saying they are different, and it's dangerously simplistic to line them up next to each other and believe you've proved anything.)
      - rmxt 11y ago
        My main point is that it's not as simple as: not("breaking law" or "pointing guns at other people") == not("get shot") which is what you were snarkily making it out to be. There are whole fields of study devoted to the issues at hand, neither you nor I will convince each other or make an airtight case in a single post regarding the full spectrum of input into all armed encounters with police that result in the output of either dying, or being arrested without incident, or anything in between.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    So when someone tries to enter a property where firearms are banned, persists until the police are called, and then gets in the officers' faces while weilding a firearm, that doesn't seem like a problem to you, but gunning down children with toys is essential? Interesting.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      If I were inclined to be rude, I might make a smartass remark in kind about how you seem to believe that the police should indiscriminately open fire on demonstrators the second they fail to cooperate in any way... ...but I won't, because I know the situations are more complicated than that and if we were speaking in person instead of over the Internet you'd probably agree with me on that, even if we didn't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
gohrt 11y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-force-police-warily-learn-to-de-escalate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-forc...
enraged_camel 11y ago
>>When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. How often does this happen? A much more common occurrence is when someone sees a suspicious-looking dude walking down the street, calls the cops and says "I think he is armed!" and the cops arrive and shoot him without first verifying if he's actually armed with a real weapon.
- notatoad 11y ago
  In your scenario the victim would be classed as "unarmed", not "armed with a toy". The point i was trying to make is that people identified as "armed with a toy" in stats should be grouped along side armed people, not with unarmed ones like the person i replied to was doing. Because odds are, if you're interacting with police and carrying a replica weapon, the whole point of that weapon is to fool people into thinking you're armed.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Admittedly, I don't think it's on the article's main page but if you were paying attention, you'd know about this one. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-...
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    > In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.
kbenson 11y ago
There is quite a difference between not faulting the police for shooting someone and saying that person should be shot. I do not think pointing a non-lethal weapon, much less a toy, should be automatic grounds for being shot. I do believe it may be the appropriate response in some situations though. That said, I suspect you don't really believe what you've said, and it's a case of poorly communicating your intent. Unfortunately, on polarizing issues like this where clear communication is paramount to prevent people from wasting time arguing similar points, it seems people are more prone to comment without fully considering their wording (possibly due to high emotional investment).
mempko 11y ago
Why? Likely from a distance the cop won't be shot if it is a real gun. The police should not be so trigger happy. What is more preferable to a society? A cop getting shot? Or a child with a toy gun?
CaptSpify 11y ago
This seems like a case where they simplified the wording too much to be worthwhile. "Armed with a realistic-looking toy and pointing it at someone" is very different from "Playing with super-soakers and water-hoses on their lawn".
gherkin0 11y ago
> When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons: 1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person with the toy gun (or wallet, cell phone, etc) is still a member of the public. 2) After a car chase, the police have the ability to position themselves defensively until the situation becomes clearer (e.g. shots are actually fired at them). They also could be wearing unusual protective gear like body armor, which would further reduce their personal danger. Now, if the person was actively threatening an innocent third party with a realistic toy gun in some way, then I think it would be much more justifiable for the police to shoot. Ditto if a person brandishes something clearly gun-like at an officer at close range.
- gozur88 11y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to allow criminals to take the first shot in case the gun might be a toy. Even if you're "positioned defensively" you can still be killed by someone who's lucky or skilled.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    There seems to be a cohort of people who believe that policemen's lives are essentially forfeit, and thus any level of mortal risk to them is reasonable.
    - gherkin0 11y ago
      I don't think that policemen's lives are "forfeit," but that it's their duty to not have self-defense as their very top priority, which entails taking risks in some situations that we wouldn't expect of other people.
      - gozur88 11y ago
logfromblammo 11y ago
Given that people in the U.S. have the right to be armed, with anything from nail clippers to 18-wheelers, I demand a bit more justification for a violent intervention than simply carrying or controlling a weapon. So you are correct when you say armed with a toy and armed with a functional weapon should be treated in the same way. But I don't think possessing an object that may or may not be a weapon is sufficient justification in itself for the use of lethal force. I think police need to exercise every available opportunity to de-escalate conflicts, with the goal being to deliver the suspects alive and unharmed to the courts for arraignment. That may actually mean that the cops have to let the suspect fire a shot before he gets a lead shower. That would leave no doubt that yes, it is a real weapon, and yes, the suspect is willing to use it inappropriately. I don't want 750k Judge Dredds on the street, acting as judge, jury, and executioner. When a man takes cover and points a gun, he should be ordered to "show me empty hands" [0], then given a reasonable opportunity to assess his situation and comply. If he even fires the gun, and injures a cop, he should still be given an opportunity to surrender and make it to the courtroom alive. [0] As "drop the weapon" is confusing to a person not actually carrying one.

tptacek 11y ago

There is probably a better way to word this.

rodgerd 11y ago

There are regularly displays by men armed with AR-15s around cities in the US. Yet the police seem to be disinterested in shooting them. I wonder why?

13thLetter 11y ago
Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?
- drumdance 11y ago
  Look at this guy: http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.... He was walking away from the police when they shot him -- 16 times! Fortunately this was caught on camera, but a lot of shootings are not.
- rmxt 11y ago
  And people like these guys weren't pointing guns at other people or breaking the law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confrontations_and_suspension_of_roundup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren... I'm certainly not suggesting that we encourage violent responses from law enforcement. (I'm relieved injury and harm were minimized in both of the above instances.) But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    "But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun." Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but that particular argument doesn't work at all. There's a huge difference between a protest (even with armed protesters) in broad daylight surrounded by cops and news media, and a split-second confrontation between a police officer and a suspect in the middle of the night. You cannot boil down both situations to "a person may have a gun." (To be clear, that's not to make any moral judgements about the people involved in those two different situations, or what cops should or should not do. Just saying they are different, and it's dangerously simplistic to line them up next to each other and believe you've proved anything.)
    - rmxt 11y ago
      My main point is that it's not as simple as: not("breaking law" or "pointing guns at other people") == not("get shot") which is what you were snarkily making it out to be. There are whole fields of study devoted to the issues at hand, neither you nor I will convince each other or make an airtight case in a single post regarding the full spectrum of input into all armed encounters with police that result in the output of either dying, or being arrested without incident, or anything in between.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  So when someone tries to enter a property where firearms are banned, persists until the police are called, and then gets in the officers' faces while weilding a firearm, that doesn't seem like a problem to you, but gunning down children with toys is essential? Interesting.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    If I were inclined to be rude, I might make a smartass remark in kind about how you seem to believe that the police should indiscriminately open fire on demonstrators the second they fail to cooperate in any way... ...but I won't, because I know the situations are more complicated than that and if we were speaking in person instead of over the Internet you'd probably agree with me on that, even if we didn't agree on the fundamentals of the issue.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

gohrt 11y ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-force-police-warily-learn-to-de-escalate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/long-taught-to-use-forc...

enraged_camel 11y ago

>>When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. How often does this happen? A much more common occurrence is when someone sees a suspicious-looking dude walking down the street, calls the cops and says "I think he is armed!" and the cops arrive and shoot him without first verifying if he's actually armed with a real weapon.

notatoad 11y ago
In your scenario the victim would be classed as "unarmed", not "armed with a toy". The point i was trying to make is that people identified as "armed with a toy" in stats should be grouped along side armed people, not with unarmed ones like the person i replied to was doing. Because odds are, if you're interacting with police and carrying a replica weapon, the whole point of that weapon is to fool people into thinking you're armed.
notdonspaulding 11y ago
First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Admittedly, I don't think it's on the article's main page but if you were paying attention, you'd know about this one. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-...
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.

kbenson 11y ago

There is quite a difference between not faulting the police for shooting someone and saying that person should be shot. I do not think pointing a non-lethal weapon, much less a toy, should be automatic grounds for being shot. I do believe it may be the appropriate response in some situations though. That said, I suspect you don't really believe what you've said, and it's a case of poorly communicating your intent. Unfortunately, on polarizing issues like this where clear communication is paramount to prevent people from wasting time arguing similar points, it seems people are more prone to comment without fully considering their wording (possibly due to high emotional investment).

mempko 11y ago

Why? Likely from a distance the cop won't be shot if it is a real gun. The police should not be so trigger happy. What is more preferable to a society? A cop getting shot? Or a child with a toy gun?

CaptSpify 11y ago

This seems like a case where they simplified the wording too much to be worthwhile. "Armed with a realistic-looking toy and pointing it at someone" is very different from "Playing with super-soakers and water-hoses on their lawn".

gherkin0 11y ago

> When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons: 1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person with the toy gun (or wallet, cell phone, etc) is still a member of the public. 2) After a car chase, the police have the ability to position themselves defensively until the situation becomes clearer (e.g. shots are actually fired at them). They also could be wearing unusual protective gear like body armor, which would further reduce their personal danger. Now, if the person was actively threatening an innocent third party with a realistic toy gun in some way, then I think it would be much more justifiable for the police to shoot. Ditto if a person brandishes something clearly gun-like at an officer at close range.

gozur88 11y ago
I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to allow criminals to take the first shot in case the gun might be a toy. Even if you're "positioned defensively" you can still be killed by someone who's lucky or skilled.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  There seems to be a cohort of people who believe that policemen's lives are essentially forfeit, and thus any level of mortal risk to them is reasonable.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    I don't think that policemen's lives are "forfeit," but that it's their duty to not have self-defense as their very top priority, which entails taking risks in some situations that we wouldn't expect of other people.
    - gozur88 11y ago

logfromblammo 11y ago

Given that people in the U.S. have the right to be armed, with anything from nail clippers to 18-wheelers, I demand a bit more justification for a violent intervention than simply carrying or controlling a weapon. So you are correct when you say armed with a toy and armed with a functional weapon should be treated in the same way. But I don't think possessing an object that may or may not be a weapon is sufficient justification in itself for the use of lethal force. I think police need to exercise every available opportunity to de-escalate conflicts, with the goal being to deliver the suspects alive and unharmed to the courts for arraignment. That may actually mean that the cops have to let the suspect fire a shot before he gets a lead shower. That would leave no doubt that yes, it is a real weapon, and yes, the suspect is willing to use it inappropriately. I don't want 750k Judge Dredds on the street, acting as judge, jury, and executioner. When a man takes cover and points a gun, he should be ordered to "show me empty hands" [0], then given a reasonable opportunity to assess his situation and comply. If he even fires the gun, and injures a cop, he should still be given an opportunity to surrender and make it to the courtroom alive. [0] As "drop the weapon" is confusing to a person not actually carrying one.