4 ms·

> So, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equip

> So, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment? The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone. If a car chase ends the suspect hiding behind a door with a "gun" in their hand, there are actually many possible scenarios, for instance: 1. The "gun" is not actually a gun, and was misidentified. 2. The gun is fake or a toy. 3. The gun is a real gun and the suspect will not shoot at anyone. 4. The gun is a real gun and the suspect will shoot at the police or others. Some people say the suspect should be shot in all four scenarios (after all, he might shoot!). I disagree.

talmand 11y ago
> The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone. It did not involve an actual gun in that particular instance. I would like you to explain exactly how the police may identify whether the object that appears to be a weapon is an actual weapon other than waiting for the suspect to fire first. Again, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment? Police officers and innocent bystanders don't always fare too well when the police are obligated to follow stupid rules of engagement. > Some people say the suspect should be shot in all four scenarios (after all, he might shoot!). I disagree. See, that's where I agree with you. Because none of the scenarios in your list is a reason for police officers to fire as you list them. But tack on the end of each item that the suspect acted in a threatening manner with an object that appeared to be a weapon then the police officer may choose to fire their weapon. To be fair, if the suspect tried to run down other people or cops during the chase to show that he was a threat then just getting out of the car with an object that appeared to be a weapon will get him shot. It's all about context.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  I agree the context is important, and it may sometimes provide reasonable justification for the police to shoot first, like if there's a crowd behind the officer. Generally, I think the officers should minimize the probability that 1) innocent bystanders get shot, 2) unarmed suspects get shot, and 3) the officer gets shot; in that order. Some people seem to put 3) in front of 2), and I think that's wrong. However, a in lot of recent videotaped incidents, it's been shown that many police officers are shooting and often killing people merely because the officer falsely "thought" they had a real gun. That behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop, even if that means police have to take more personal risks themselves.
  - talmand 11y ago
    I agree, to a point, because most of the unjustified police shootings I'm aware of, that we have video for, did not show any direct threat to the officer or any bystanders. In almost all those cases the victim did not even have an object that could be mistaken as a weapon. I personally don't see those as police shootings but as murder, manslaughter at best. But I still have problems with your wording. In your examples above you feel 2 is more important than 3 and you disagree with people that reverse it. I agree with you. The difference is I see the possibility that the police may think the unarmed suspect is armed and is a direct threat to the officer or bystanders. By your wording you seem to suggest that scenario is not possible, and just in case the officer should wait until fired upon to determine whether the suspect is armed or not. That's a bad rule of engagement.

talmand 11y ago

> The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone. It did not involve an actual gun in that particular instance. I would like you to explain exactly how the police may identify whether the object that appears to be a weapon is an actual weapon other than waiting for the suspect to fire first. Again, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment? Police officers and innocent bystanders don't always fare too well when the police are obligated to follow stupid rules of engagement. > Some people say the suspect should be shot in all four scenarios (after all, he might shoot!). I disagree. See, that's where I agree with you. Because none of the scenarios in your list is a reason for police officers to fire as you list them. But tack on the end of each item that the suspect acted in a threatening manner with an object that appeared to be a weapon then the police officer may choose to fire their weapon. To be fair, if the suspect tried to run down other people or cops during the chase to show that he was a threat then just getting out of the car with an object that appeared to be a weapon will get him shot. It's all about context.

gherkin0 11y ago
I agree the context is important, and it may sometimes provide reasonable justification for the police to shoot first, like if there's a crowd behind the officer. Generally, I think the officers should minimize the probability that 1) innocent bystanders get shot, 2) unarmed suspects get shot, and 3) the officer gets shot; in that order. Some people seem to put 3) in front of 2), and I think that's wrong. However, a in lot of recent videotaped incidents, it's been shown that many police officers are shooting and often killing people merely because the officer falsely "thought" they had a real gun. That behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop, even if that means police have to take more personal risks themselves.
- talmand 11y ago
  I agree, to a point, because most of the unjustified police shootings I'm aware of, that we have video for, did not show any direct threat to the officer or any bystanders. In almost all those cases the victim did not even have an object that could be mistaken as a weapon. I personally don't see those as police shootings but as murder, manslaughter at best. But I still have problems with your wording. In your examples above you feel 2 is more important than 3 and you disagree with people that reverse it. I agree with you. The difference is I see the possibility that the police may think the unarmed suspect is armed and is a direct threat to the officer or bystanders. By your wording you seem to suggest that scenario is not possible, and just in case the officer should wait until fired upon to determine whether the suspect is armed or not. That's a bad rule of engagement.