I would imagine that guns are for those immediately life threatening emergency situations where there really is no other option. If an officer could make it back to his car, grab his gun, bring it back again and face the suspect, my guess is that would not qualify as the sort of immediately life threatening circumstance that warranted the use of deadly force
Imagined scenarios shouldn't ever be used to justify lethal force. That's all there is to say.
Police probably shouldn't ever fire their weapons first...
Of course that would make being an officer slightly more physically dangerous, but only slightly. Most never have cause to fire their weapons in the line of duty anyway.
If we’re arguing technicalities, a gun is not strictly speaking required. If it’s you against 20 cops they can just physically subdue you and throw you in jail. At no point they even need to threaten to shoot you. So a threat of physical force - yes. Actual guns and deadly force - not in every situation.
I thought you can only use deadly force if you fear for your life. A cop approaching you, or even physically grabbing you and moving you to a new location won't kill you.
They already have non-lethal options available if they intend to stop someone. I feel like this would increase the lethality of situations where non-lethal approaches are warranted rather than decreasing the lethality of other ones.
Firearms should not be treated as implements of lethality and nothing but that. Imagine how many police shooting cases we'd see where cop claims he was shooting to wound but 'missed'
And this is the problem with guns, imagine if the police didn't have any guns and they would have to approach him by first. Obviously they outnumber him but know (unless he has a lethal weapon on him) there shouldn't be any lethal force. Guns escalate the situation way too quickly to a life threatening one ...
This all makes a very compelling case for "using firearms in an optimal way is outside the limits of human ability, so police should not use firearms." That's assuming your terminal value is not "police life matters more than any other consideration."
What's wrong with most police not having lethal weapons? If police are in danger, they can request SWAT backup, specialized firearm users who won't shoot in unwarranted situations. Regular cops could even have tasers or rubber bullets to deal with threats in a less destructive manner. Why do they need lethal force for helping their own citizenry?
I will never, ever be able to accept that it is ok for the police to shoot a person who they do not see carrying a weapon. There is no circumstance in which you can say you feared for your life if you did not see a weapon. And if you legitimately did fear for your life when you didn't see a weapon then maybe you shouldn't be a police officer.
Even with all of the guns it is highly unlikely a cop will be shot at during a routine traffic stop. It's highly unlikely to get shot at in general. Risk factors include living in an open carry state (Arizona), heavily tinted windows (the cop can't see in), not being white, and driving a risky car.
In this case, while not a traffic stop, the attempted arrest protocol was just stupid and it resulted in his death. That whole department needs to be reformed by the FBI. I hope his widow wins a huge settlement.
The argument that someone was reaching for a weapon or afraid for safety needs a higher burden of proof.
Do I not have a constitutional right to carry a firearm? Does the existence of a firearm justify summary execution as a penalty for a traffic violation?
Edit: and more to the point... wouldn't reducing the frequency of these interactions also improve the safety and wellbeing of police officers?
That would make sense though, right? We literally make officers carry guns and tell them “use this to defend yourself, and as a last resort against dangerous suspects when the situation warrants” as part of their job description. It stands to reason that the likelihood of a cop using their gun in a “legal” way is higher on average than the average person who fires a gun. Even in cases where an officer does get arrested on suspicion of murder, it’s less likely to be convict-able than average.
The guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.
"Would there have been a non-lethal alternative protocol for the officer to follow, such as a different placement of the initial shot?"
Shoot to wound, you mean? That's only used on TV.
The problem is, an officer can use deadly force only when facing imminent danger of immediate serious injury or death (including risk to bystanders, hostages, etc.).
If an officer feels the luxury of shooting only to wound, then by definition the imminent-threat-of-death condition isn't there. I believe that tort cases have been won on this concept.
Instead, that's where nonlethal weapons come into play (tasers, beanbag rounds, water cannon, rubber bullets, etc.). Most urban LEOs are adding tasers, but this means the added complication of carrying two sidearms with mutually exclusive usage profiles.
Clearly the cop doesn't have self-defense as his top priority, or he wouldn't be in that situation at all. He'd make sure he was somewhere else when the possibility of violence manifested itself. Like, say, I would.
Police officers shouldn't be shooting people on the off chance that a suspicious bulge might be a gun, but it seems pretty unreasonable to expect police officers to put their self-defense as the very lowest priority and wait until bullets actually come out of a gun-like-object being pointed at them before shooting.
Ideally it wouldn't get this far but at a minimum, the police should not shoot until an actual gun is seen. Thinking they are in danger is not good enough, their rules for engagement need to be as high as the military, if not higher... they should have to confirm there is an actual threat and should not fire their weapons until at least that threat is confirmed. A feeling is not enough to shoot on.
The account you quoted describes the police pulling out their guns before he got into the car at all. Evading arrest is not a capital offense and they don't mention that he had a weapon or that they believe he intended to harm anyone, so it's hard to see how pulling their weapons is justified.
It doesn't make sense to use the fact that he hit some stuff while fleeing from the men with guns to justify drawing the guns. In fact, provoking panicked flight seems like a pretty foreseeable outcome of drawing a gun on someone. If I had a gun drawn on me I might very well flee in a panic, potentially hitting cars with mine. They drew the guns before he did any of that and it's reasonable to think them drawing them made those outcomes more likely.
Edit: Here are the NJ deadly use of force standards [1]. My reading of the standards would not allow the use of deadly force in this situation. The rules also state that officers should only unholster their weapons when "circumstances create a reasonable belief that display of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous situation." It's hard to see what was "potentially dangerous" in this situation before the guns were drawn.
Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection -- especially not from cops, who have more guns, more manpower, and tend to frown upon being shot at.
And considering that one of the few times I'd consider lethal force justified would be when someone actually pulls a gun on a cop, that makes them especially useless.
I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?
reply