From: americanthinker.com, by Ed Straker, on Oct 6, 2016
The New York Times had an article examining the need for police to shoot Keith Scott, a black man who was discovered by police with marijuana and a gun. A video shows Mr. Scott being shot after being repeatedly told by his wife “don’t do it!” and being told repeatedly by cops to “drop your gun!”
The Times article focused on the way police might have been able to de-escalate the situation. It’s a comical article, because these “experts” are talking about de-escalating a situation where a suspect is holding a gun and refuses several repeated orders to drop it. Even if Mr. Scott had the gun legally (he didn’t), even a legal gun owner doesn’t wave a gun around when police are around, and a legal gun owner certainly would immediately obey an order to drop it.
But the Times’ experts talked about the fantastical ways the situation of the armed suspect disobeying orders might have been de-escalated.
Joseph Ryan: You need to ask if you need to be confronting the person now, or if you can leave and come back if the situation requires it.
Of course! A suspect refuses to drop his gun. The police should leave and return at a time when the suspect is more likely to be amenable, leaving the suspect, and his gun, to their own affairs.
If you don’t have to get that close, then don’t. You can sit there and contain him and talk to him all day long. There’s no rush.
A man with a gun refuses to obey orders to drop it. There’s no rush. You can wait all day long. What’s the hurry? What’s the worst that can happen if you wait? What, he might come out shooting? Oh, yes.
Officers shouted repeatedly at Mr. Scott to “drop the gun.” On the videos, that is their only attempt to speak to him, but the experts noted that the officers might have tried a less confrontational approach before the video began.
So when the police see a man with a gun, rather than order him to immediately drop it, they should take the time to start a casual conversation, establish an emotional connection, and then ask him to drop it. If the suspect hasn’t shot them by the time they get around to asking him to drop the weapon, they’ve been successful.
So the Times seems to be saying is that when officers see an armed man who refuses (several!) orders to drop his gun, they should take a chance and wait and see if the suspect shoots them first. What other conclusion can you draw from all the dilatory tactics the Times recommends in the face of an armed suspect? But even the Times is not ready to explicitly say, “Let the suspect shoot first,” so that same sentiment is expressed in terms of “containing” and “waiting out” the suspect…but waiting for what?
This is the political subtext of the entire Black Lives Matter movement. The police should be expected to risk their own lives in dangerous situations. It doesn’t take a half ounce of common sense to know not to hold a gun up to police or disobey police commands. I think we are seeing the beginning of a campaign to legitimize a new code of conduct for the police that would let suspects fire first.
Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.
Can you believe this? These bleeding heart liberal know-it-alls are suggesting how the police should react to a person with a gun confronting them. Their options include:
- Leave and come back (oh great, leave the gun-wielding individual to his/her intended task(s) possibly endangering innocent citizens?)
- Contain him and talk to him all day long. There’s no rush. (suppose he/she doesn’t want to be “contained”? There’s no rush? The perp with the gun is on his/her own timetable. Why does he/she have a gun if they only want to talk?)
- A less confrontational approach. (so it’s ok for the perp to wave the gun around because it’s confrontational to tell him/her to “drop the gun”?)
I’d be willing to bet that those “progressive” do-gooders would jump at the chance to support a “don’t shoot first” policy that would accept shots at police as “collateral damage,” an acceptable risk, in order to prevent injury or death to that poor innocent gunman. But they’re afraid to go public with that suggestion. Cowards. They seem pretty callous with the lives of our police officers. They forget that those officers are husbands and wives, moms and dads, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters – not just some ballistic gel that can be used as target practice and then discarded.
I say let’s put a few of them on the front lines with police – a ride-along, and let them try out their solutions in the real world. After that, I’ll be willing to put more stock in their opinions.