Libs hint that armed black suspects should be allowed to fire first

From: americanthinker.com,  by Ed Straker,  on Oct 6, 2016

masked-gunman-with-revolver

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.

Another expert:

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.

Garnet92.

 



Categories: General

Tags:

8 replies

  1. You said pretty much what I was about to say – let them go first and show us how their new suggestions work for them.

    This reminds me of the solutions they offered for women who could possibly be rape victims – remember the whistle idea? Einsteins they’re not.

    Like

  2. Oh woe is me, what imaginary problem are the busy-bee liberals trying to solve now? What is the latest bit of common sense which must be sacrificed so that the libs can prove to us how much smarter they are than the last ten generations combined? Here’s an idea: how about you do what the cops tell you and you won’t get shot? That seems simple and straight forward enough. Afterwards, if you think the cops exceeded their authority, you can take it up with their superiors and/or sue them.

    BTW, any libertarian who sees a problem with the strategy of waiting until you’re shot at to take action should take a hard look at the standard libertarian philosophy on foreign policy, which amounts to basically the same thing. The NAP (non-aggression principle) requires that you don’t use aggression unless aggression is acted upon you first.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Salty pointed out that apparently our foreign policy included a “wait and see” strategy. That’s suicide, pure and simple. Much the same as waiting for a perp to shoot first before firing back – there’s a good chance that the perp’s bullet will prevent any return fire – by assuring a slab in the morgue for the LEO.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. To confirm your suspicions that social warrior snowflakes would be just fine with forcing police to wait until fired upon, one needs look no farther than what Prez BJ did to our national defense posture concerning nuclear weapons.

    Until Bubba became Fornicator in Chief, our nuclear defense strategy had been deterrence based on a “launch on warning” scenario. That dictated that a retaliatory strike would be initiated as soon as missile launches directed at the U.S. were detected. Any nation state contemplating a first strike knew that holy hell would rain down upon them before the dust could settle here. That philosophy was the cornerstone of MAD (mutually assured destruction) during the Cold War.

    In 1997, Bill Clinton decided that posture was too aggressive and not in keeping with his unicorns and lollipops views concerning a START III non-proliferation treaty, so he scraped it in favor of effectively dropping our national soap in the world’s prison showers.

    Those with any common sense about were understandably outraged, so Robert Bell, Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control at the National Security Council, “clarified misunderstandings” about reports of the Clinton changes to our defense posture.

    Quoted from the story here: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd
    Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD “still allows” the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that “there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it.” In fact, Bell said “in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence.”
    Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the “technical capability” to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. “Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating,” he said.

    We were to just wait until Los Angeles, or Seattle, or NYC, perhaps eve D.C. went up in a blinding flash before taking any action. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great information, Salty – thanks for it. It’s hard to believe that some of our “leadership” was so convinced that no one would ever actually attack us that they put their faith in being able to mount a retaliatory strike (mutually assured destruction) as being enough of a safeguard for 300,000,000 lives. I believe that in all forms of combat, the best offense is a massive, overwhelming surprise first strike. I doubt that any attacker would nuke just L.A. or D.C., they’d nuke multiple population centers at the same time – not to mention command and control centers – and feel safe that our retaliation would be too little, too late.

      Like

      • As insane as the MAD posture was, it did make macabre sense. What civilized leader would risk taking the first shot knowing it would mean the end of their own nation? Clinton was willing to bet everything that that our defense forces could survive an initial attack with enough ability to respond effectively, ignoring that the first places nuked would be the very forces needed to respond. That attitude made MAD seem downright genius. Now take that line of thinking to the streets.

        A LEO comes upon a someone who is packing serious heat and mayhem on mind. Under current practices, the LEO is well justified in shooting as soon as that person makes any kind of threatening move that indicates intent to discharge that weapon. With a similar flower-power, touchy-feely restriction in place, the plan would be to wait until the bad guy actually killed the officer, hoping there were no more anti-social outbursts until some officers still at the precinct could respond to deal with the mutant.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: