^^^^^^ .... ah... no.
Glenn,
2. As long as a gun is in your hand for a long, slow, safe put down - you can quickly switch to a firing position. That's in some LEO training films. That's why they might just shoot you if you don't comply.
So because a training film [anyone have a title?] describes a method of "faking" putting a gun down, if a subject's response to the officer's order even appears to be similar to the 'fake' tactic, that justifies the officer shooting him before any aggressive moves? (As opposed to saying "STOP! DON'T MOVE" again?)
The bigger question is within what context was the training film made? Because a technique exists, does not mean it applies to every subject you meet. What gang members in L.A. have been filmed doing does not necessariliy apply to everyone. An officer suggesting it was part of his "training" when he fired on a 63 year old Asian man who was slowly putting down his gun should be required to justify, in detail, how he concluded a real threat existed.
Please understand MY point here. It is not to say that police should take unnecssary risks. It is a criticism of both the "one size fits all" training AND the mindset exhibited by several posters that failure to do
exactly what they tell you to do justifies their premature use of lethal force.
That's so much bovine scatology.
Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because;
- The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
- The subject failed to raise both hands.
- The person who, when told "Show me your hands!", displays his hands and then drops them again (perhaps out of sight). [aka the stupid subject]
- When told to get on the ground, lies on his back due to illness or injury.
- When told to kneel on the ground, begins kicking & scraping at the ground with one or both feet before kneeling.
- When told to move in any direction, subject balks with inaudible verbal response.
What I'm getting at is that the mindset of some officers that failure to comply
exactly is somehow tantamout to a grave threat is pure, unadulterated crap. Officers are not automations and should be capable of adapting their procedures and tactics.
Every one of the above situations listed has a valid reason for occurring. According to at least two of the posters here, the deaf man =
dead man for failing to comply with spoken orders...which he is unable to receive. Likewise, the man who can't raise both arms because one is disabled by a wound is on the ragged edge of dying because he
can't comply with the cops.
In a situation where someone attempts to comply, but perhaps in an unexpected way, I expect officers to be
alert or to verbally force the person to stop. Hiding behind the allegation "he failed to properly comply", in my view, is the moral equivilant of "I was just following orders".