LETTERBOY

And while you're being patient, the guy starts shooting at you.

GUWonder

You are jumping to a conclusion that a person would necessarily start shooting at me. A fantasy?

SFO777

Oh, so he's pointing a gun. But he may or may not shoot. So let's wait and see.
Perhaps CBP agent should call a time out and call in a mediator.

GUWonder

If I'm in an armored vehicle and the potential hostile fire provider is sort of focused at me and is not around any exposed bystanders, perhaps.

halls120

You seem to be so sure that the alternatives weren't followed - why is that?

CBP doesn't deploy armored vehicles on normal patrol duties.

GUWonder

Sometimes they aren't, of that I have no doubt.

About this situation of the nutty Canadian who seemed to want a "suicide by cop" at the Ambassador Bridge after failing to have that happen earlier that day, I'm certainly not sure. You sure seem sure about something about which I'm not sure.

As I said earlier, he seems to have wanted "suicide by cop". It seems to not have gone according to plan.

Context matters. A number of my posts were in response to a blanket claim of there not being an alternative to lethal force when a gun is pointed in the other direction. Sometimes there is an alternative.

halls120

You're right - I am.

Yes, but your alternative is ridiculous because the CBP does not deploy armored vehicles in a normal patrol mode, and in the case of this shooting, there is no evidence they had done so.

GUWonder

You're free to imagine my mind as you wish, but your claims don't align with what I know about my own mind. Just goes to show that mind-reading has its limits, even for those who once upon a time believed in Santa Claus.

My mention of there being an alternative is not ridiculous. Keep in mind that I was commenting in response to a "no alternative to lethal force" claim that was not limited to CBP.

Boggie Dog

If an actor points a weapon towards a LEO then little choice remains other than to defend oneself. It would not be the time to read the tea leaves to determine intent. Pointing a gun towards another person is a deadly action and should be met with equal force.

GUWonder

Firing a gun from which a fatal/mortally-wounding shot hits is a deadly action; merely pointing a gun by itself is not a deadly action.

Boggie Dog

Deleted- duplicate

Boggie Dog

So your counsel would be to wait and see if you have been killed before responding to a gun pointed at you?

nachosdelux

You are absolutely wrong - legally and procedurally (police tactics)

Pointing a gun at someone is a deadly action, because it may result in either the death of the pointer, or the death of the pointee.

Your disdain for law enforcement/authority clouds your judgment.

WillCAD

Agreed.

And while pointing a gun at someone does not, in and of itself, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the intent to shoot, it is considered by most reasonable people to constitute enough of a preponderance of evidence to warrant a reply with deadly force.

In plainer language, pointing a gun at someone doesn't always mean that you indent to shoot them, but it probably means you intend to shoot them, so it's perfectly reasonable for a cop - or anyone else - to err on the side of caution and defend themselves with whatever force is appropriate to stop you from shooting them.

Thus, shooting someone is an entirely reasonable response when that person points a gun at you. The debate on "force continuum" is hogwash in this context. When someone points a gun at you, your life is in danger, and fiddling around with non-lethal, less-than-lethal, or alternative force responses does nothing but increase the danger. When a gun - a long-range deadly weapon - comes into play, you respond with whatever force is required to neutralize the gun. In the context of a cop being targeted by a suspect with a gun, this means the cop shoots the person who points a gun at him.

Force continua and alternative responses are an appropriate topic when discussing unarmed suspects, or suspects armed with less dangerous, limited range weapons such as blades, clubs, or rocks. Distance and other factors come into play here, as such weapons are far less dangerous as distance increases, and they have far less capability to harm innocent bystanders than guns.

But if someone points a gun at you, shoot them. Any other response risks not only your own life, but the lives of anyone else in the vicinity who might be hit by a stray bullet.

GUWonder

WillCAD, if I followed the advice you provided in your last paragraph and applied it to contexts experienced by me, I would probably be dead already.



For example, pointing a gun which has no bullet in it is not a deadly action. The reaction to it (ie pointing a gun which has no ammunition in it) may be deadly, but the action prior the deadly reaction is not in and of itself deadly.

For example, pointing a gun which has a bullet in it but was never fired is not a deadly action. The reaction to it may be deadly, but the action prior the deadly reaction is not in and of itself deadly.

Or do you believe that mere gun possession -- by law enforcement or others -- is a deadly action on the part of the owner/bearer of a gun?