Deputy who shot Santa Rosa boy identified

[happyslug]

115. The real question is should Police Officers be armed?

England does NOT arm their front line police officers. US prison does the same for those guards that interact with prisoners. The reason is simple, the #1 source of weapons that kill police officers are their own guns. Think about the typical situation. An officer approaches a suspect. They start to talk. A fight breaks out as the Officer tries to arrest the suspect. In the fight the suspect somehow gets hold the the officer's gun and shoots him or her. Remember a typical police gun fight is two shoots are less then two feet. Sorry in such situations a billy club is more effective.

Now, I do NOT support a total ban on firearms for police officers. I like the idea of a two man team, One unarmed who approaches the suspect, the other behind the patrol car (or if on foot some other protection) providing covering the first officer. The team should be trained that the first officer if he or she suspect something wrong to fall on the ground so that the officer providing cover has a clear field of fire. This is what they do in prisons. The guards among the prisoners are trained to take care of themselves using their brains, but also trained that if something goes wrong to fall down and leave the gun guards have a clear field of fire.

Now, the above cuts out the ability to send one officer instead of two (or if you send one, he is unarmed unless he asks for backup, with modern cell phones and radios not a big problem). The main thrust of having the officers unarmed is it gets them to think of ways to resolve a situation other then in the use of a firearm. Remember the old saying, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". The same with officers with firearms, they tend to see problems as things that can be resolved with firearms for they have a firearm. After five to ten years of going without a firearm and seeing how to resolve problems without them, then and only then permit them to be the back up officer.

Sorry, the more I read about such incidents the more I go back to my own military training when setting up protective areas. We NEVER counted on the gate guards to do anything then to check out the vehicles coming in and telling us it was OK. If anything was wrong, it was the Machine Gun backing him up that was we depended on to stop any hostile from coming in (and the guard was trained to stay out of the field of fire of the Machine Gun for obvious reasons).

Police are going into hostile areas. No one needs an officer in peaceful areas. Since the officer are going into hostile areas, they have to be prepared for problems. At the same time, the officers have to understand that most of the people they are meeting and dealing with are NOT hostile themselves (Unlike in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea, where the majority of people supported the other side and thus hostile). Going into such areas unarmed, but with someone covering them provides the officer the security that cover provides AND the knowledge that the Officer has to deal with these people on equal terms, i.e. both are unarmed or unwilling to use arms.

I am sorry, had this officer NOT been armed he would have had to face a 13 year old with what looked like an AK-47 and how to deal with such a person. I have seen police deal with armed suspects and never pulled their weapons.

In this case I suspect the 13 year old was carrying the weapon in a port arm position (the most common position to carry a rifle, for it provides the maximum amount of control over that weapon). The 13 year old when yelled at by the officers turned around leftward, turning the barrel leftward to the officers and the officer who shot took that as an aggressive move and opened fire. I am sorry, such a move should be expected in such situations in a peace time area and thus the officer is at fault.

An alternative situation is the 13 year old was carrying the weapon in his right hand held by just the right hand. When the officer yelled at him, the 13 year old turned around leftward and again the officer saw the weapon pointing at him and took that as an aggressive action. Again I would blame the officer, for turning around should be expected when you yell at someone and that the weapon would then be in your direction fully expected. I a war zone with a hostile population, I could justify what the officer did, but in a peaceful American City (even if in a high crime areas, noted for crimes of violence) I can not for the simple reason the officer had other options, including calling for backup AND just sitting behind his patrol call till the AK was on the ground (or if the AK was a true AK and used by the person carrying it, opening fire from behind the cover of his patrol car).

Now, I suspect the officer will be cleared of any criminal charge for he had no "intent" to kill an unarmed 13 year old, the officer was "justified" in opening fire do to his belief that the toy was a real AK. On the other hand I suspect he will be sued and his employer have to pay off the family of the victim, for his actions were uncalled for under all of the circumstances of the case. His previous writing will be excluded from any criminal prosecution, but admitted into the record in the subsequent civil litigation. This will increase whatever punitive damages is awarded in this case.