protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 58,214
- 18,987
- 2,250
The media. Loaded with anti-police, liberal bias, love doing stories about cops shooting suspects whom they label as “unarmed”. Just last night, 60 Minutes did a segment on what they called a police officer shooting an “unarmed man”.
Actually, it makes no difference if a suspect has a gun or doesn’t have one. In reality, ALL suspects are armed. The distance between the cop and who he shoots, is really more relevant than what the suspect may be carrying. If a suspect is far away, and his hands are visible without a gun, it may make no sense to shoot him. Without possession of a gun and being far away, he would be no threat (at least temporarily). Rarely is this the case though in media reports of of police shootings of so-called “unarmed men”.
In every one that I recall (except the Walter Scott shooting), the suspect was within the infamous 21 foot zone, that crime experts assess as a danger zone distance.
There are a number of ways that a so-called “unarmed man” could still be a lethal threat, with or without a common weapon.
1. If his hands go out of sight, he could be reaching for a gun in his p0ocket, in a hidden holster, in a car. In a backpack, etc. Grabbing that gun and shooting take a fraction of a second.
2. A suspect without a gun (but within the 21 foot zone), could suddenly charge at an officer (or CCW holder), and fight him for HIS gun. So.. in a sense, at close range, potentially, the suspect is always armed, with the officer’s own gun.
3. A suspect, without a gun, could be armed in a multitude of ways – steel tipped shoes, cigarette lighter, golf ball, rocks, ball point pen, sharp stick, string, belt, poison, acid, etc., all with lethal consequences, if the suspect is given the opportunity to use these things (a one second hesitation could be enough).
Actually, it makes no difference if a suspect has a gun or doesn’t have one. In reality, ALL suspects are armed. The distance between the cop and who he shoots, is really more relevant than what the suspect may be carrying. If a suspect is far away, and his hands are visible without a gun, it may make no sense to shoot him. Without possession of a gun and being far away, he would be no threat (at least temporarily). Rarely is this the case though in media reports of of police shootings of so-called “unarmed men”.
In every one that I recall (except the Walter Scott shooting), the suspect was within the infamous 21 foot zone, that crime experts assess as a danger zone distance.
There are a number of ways that a so-called “unarmed man” could still be a lethal threat, with or without a common weapon.
1. If his hands go out of sight, he could be reaching for a gun in his p0ocket, in a hidden holster, in a car. In a backpack, etc. Grabbing that gun and shooting take a fraction of a second.
2. A suspect without a gun (but within the 21 foot zone), could suddenly charge at an officer (or CCW holder), and fight him for HIS gun. So.. in a sense, at close range, potentially, the suspect is always armed, with the officer’s own gun.
3. A suspect, without a gun, could be armed in a multitude of ways – steel tipped shoes, cigarette lighter, golf ball, rocks, ball point pen, sharp stick, string, belt, poison, acid, etc., all with lethal consequences, if the suspect is given the opportunity to use these things (a one second hesitation could be enough).