!!Murica!!

[Gob]

A four-year-old boy fired a gun at police officers on the instruction of his father following a dispute over his order at a McDonald's drive-through.

Officers were called to the scene after the father brandished a gun at the pick-up window of the fast food chain in Midvale, Salt Lake City, at around 1.30pm on February 21 and demanded that his order be corrected.

The Utah man was asked to pull into a waiting area while staff corrected his order but he refused to co-operate.

He was issued 'several verbal commands' to exit the car before he was forcibly removed from the vehicle by officers.

As officers were taking the man into custody, one looked back and saw a gun, which was being held by the man's four-year-old son in the backseat, pointed at the police from the rear window.

The police officer was able to swipe the gun to the side as the child opened fire and directed the bullet away.

He then shouted 'kid' to other officers after seeing how young the shooter was.

A witness observed the father tell the four-year-old, who was in the backseat with a three-year-old sibling, to shoot the gun, Sergeant Melody Cutler, a spokesperson for the Unified Police Department, said.

Today Salt Lake County sheriff Rosie Rivera said the 'campaign against police officers needed to stop' before going on to say she had 'never seen anything like this in her 28 years.'

She told reporters: 'This campaign against police officers just needs to stop. We're here to protect and serve, and this is getting out of hand.

[Crackpot]

Well the cops had be until that crap about “the campaign against police officers”

[BoSoxGal]

You don’t think that police officers are being targeted much more now than in the past?

I’m all for reforming the police, but as vehemently as I believe in that, I’ve certainly noticed that in the last couple of years attacks on police are way up - like it has become socially acceptable among some people to target them.

[Big RR]

Is that possibly a result of the observation that police are attacking unarmed civilians more? It may not be the case (perhaps the reporting is just more common); when the police are seen as just another gang (be it a group of racists or just brutes), then they will be targeted more often by gang members and others. I do think there was a time when people wouldn't attack police officers because they were seen as different, but this has apparently changed.

[Long Run]

Is that possibly a result of the observation that police are attacking unarmed civilians more? It may not be the case (perhaps the reporting is just more common);

Bingo.

[Bicycle Bill]

Consider the number of people who are walking around right this minute with concealed weapons on or about their person, legally or not.  Now re-read the original post.  When a person brandishes a weapon at someone in a drive-up window; persists in acting like a complete and total asshole when asked to move aside while an error is corrected until the situation escalates to where the police WERE brought into the scenario; and then leaves that weapon (or possibly a second one) within reach of a three- or four-year-old and said four-year-old uses the weapon to shoot at someone AT THE PARENT'S DIRECTION (and I don't give a flying fuck if they're shooting at a carjacker, a cop, or Satan himself) — then I don't know how you can claim that the police are attacking "unarmed civilians".

Sure, there have been cases where the LEO over-reacts to someone reaching under the seat or into his waistband and it turns out the guy was just releasing the seatbelt or scratching his balls, but does the cop have to be shot at first before he or she is allowed to try to protect himself?  That's like saying you can't shoot a charging grizzly bear until it actually mauls you because, maybe, it was just coming up to give you a big cuddly hug.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Sure, there have been cases where the LEO over-reacts to someone reaching under the seat or into his waistband and it turns out the guy was just releasing the seatbelt or scratching his balls, but does the cop have to be shot at first before he or she is allowed to try to protect himself?

So you answer is, what, that any time a cop feels justified (s)he can shoot someone? I don't buy that. Sure, sometimes there are circumstances that may well justify it even if the cop is wrong, but there are also a lot of other times where a racist or brutal or just plain asshole chooses to shoot an unarmed person, and that is not justified. And the more time that happens, the more time that many see cops as another gang, and fair game. And that's a pretty good loss for the average police officer.

[Bicycle Bill]

I suggest you Google a concept known as "Continuum of Force".  This posits that there are other ways to deter or control a subject without automatically resorting to lethal force, and to my knowledge this is – at least in theory – the stated practice of most if not all law enforcement agencies.

But if a suspect introduces a firearm into the scenario, well — as the saying goes, only a fool brings a knife to a gunfight.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

the stated practice of most if not all law enforcement agencies.

Which, if most police followed, there would be far less problems; unfortunately, as reports show, this is not the case.