.... eta:
However, black men accounted for 40 percent of the 60
unarmed deaths,...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/08/black-and-unarmed/ ....
bbm sbm Assuming WaPo's ^ analysis is correct and
only X% or XX% of ppl shot to death by LEOs are armed,
do we logically conclude
those deaths are the
only possibly justified LE shootings? None of the other shootings c/be justified?
If that's the line of thinking, sorry, I respectfully disagree.
1. A person without a weapon in hand or w an object not likely to inflict fatal injury, e.g. stick or broom handle,
can use the less-than-typically-lethal weapon to overcome LEO and
take control of LEO's firearm & use it to shoot him, possibly kill him.
Latest FBI data re
LEOs killed I found end in 2009:
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/aboutleoka.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/tabletitlelist.html
Table 14—Killed with Own Weapons, Victim Officer’s Type of Weapon, 2000–2009
(
Table 36—Killed with Firearms, Distance Between Victim Officer and Offender, 2000–2009.
# victim officers killed = 490 and of those, 247 were shot from
0 to 5 ft away. Yikes!)
A diff database & tables re LEOKA cover
LEOs assaulted.
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/officersassaulted.html
A diff set for
federal officers killed & assaulted.
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/federalofficers.html
2. Neither LE, nor virtually any other mortal being, can reliably & consistently identify 'pellet guns' or some toys imo. Does not seem reasonable for LE protocol to dictate officers proceed by
azz-uming a questionable gun cannot injure.
Has everyone here seen
side by side pix of guns and pellet guns, lookalikes, replica guns, 'toy' guns, airsoft?
Ready to stake your life on ability to distinguish real from others? After a class on subject? Me neither.
JM2cts, could be all wrong.
____________________________________________________________________________________
From above WaPo link:
"...every fatal shooting by police in 2015, The Post is separating the dead into four categories, based on information provided by police and other sources:
Someone is considered armed if he or she had a deadly weapon — such as a gun, a knife or a machete — or some other object that could inflict fatal injury given the circumstances of the encounter. People who drove aggressively at officers or otherwise used a vehicle to try to inflict harm are also considered armed.
A person is considered unarmed if he or she was not in possession of a weapon at the time of the shooting or was holding an object unlikely to inflict serious injury, such as a stick or a broom handle.
People brandishing pellet guns or other toy weapons — which often are indistinguishable from firearms — make up a third category.
And in some cases, The Post could not determine whether a person was armed because of conflicting accounts from witnesses or a lack of information."
