Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.

At what point did I state that the man was dangerous because he was on drugs? I didn't. I said he chose to abuse drugs which is factually supported by the coroner's report and certainly played a role in his inability to adequately process the situation and comply with the officer's instructions.

You didn't, you stated the person was shot because of the decisions they made in life. The main reason you brought up was the fact that this person was on drugs. A cop needs to have a perceived threat before he can shoot. Not removing your hand from your pocket when you are at a clear disadvantage against the officer is not a threat. The man is not Clint Eastwood. He cant draw that quickly. Especially while sitting down in a car. So there was no danger for the officer. Where was the threat coming from? A lot of people are blaming it on the fact that the man was on drugs clouding his perception. But, after the fact it is proven he was not dangerous as he had no weapon. But, it was his choice to do drugs in life that led him to being shot. Are you following how ridiculous this argument is yet?

But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation, it was the drugs he was hiding that were occupying his time. We could also overlook the fact that the only thing that could be perceived as aggressive towards the officer was he was digging around in his pocket. In the time that he was digging around in his pocket, he produced no weapon to threaten the officer with. An officer who already had a weapon drawn and targeted on the subject and could have fired on him as soon as he saw a weapon being pulled.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.

Can I get a link to that law? I would like to read through that.

Also, can somebody please tell me why it is alright to fire in to a car full of civilians, endangering the lives of the other people in the car? Nobody seems to want to talk about that. Everybody just wants to talk about how the man was shot and that was fine to them. If this officer was looking to protect civilians by killing this man, maybe he shouldn't have fired in to a car full of them.

In 2013, he probably shouldn't have shot an unarmed man who had just been tazered by a different cop. All because "he had a crazed look on his face" just seconds after being hit with surges of electricity. (A cop using non-lethal means to subdue a person, that puts him in danger! Not on his watch!)

So many points people are not arguing.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.

I got bored and looked up the laws for North Carolina. (It says you live there on your profile)

Is this the correct one? If so, it reads slightly different than the way you described it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation

Are you serious?

METH HARM
SHORT-TERM EFFECTS

Loss of appetite
Increased heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature
Dilation of pupils
Disturbed sleep patterns
Nausea
Bizarre, erratic, sometimes violent behavior
Hallucinations, hyperexcitability, irritability
Panic and psychosis
Convulsions, seizures and death from high doses

I mean, seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant.

As per above, are you serious?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation

And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?

Maybe the LEO wasn't trained for a Taser. Maybe his training expired and he was waiting for the next class. maybe the guy was wearing some thick clothing.

 cincydooley wrote:

METH HARM
SHORT-TERM EFFECTS

Loss of appetite
Increased heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature
Dilation of pupils
Disturbed sleep patterns
Nausea
Bizarre, erratic, sometimes violent behavior
Hallucinations, hyperexcitability, irritability
Panic and psychosis
Convulsions, seizures and death from high doses

I mean, seriously.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?

Little bit overkill to tazer a person and then fatally shoot them.

Again, they didn't just randomly go up to someone and taser them. When you have reason to deploy a taser in the first place and the only response from it is a crazed look, it's time to switch tactics. LEO are in a profession where their lives might be at risk, that doesn't mean they should be expected to risk their lives unreasonably. Once the badge is flashed and the gun comes out, its time to comply. If the LEO is doing something wrong, sort it out afterwards. The guy in the OP was high on meth, carrying meth, and after being told to keep his hands visible reached for his waist in a country where every man and his wienerdog can carry guns. He should have put his hands where the LEO could see them like everyone else did, he didn't.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
And the guy who had a 'crazed look on his face' after getting tasered by the LEO..... did the LEO just randomly walk up to someone and taser them? Presumably they had a reason for firing the taser in the first place, right?

Little bit overkill to tazer a person and then fatally shoot them.

Again, they didn't just randomly go up to someone and taser them. When you have reason to deploy a taser in the first place and the only response from it is a crazed look, it's time to switch tactics. LEO are in a profession where their lives might be at risk, that doesn't mean they should be expected to risk their lives unreasonably. Once the badge is flashed and the gun comes out, its time to comply. If the LEO is doing something wrong, sort it out afterwards. The guy in the OP was high on meth, carrying meth, and after being told to keep his hands visible reached for his waist in a country where every man and his wienerdog can carry guns. He should have put his hands where the LEO could see them like everyone else did, he didn't.

He shot him within two seconds after the tazer going off. Did you watch the video? It was also 2v1. But hey, just shoot him, right? Also, just because a person can does not mean they are.

The man was high on meth, he had been fumbling at his side and did not provide a weapon or a reasonable threat to the police officer. Certainly not enough of one to fire in to a vehicle with a person sitting next to your target. Who cares about that collateral damage though?

I'm sure it wont matter to you, but the NIDA website also agrees:

Long-term effects may include:

Addiction
Psychosis, including:
paranoia
hallucinations
repetitive motor activity
Changes in brain structure and function
Deficits in thinking and motor skills
Increased distractibility
Memory loss
Aggressive or violent behavior
Mood disturbances
Severe dental problems
Weight loss

As does PBS Frontline

I mean, you can keep denying it all you want, but those are the facts.

Additionally, as we've pointed out to you MULTIPLE TIMES, failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" by reaching for your waste is a threatening motion.

But you've made it pretty clear that you're very set in your opinion.

Actually took him a long time to get off Meth addiction and starring in a upcoming series on AMC I think.

Edit

Cincy you have some serious patience or one diabolical plan

 Jihadin wrote:


Cincy you have some serious patience or one diabolical plan

I must just be trying to get a suspension again. Don't know why I'm bothering.

It is immediately obvious if a Taser doesn't work. A successful use will immediately disable the target, but if you miss, the voltage isn't sufficient, or something else goes wrong you don't have the Taser as an option. You only get one shot with it. 2 seconds is more than enough time to escalate to lethal force.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Cincy you have some serious patience or one diabolical plan

I must just be trying to get a suspension again. Don't know why I'm bothering.

I see no cause for a suspension from you and neither from Dreadclaw. IMO and experience he made the right call.
Hell we shot up a car who blew through our check point in Iraq for fear it was a VIED
The other platoon shot up a motorcycle who blew through their check point because they were late for class
I drew down on drivers and occupants who did not or were real damn slow showing me both their hands as I or my troops approach the vehicle.

Its gawddamn nerve wracking

I've no sympathy for the meth head who pulled a wrong move making the LEO think he has a possible guy wanting to be a cop killer for revenge of Garner and Brown.

 Jihadin wrote:

I see no cause for a suspension from you and neither from Dreadclaw.

Yet

It's only a matter of time before I lose my patience, say something condescending, and get flagged for being a big ole meanie pants.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

I see no cause for a suspension from you and neither from Dreadclaw.

Yet

It's only a matter of time before I lose my patience, say something condescending, and get flagged for being a big ole meanie pants.

One thing I remember is that this is the internet and d-usa hammered me once with calling me a internet bad a$$ guy or some crap. That got my goat so I responded in kind questioning his work ethics. You know what though. Your all like me but with a different look and out take. I hate these threads because I can see what they could have done and what they could not have done. I'm not in their position to judge their call on escalation of force of justification of force. Its the LEO decision being he/she is one "POINT" every damn day he or she puts on that uniform. I go on "Point" for a year or more but I get to unwind a bit before I am slammed back into that environment. We're use to violence and making decisions because of our EXPERIENCE in a shooting match but we also follow RoE and once all those ROE check boxes get checked then its "Do unto others as they unto you and call in air support if needed"

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm sure it wont matter to you, but the NIDA website also agrees:

Long-term effects may include:

Addiction
Psychosis, including:
paranoia
hallucinations
repetitive motor activity
Changes in brain structure and function
Deficits in thinking and motor skills
Increased distractibility
Memory loss
Aggressive or violent behavior
Mood disturbances
Severe dental problems
Weight loss

As does PBS Frontline

I mean, you can keep denying it all you want, but those are the facts.

Additionally, as we've pointed out to you MULTIPLE TIMES, failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" by reaching for your waste is a threatening motion.

But you've made it pretty clear that you're very set in your opinion.

It is like you ignored everything I said about symptoms not always being present. I believe I have pointed out how your failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" is not enough for to be considered a threatening motion. In fact, I am pretty sure I talked to an expert on the subject and he informed me that if you shoot before a weapon is presented you have jumped the gun on the situation and your training has failed you. I brought these things up. You have ignored them. Much like my many attempts to bring up the fact that the officer fired in to a vehicle full of people for one person.

You have provided me nothing to prove your point. Plus, Jihadin is bringing up his military career in relation to police work in a non warzone. At this point, I am wondering if you guys are even reading what I say or just frothing at the mouth because I disagree with you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is immediately obvious if a Taser doesn't work. A successful use will immediately disable the target, but if you miss, the voltage isn't sufficient, or something else goes wrong you don't have the Taser as an option. You only get one shot with it. 2 seconds is more than enough time to escalate to lethal force.

So because a tazer does not take a man down, it is alright to use lethal even if you still outnumber him 2 to 1 and could peacefully resolve a situation?

Jihadin wrote:
One thing I remember is that this is the internet and d-usa hammered me once with calling me a internet bad a$$ guy or some crap. That got my goat so I responded in kind questioning his work ethics. You know what though. Your all like me but with a different look and out take. I hate these threads because I can see what they could have done and what they could not have done. I'm not in their position to judge their call on escalation of force of justification of force. Its the LEO decision being he/she is one "POINT" every damn day he or she puts on that uniform. I go on "Point" for a year or more but I get to unwind a bit before I am slammed back into that environment. We're use to violence and making decisions because of our EXPERIENCE in a shooting match but we also follow RoE and once all those ROE check boxes get checked then its "Do unto others as they unto you and call in air support if needed"

It shouldn't take being an internet badass to know that if a guy with the legal right to kill you if they think it might turn out to be a hairy situation happens to have a gun pointed at you, that you need to act carefully. I honestly don't understand the mentality of some people - it's like they think they can't shoot me. Yes, they can. The stupidity defense only works in a courtroom.

Dreadwinter wrote:
It is like you ignored everything I said about symptoms not always being present. I believe I have pointed out how your failing to comply with a "put your hands up order" is not enough for to be considered a threatening motion. In fact, I am pretty sure I talked to an expert on the subject and he informed me that if you shoot before a weapon is presented you have jumped the gun on the situation and your training has failed you. I brought these things up. You have ignored them. Much like my many attempts to bring up the fact that the officer fired in to a vehicle full of people for one person.

You have provided me nothing to prove your point. Plus, Jihadin is bringing up his military career in relation to police work in a non warzone. At this point, I am wondering if you guys are even reading what I say or just frothing at the mouth because I disagree with you.

How exactly do you expect the police officer to know what particular symptom/s the man might have been experiencing at the time?

Dreadwinter wrote:So because a tazer does not take a man down, it is alright to use lethal even if you still outnumber him 2 to 1 and could peacefully resolve a situation?

It takes two sides to resolve a situation peacefully. If it was a 2v1 situation, maybe he should have complied?

 Torga_DW wrote:


How exactly do you expect the police officer to know what particular symptom/s the man might have been experiencing at the time?

Well, the police officer didn't know he was on meth at the time so had no reason to suspect psychosis/hallucinations/other potential side effects linked with meth-amphetamine use.

People claim that it is wrong to use hindsight to evaluate how the situation should have been resolved then use hindsight following the toxicology reports to say that the officer was right to shoot him as he was on meth and so therefore possibly a violent psychotic.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:So because a tazer does not take a man down, it is alright to use lethal even if you still outnumber him 2 to 1 and could peacefully resolve a situation?

It takes two sides to resolve a situation peacefully. If it was a 2v1 situation, maybe he should have complied?

I assume by peacefully he meant non-lethally in which case, no it doesn't.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

First off, the fact that the man was on drugs is irrelevant. Not all people on drugs are dangerous. Which means not all people on drugs can be lawfully shot. (See what I am doing here?) As a civilian, you can legally defend yourself against lethal force against an unarmed man as long as the person is presenting a valid danger to your life. If he is choking you, sure. If the man threw a punch at you, good luck buddy. He is really coming at you with intent.

At what point did I state that the man was dangerous because he was on drugs? I didn't. I said he chose to abuse drugs which is factually supported by the coroner's report and certainly played a role in his inability to adequately process the situation and comply with the officer's instructions.

You didn't, you stated the person was shot because of the decisions they made in life. The main reason you brought up was the fact that this person was on drugs. A cop needs to have a perceived threat before he can shoot. Not removing your hand from your pocket when you are at a clear disadvantage against the officer is not a threat. The man is not Clint Eastwood. He cant draw that quickly. Especially while sitting down in a car. So there was no danger for the officer. Where was the threat coming from? A lot of people are blaming it on the fact that the man was on drugs clouding his perception. But, after the fact it is proven he was not dangerous as he had no weapon. But, it was his choice to do drugs in life that led him to being shot. Are you following how ridiculous this argument is yet?

But, lets overlook the fact that the drugs he was on did not actually have any factor on how he was processing the situation, it was the drugs he was hiding that were occupying his time. We could also overlook the fact that the only thing that could be perceived as aggressive towards the officer was he was digging around in his pocket. In the time that he was digging around in his pocket, he produced no weapon to threaten the officer with. An officer who already had a weapon drawn and targeted on the subject and could have fired on him as soon as he saw a weapon being pulled.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.

Can I get a link to that law? I would like to read through that.

Also, can somebody please tell me why it is alright to fire in to a car full of civilians, endangering the lives of the other people in the car? Nobody seems to want to talk about that. Everybody just wants to talk about how the man was shot and that was fine to them. If this officer was looking to protect civilians by killing this man, maybe he shouldn't have fired in to a car full of them.

In 2013, he probably shouldn't have shot an unarmed man who had just been tazered by a different cop. All because "he had a crazed look on his face" just seconds after being hit with surges of electricity. (A cop using non-lethal means to subdue a person, that puts him in danger! Not on his watch!)

So many points people are not arguing.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't know the precise wording of the law in your state but here in mine I can use lethal force to defend myself from a reasonable threat of imminent harm, which does not require that the person whom I perceive to be an imminent threat lay a hand on me or take a swing at me. I can even lawfully fire through a locked door at somebody on the other side. There are a whole host of actions and words that a person can do/say that can justify the use of lethal force without coming into contact with the other person at all.

I got bored and looked up the laws for North Carolina. (It says you live there on your profile)

Is this the correct one? If so, it reads slightly different than the way you described it.

Yes, it reads pretty much exactly how I said it did, I'm not sure what your point of confusion might be. A person needs to have a reasonable belief that the attacker they shoot poses an imminent threat of death or bodily harm. Reasonable belief doesn't require that the aggressor put his/her hands on you or attempt to strike you it simply means that the circumstances were such that it was reasonable to believe that the person posed a direct threat. The aggressor's words, movements, body language, etc. can all make a reasonable person believe that the aggressor is an imminent threat. If somebody gets in my face, aggressively walks up to me, gets loud and verbally aggressive, takes an aggressive stance, things that make the other reasonable people around me start stepping back apprehensively because they can tell that that person intends on trying to beat me up, it's also reasonable for me to believe that person is about to try to hurt me and I can use lethal force to defend myself from that imminent fight/beating/bodily harm.


http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.pdf

SG 14-51.2 sections a and b identify that a citizen in his/her home has the right to defend him/herself with lethal force fromsomebody attempting to break into the home. The aggressor does not need to complete the act of breaking into the residence in order for lethal force to be justified. If somebody has chosen to unlawfully attempt to forcibly enter your home then it is reasonable to believe that said person has ill intent and poses a threat of imminent bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


How exactly do you expect the police officer to know what particular symptom/s the man might have been experiencing at the time?

Well, the police officer didn't know he was on meth at the time so had no reason to suspect psychosis/hallucinations/other potential side effects linked with meth-amphetamine use.

People claim that it is wrong to use hindsight to evaluate how the situation should have been resolved then use hindsight following the toxicology reports to say that the officer was right to shoot him as he was on meth and so therefore possibly a violent psychotic.

True, but his fidgety actions/refusal to comply with the LEO's request to raise his hands are what the LEO did see. A decent cop also would have seen the condition of the guy's face/eyes and suspected drug use. All that would have registered at some level and influenced the cop's decision at the time. Meth addicts are pretty easy to ID, and any cop working an area with meth being used knows what to look for.

If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.

It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.

North Carolina Stand Your Ground Law wrote:(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

So actually, you cannot just shoot a man any time he threatens you like we have been led to believe. In fact, it is clearly against the law, according to this, to use deadly force you have to reasonably believe the person is going to do great harm or use deadly force against you. I dunno about you, but I haven't found a lot of people who can kill me through a locked door. Well, except people with guns. Kinda like you in your scenario. Holy crap, maybe I missed it. Were you playing the attacker in your scenario?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.

Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.

 CptJake wrote:


Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.

To be fair, I think there's evidence that LEOs don't always necessarily understand the law of their jurisdiction either.

 daedalus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.

To be fair, I think there's evidence that LEOs don't always necessarily understand the law of their jurisdiction either.

As evidenced by the thread regarding the NC patrolman who pulled the guy over for a "busted" taillight that wasn't illegal and scored a drug bust.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.

Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.

Thanks for the opening I needed for this

Now we can even shoot black cops and still nobody gets arrested!

http://kfor.com/2015/01/15/oklahoma-officer-borrowed-bulletproof-vest-moments-before-being-shot-four-times/

All snark aside, I can actually agree with the decision so far. If the guy truly didn't know it was cops on the house then it should count as a justified shooting.

You'd think that the cops would keep on yelling "police department" until someone answered or the house was cleared. I know we would always yell "ambulance" or "fire department" until we made contact just so nobody would shoot us.

My law enforcement experience is this: i've personally seen enough cops behaving badly to know not to give them a reason. It's just common sense. The guy who got shot was doing the wrong thing at every turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Now we can even shoot black cops and still nobody gets arrested!

http://kfor.com/2015/01/15/oklahoma-officer-borrowed-bulletproof-vest-moments-before-being-shot-four-times/

All snark aside, I can actually agree with the decision so far. If the guy truly didn't know it was cops on the house then it should count as a justified shooting.

You'd think that the cops would keep on yelling "police department" until someone answered or the house was cleared. I know we would always yell "ambulance" or "fire department" until we made contact just so nobody would shoot us.

Down here, yelling any of those 3 runs the risk of bystanders attacking you.

Idiots.
Doesn't OK have Castle Doctrine?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.

It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.

That you have and I have yet to hear a compelling reason why an officer should wait until the suspect flashes iron before opening up. If your ideas went into practice then we would end up with a lot more dead cops since it doesn't take much time from when it can be confirmed that the suspect has a gat until the police officer has been capped. Furthermore, what good reason would someone have to reach for a hidden place when an officer is yelling at them to keep their hands in the open? They're either going for a weapon or an idiot for looking like they are going for a weapon. It's not hard to avoid getting shot by the police. Just do what they tell you.