12-01-2014, 04:50 PM
(12-01-2014, 04:26 PM)username Wrote: That is splitting hairs in my opinion. The caller believed strongly enough that it was probably a fake gun that he told the dispatcher that at least twice (or was it three times)?It's the difference between reluctance to file a report and observed evidence of a report. The caller, no matter how many times he stated his ignorance of the details, never reported contrary evidence to the reason he was calling.
I think you said you agree that the officers screwed up in the way in which they drove up on the kid. Had they even had an inkling that it might be a fake gun, do you believe it would have gone down differently and that kid might still be alive?
If anything, telling the cops it's probably fake should lead them MORE into a dangerous situation. If you think it's fake you'll pull up that close to the suspect, get out of your car with less caution, and then get shot by a real gun or panic when you see what you think is a real gun and shoot the suspect.
Telling the cops a guy has a gun should make them more cautious and LESS likely to put themselves in the dangerous situation. The rookie felt threatened because the driver was a moron. If they had treated it with proper caution, the kid would have had every opportunity to drop the gun and get down on the ground.
It's like I see a lot of smoke in my neighbor's yard. If I call up 911 and tell them I saw a ton of smoke, but it could be a fire or they could be BBQing poorly, should the operator and dispatcher just send a cop to investigate and delay response time of mobilizing a fire truck? That increases the likelihood that my neighbors and my house burn down. Whereas if they send the truck... we have to assume they're not going to kick in all the doors and windows, unroll the hoses, and blast the shit out of the grill in the backyard.