Libs hint that armed black suspects should be allowed to fire first

If the Cops get a call to an issue and some Idiot pulls a gun or aims it toward the Officers I hope they get the first shot and are able to go home at night.  This shows that there is a mental deficiency when these Idiots think they should fire first

The New York Times had an article examining the need for police to shoot Keith Scott, a black man who was discovered by police with marijuana and a gun.  A video shows Mr. Scott being shot after being repeatedly told by his wife "don't do it!" and being told repeatedly by cops to "drop your gun!"

The Times article focused on the way police might have been able to de-escalate the situation.  It's a comical article, because these "experts" are talking about de-escalating a situation where a suspect is holding a gun and refuses several repeated orders to drop it.  Even if Mr. Scott had the gun legally (he didn't), even a legal gun owner doesn't wave a gun around when police are around, and a legal gun owner certainly would immediately obey an order to drop it.

But the Times' experts talked about the fantastical ways the situation of the armed suspect disobeying orders might have been de-escalated.

Joseph Ryan: You need to ask if you need to be confronting the person now, or if you can leave and come back if the situation requires it.

Of course!  A suspect refuses to drop his gun.  The police should leave and return at a time when the suspect is more likely to be amenable, leaving the suspect, and his gun, to their own affairs.

Another expert:

If you don't have to get that close, then don't. You can sit there and contain him and talk to him all day long. There's no rush. 

A man with a gun refuses to obey orders to drop it.  There's no rush.  You can wait all day long.  What's the hurry?  What's the worst that can happen if you wait?  What, he might come out shooting?  Oh, yes.

Officers shouted repeatedly at Mr. Scott to "drop the gun." On the videos, that is their only attempt to speak to him, but the experts noted that the officers might have tried a less confrontational approach before the video began.

So when the police see a man with a gun, rather than order him to immediately drop it, they should take the time to start a casual conversation, establish an emotional connection, and then ask him to drop it.  If the suspect hasn't shot them by the time they get around to asking him to drop the weapon, they've been successful.

So the Times seems to be saying is that when officers see an armed man who refuses (several!) orders to drop his gun, they should take a chance and wait and see if the suspect shoots them first.  What other conclusion can you draw from all the dilatory tactics the Times recommends in the face of an armed suspect?  But even the Times is not ready to explicitly say, "Let the suspect shoot first," so that same sentiment is expressed in terms of "containing" and "waiting out" the suspect...but waiting for what?

This is the political subtext of the entire Black Lives Matter movement.  The police should be expected to risk their own lives in dangerous situations.  It doesn't take a half ounce of common sense to know not to hold a gun up to police or disobey police commands.  I think we are seeing the beginning of a campaign to legitimize a new code of conduct for the police that would let suspects fire first.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/libs_hint_that_armed_black_suspects_should_be_allowed_to_fire_first.html