Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police: When confronted by officers pointing real guns at him, man refused to drop the fake gun he'd been waving in an argument
By adamg on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 12:30pm
Boston Police report officers managed to subdue a man who'd been waving a BB gun that looked like a real gun during an argument on Roxbury Street Friday evening.
While approaching the disturbance, officers observed several individuals sprinting towards them in such a way as if to suggest they were trying to avoid or evade a threat. After turning onto Roxbury Street, officers observed a male suspect brandishing what appeared to be a firearm and yelling in a threatening, menacing manner at several bystanders. Upon seeing the armed suspect, officers immediately unholstered their department-issued firearms and initiated verbal commands instructing the suspect drop the gun. At this juncture, the suspect began yelling that it was a BB gun, but refused to drop the weapon nonetheless. After a physical struggle, officers were finally able to subdue the suspect and gain control of the weapon. After the weapon was recovered, officers were able to determine that the weapon was in fact a replica firearm. In addition to the replica firearm, officers also observed and recovered a knife on the ground underneath the suspect.
Gerard Moore, 20, of Mattapan, was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon - and issued a ticket for the pocket knife, police say.
Innocent, etc.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why are Boston cops
In this instance, and many others, able to subdue a suspect, even one with what could have been a real firearm, without resorting to shooting him dead or even tasing? Yet there are many instances around the country, such as the Deven Guilford case in Michigan, where the incidents spiral out of control to where ultimately a knowingly unarmed suspect is shot dead? In the Deven Guilford case, 17 year old was shot dead after being stopped for allegedly flashing his lights to warn the officer his cruiser high beams were on or mis-alligned?
Relevance to Boston of your post
Boston police are better than those other places.
The sad reality is cops are
The sad reality is cops are afraid to shoot these days. This hesitation will cost one of them their life. A justified shooting still means being out of work pending a lengthy investigation, reduced salary due to the lack of overtime, and unjustified protests from those that support criminals more than law enforcement.
The real reality is ...
Boston cops are simply better trained. There are a number of instances in recent years in which Boston officers have used their weapons; that they do so only as a last resort is a credit to them.
Are you a cop? I am. A Boston
Are you a cop? I am. A Boston Cop. We are well trained. And we are afraid to shoot.
So stop acting like you know what it's like out there.
Did you see the video of the Michigan teen? The pictures?
The officer was nothing but professional. He asked for the drivers ID, he refused to provide it. Eventually, the teen was asked to step out of the vehicle, and he attacked the officer.
Here, I'll save you the time. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2015/06/17/photos-in...
What should an officer do in this case? Allow himself to be beaten to death?
That young man
was:
1) Face down on the ground, as he was told to do by the officer. He was bitching, but did comply.
2) The officer tased him (apparently, incorrectly, which only caused the young man to be startled and then adrenaline and fight or flight kicked in) while he was on the ground. Again,no question, he was giving the officer a hard time, I agree, but imo the officer should have been able to take him down in that situation, and securely cuff him, without the added taser drama or removing his gun from it's holster.
3) The young man was un-armed. The officer knew he was un-armed (although he didn't know his identity because Guilford refused to give him his ID or claimed he didn't have it on him. For all Officer Frost knew, he could have just killed his mom, dad and little sister, then stolen the family car. But that's worse case scenario.)
4) THE AVAILABLE VIDEO DOES NOT VERIFY THE OFFICER'S VERSION OF THE FINAL MOMENTS BEFORE GUILFORD WAS SHOT DEAD, or we have is blurred video, what sounds like a scuffle, and Guilford shrieking. Officer Frost did have a black eye, but otherwise had minor injuries.
5) WHY DID OFFICER FROST KEEP PULLING OVER DRIVERS, ALL OF WHOM TOLD HIM THE SAME THING, HIS LIGHTS WERE TOO BRIGHT? Not only did he pull them over, but he cited and ticketed them. This does not make a lot if sense. And this is the basis of his stopping Guilford. A very minor, trivial traffic stop escalated to an un-armed teenage boy, no criminal history, being shot dead for 'non-compliance'? I have a problem with that, as do many others.
And I'm not 'anti-police' by default, no political or ideological agenda.
All cops would hope this would never happen but....
1. He did not put his hands behind his back and allow himself to be handcuffed, so he really didn't comply.
2. The bad thing about tazers is that sometimes you lose control of a subject. Passive resistance would require a prone handcuffing technique which would have had the officer put a knee in the kids back, preventing him from getting up if done properly. By holding the tazer, the cop loses his ability to control the subject, then by tazing him, the officer has to get off him and the kid gets free and charges the officer.
3. The officer has no idea whether or not the kid was armed, no idea. Im sure this had something to do with the shots being fired.
4. True, we don't really know what happened, except it looks like the kid charges the cop.
5. No true, I guess the cop did not ticket the other drivers, he just warned them and sent them on their way, probably looking for more serious stuff and used the flashing lights as a pretext for more. I agree though, that pulling people for this is pretty stupid anyway, and the cop was probably annoyed that he kept getting flashed.
All in all I'm not sure the kid's family will win this lawsuit. Charging another human being with a gun is not going to be an exact science, and I guess the courts will back up the department.
meow
I hope your post was for the anon above AdamG. I'd like to think Adam probably knows more about Boston Cops than he cares to admit. He's been covering them for well over a decade and possibly more.
If the reason for less police
If the reason for less police shootings in Boston is that Boston cops are afraid to shoot, that is more probably a good thing. Considering the opposite, which is that they aren't afraid to shoot and then end up killing more people as a result. Sounds like a healthy fear to me. The only downside, as you mention anon, is that "the hesitation will cost one of them their life." And that is a terrible thing. However, is that part of being a police officer? There is a chance you will be killed in the line of duty. I think all officers know that when they "sign up" for the job. It's a dangerous one. That's why many people (including me) aren't cut out for the job.
In Summation- The less people you shoot the better, but you might die on the job if you're afraid to shoot people, but you're a cop so you might die anyway.
There are a lot of things
There are a lot of things that ultimately make up why. But the most important things come down to training and experience. BPD has a very well trained police force. Starts at the academy. In his stress situations like these people almost always revert back to their training. Massachusetts does a pretty good job with their municipal academies overall. A lot of our states instructors attend advanced training seminars around the country and bringing this back to the prospective officers as well as annual training for veteran officers allows us to be ahead of the training curve, compared to other parts of the country.
The other part being experience, isn't all on the job experience. My personal belief is that a lot of your Boston cops lived in and grew up in Boston. Doesn't mean all did. But growing up and living in the city gives you a different life experience that growing up in the sticks. Can't argue it. So most city kids are used to interacting and dealing with what a city has to offer. Combine both of these with some level headed people and you have some good officers that have a first reaction that isn't shoot the threat, even though the law says they very well could.
Policing is evolving. Some parts of the country do it better and faster than other parts of the country. Massachusetts is one of them. Just remember this doesn't speak for every officer. Some people are stuck in their ways and others are just bad officers.
Education more than training in my opinion.
I'm not really sure your average Boston cop gets any more training than the rest of the country does, especially with firearms and less than lethal options. You are seeing a lot more college educated police officers than you did 25 years ago though. There was also a burst of transfers about 10 years ago, and that transfer group pretty much bypasses the Civil Service list that usually does not get a highly educated group like the transfer group had.
Studies have shown that educated officers tend to use less force than those with less education, and I'm not sure if being from the city actually is a factor in use of force issues either.
I would also wonder if there is any correlation between Veteran officers and use of force statistics as well.
And you can kiss those higher
And you can kiss those higher numbers of college educated cops goodbye. Municipalities taking away educational incentives, and a widespread anti-cop mentality are assuring that
Well the wealther towns and cities pay them in full now.
Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Cambridge, Wellesley, Framingham, Lexington have all agreed to pay in full Quinn Bill monies to officers after Deval Patrick cut the state portion out of the budget. Boston did not and officers saw their pay cut in half, this was after the transfer influx though, and most officers have not left. It amounted to about 5K a year for most officers.
Really?
I find that hard to believe. For whom does the state's share of Quinn money make up half their salary?
Quinn pay.
Which amounts to about 5k a year.
Boston has one of the best
Boston has one of the best Academies in the country. It's very, very difficult to pass, and pretty rigorous physically and mentally. I graduated from there years ago, and the training has only gotten better.
Also, the vast majority of my classmates were college educated, and I agree with other posts on this, it makes a tremendous difference.
Pete, Boston did lose the Quinn Bill, and I agree with you, Deval Patrick and the demonstrations probably made potential candidates think twice about joining our job. Luckily, our new contract we signed under Walsh gave us back the educational incentive Patrick foolishly took away. I have several friends who are going back to school because of it, something I really like to see.
Finally, Adam I'm not sure why one of my colleagues seemed so upset with you in an earlier post on this thread. You do a tremendous job covering stories that other media in this city pretty much sucks at. And you seem pretty neutral, which is very refreshing. I would agree with them on one point though: it's gotten to the point where my biggest fear on this job, besides being killed of course, is ending up on YouTube and vilified because some cop hating civilian posts a clip of me completely out of context. I am a strong supporter of body cameras. I think America is going to be shocked at how people antagonize and attack us first.
Body cameras protect police officers, too
Body cameras protect police officers from false claims of brutality at least as much as they protect the public from badly behaved officers.
Body cameras two headed sword community policing versus body cam
Obviously body cameras have both pros and cons, I think we need to make sure we evaluate the pros against the cons carefully. Boston Police Department and certain great offices have invested countless hours in developing relationships with groups and individuals through their community policing. I know for fact because of these relationships some crimes have been solved. I'd heard officers stated, people and came up to me and gave me information at a crime scene. So let's think about this. Do you believe offices will get information not only from the victims but neighborhood people if they believe that what they saying is being tape. Because of Boston Police professionalism I can't recollect that we had to deal we have had any serious situation that called into question a Boston Police professionalism especially around shooting. We as Boston residence are going to have to decide between community policing and body cameras. I can tell you for a fact if I know officer is wearing a camera I probably would not have platonic conversation any more, we can even joke around anymore, positive humor that builds positive relationships. I stand by community policing.
BPD needs to be recognized
I'm not generally "Team Boston Police" by default but even crusty old me can acknowledge that BPD has had some real success stories (or avoidance of potential disasters) that really need public recognition relative to what has happened with other police forces in other areas with similar situations but vastly different outcomes.
There have been multiple stories all year and across this summer where BPD has arrested armed, violent or armed+violent people, even in active "the dude-is-still-shooting!" or "suicide by cop" situations without a fatal outcome. It seems to me that BPD is outperforming in this regard relative to other cities of similar size. They are doing something right and should get more recognition for this.
I mean
I'm a fan of the police not shooting people too, but I'm not really willing to acknowledge that I live in a world where a police officer not shooting someone is a feat worthy of public recognition.
You don't acknowledge
there are bad people in this world, violent, criminal sociopaths and psychopaths, who under certain circumstances, deserve to get shot? You don't believe a cop (or any law-abiding person) shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves or others, from a dangerous person or persons? Really? What do you think would happen if all the jails and prisons were opened up, the prisoners escaped, and police stopped policing? What do you think would happen if civil society, law and order, collapsed?
And what if a meteor the size of Rhode Island ...
Hit Boston in four hours? What then?
Yes, there are
So this gives law enforcement the right to exterminate anyone they think is a bad person, just because they can? Or because they are constantly and conveniently "afraid" absent evidence of someone even being armed?
You might want to go back to your civics/social studies classes in school and read up on why our founders put a lot of stuff about rights protecting us from such summary judgements in the country's founding documents. It has a lot to do with the attitude that you display here.
Note that the people in jail have been through the court system - most have not just been put there because "there are bad people in the world and somebody was afraid".
I know thinking is hard
And our schools just don't teach reading like they used to, but nothing here has any bearing on what I said.
Proper use of force guidelines...
Let's try to remember that "deserve" has nothing to do with it. Let's say someone has a weapon, is advancing upon the police officer or upon an innocent third party and refuses orders to stop or drop the weapon. Shooting that person is justified irrespective of whether he's a hardened criminal (most people would say he 'deserved to get shot'), or whether he's unfortunately suffering from some sort of psychiatric crisis (most people would say he 'didn't deserve to get shot but there was no other way of stopping him'). The police officer's job is not to determine who deserves to get shot, it's to determine when shooting someone is the only reasonable way to defend against an attack.
Thank you and be prayerful
I would like the first thank the finest Law Enforcement Department in America, the Boston Police Department; especially all the offices that were on this particular scene in many other scenes around Boston in which weapons were displayed in our great offices showed incredible and professional restraint.
I want every Bostonian and every American to realize, for every weapon especially a gun that is removed from our streets by law enforcement was an opportunity for those offices involved to not return home to their families.
I would like to also extend my prayers for this young man who was involved in this pellet gun incident. I equally pray that he will get all the help, support, and services that will help him make better decisions in his life.