As I mentioned earlier, in hindsight it's easy to see the correct choice because we now know of course that the victim was completely innocent. In the moment though, you have what you think is a potential mass murderer who only has to close the door in a fraction of a second and you've lost all control of the situation and could have multiple deaths on your hands in a matter of a minute or less. Imagine for a moment that it was all true, that he reached for his waistband, then turned and closed the door immediately, ran downstairs with a lighter and started shooting and burning. Within seconds you could have a half dozen casualties. The same hindsight arguments would have taken place. "They had a shot why didn't they shoot? Well protocol is to not shoot until you're sure who it is. But you had a 911 call telling you exactly what was taking place you should have taken him out that's what we pay you for, to make those tough decisions. What if it was a swatting though? But it wasn't...."...etc.
It still comes down to the fact that you're basing that shot on a
single, anonymous phone call. As far as the hindsight arguments, the correct response is
"We don't shoot people unless we've confirmed that they're the target. We hadn't, and so that's not a valid shot. This was a terrible tragedy but the police do not shoot people without appropriate identification."
If people don't understand that, 🤬 them. Confirming your target is Gun Handling 101. If you're trying to shoot a murderer, you don't shoot the first person you see and call it good.
I understand that people get emotional in the wake of a tragedy, regardless of outcome. But that's why you choose the course of action that is most appropriate for all situations and stay consistent with it. I don't think a country where anonymous 911 calls are automatically treated as justification for shooting someone is a safer country. Apart from the people who get shot unnecessarily, it undermines the faith that the public should be able to have that their police will protect the innocent and only use force against those who deserve it.
In the US, anyone who is concealed carrying is a potential mass murderer who only has to take a fraction of a second to draw their weapon and start firing. Do you take a shot at them, just in case? I don't feel like you're quite following through on what happens if you apply the logic of "an anonymous phone call is justification for shooting an unidentified target" to policing in general.
Honestly, it's the exact reason why Second Amendment advocates are so vociferous. If that's the standard of evidence police need to start shooting, then I imagine a lot of people will take that as good reason to simply shoot police on sight. And I could see the logic behind that. If the police can shoot you on the say so of basically anyone, then the safest thing to do is to either remove the police as a threat or make yourself so dangerous that they have no desire to come anywhere near you.
Even if the call was accurate about the hostages and gasoline, and the man that exited the house was indeed the murderer who was on the phone, it's still a bad shot. You can't take that shot, because the only evidence of lethal means or intent is a single, anonymous phone call. I say that's not enough to be considering ending someone's life.
You talk about hindsight, but let's take that out of the picture and generalise. Say you have ten similar cases a year, which is probably not unreasonable across the country. You have a phone call. You have an unidentified man exiting a house of his own volition to investigate noise/lights. He makes an odd movement. At this point, you don't know if it's another Andrew Finch or if this is a legit psychopath. You don't have time to consider the options in the moment, but that's why you sat down in training at the station last week and worked out what to do in these situations. You discussed it thoroughly, went through the pros and cons of all the possible actions and chose the one that will consistently lead to the best outcomes over a number of cases.
What do you do, and why? How does your answer benefit the community in the long term over multiple similar scenarios?
The gun isn't the only threat though. He supposedly has a house full of hostages, weapons and gasoline spread around ready to be ignited instantly. All he had to do was close the door and they'd have lost total control of the situation.
Not really, no. They have no less control than they already had. The guy walking outside was fortuitous. They (presumably) had a plan if he didn't do so. They simply get to continue with that.
Also, I feel like you're over-estimating the threat of a house soaked in gasoline. Firstly, it can't be everywhere because it would be impossible to breathe. Standing over a puddle of gasoline is not pleasant. Realistically, he's got half a dozen gallons spread around a handful of rooms, probably not right where he and the hostages are. Secondly, a house doesn't become an inferno immediately. You see fire or smoke, you have an opportunity to rush the house if you wish. The 911 operator will have hooked in the fire department the moment he mentioned gasoline, so they'll be right behind you. Frankly, the concern is for the lives of the hostages, and they're at far more threat from the lunatic with the gun than the gasoline soaked house. If he lights the house, the second thing he does is shoot them, and the third is shoot himself. Fire is the least of their problems and really doesn't factor into the threat.
Even assuming the phone call was accurate, if the murderer walks back inside it is by no means a given that there are no good outcomes. And this is also assuming that if the shot wasn't taken when it was, he walks inside. Do you start to see how there's this enormous pile of assumptions that have to be made to even start attempting to justify that shot?
That is why you identify your target. So you don't assume. A trustworthy police force does not use lethal force on assumptions.
