You get partial credit, that the cops involved need to determine that the man with a gun is not a threat. But it is lazy procedure to do so by direct confrontation *immediately*, and that confrontation does not have to take the form of treating the man as a criminal.
There is such a thing as observed behavior, and police are supposedly trained to take “probable cause” from how a perpetrator is behaving prior to the stop. Is the man with a gun skulking about, acting suspiciously, or accosting persons belligerently? Or, as he says he was doing in this case, sitting on a bench, eating an apple quietly? The former calls for a more direct approach. The latter, less so.
The attitude displayed is one frequently seen — that the presence of the gun itself, displayed openly is in and of itself an overt threat, regardless of the behavior of the person carrying it. WE know this premise to be smelly, nitrogen-rich, and suitable for enriching lawns and farmland. THEY, on the other hand, are convinced that ALL guns not possessed by police are tainted, and when seen must be pounced upon as an immediate threat.
The idea that no criminal is going to walk around with a gun openly displayed, and behave as though nothing is wrong among law-abiding citizens (like sitting around eating an apple) does not seem to penetrate. This is not so much a procedural problem as a perceptual one that is *causing* a procedural one.
I am reminded of a member of my family, who was subjected to guns in her ear and a felony-level stop and arrest when her license and plates were suspended — because of a missing emissions test on a car she no longer owned. There was no reason to treat her in that fashion over a suspended plate. They could have simply said “did you know your plates are suspended?” If they had to arrest her, they could have done it politely. But they dragged her from the car at gunpoint, then took away her shoes and her belt and shackled her to a bench in a holding cell like a drug dealer. Their defense? “Sometimes suspended plates are on the cars of violent criminals.”
Cops do need to do their jobs. That’s understood. But there would be less anger about it if they didn’t mistreat the innocent as they went about it.
Hello, Mr. Miller. Nice of you to sign up today, to tell us this.