Given that people in the U.S. have the right to be armed, with anything from nail clippers to 18-wheelers, I demand a bit more justification for a violent intervention than simply carrying or controlling a weapon.<p>So you are correct when you say armed with a toy and armed with a functional weapon should be treated in the same way.  But I don&#x27;t think possessing an object that may or may not be a weapon is sufficient justification in itself for the use of lethal force.  I think police need to exercise <i>every available opportunity to de-escalate</i> conflicts, with the goal being to deliver the suspects alive and unharmed to the courts for arraignment.  That may actually mean that the cops have to let the suspect fire a shot before he gets a lead shower.  That would leave no doubt that yes, it is a real weapon, and yes, the suspect is willing to use it inappropriately.<p>I don&#x27;t want 750k Judge Dredds on the street, acting as judge, jury, and executioner.<p>When a man takes cover and points a gun, he should be ordered to &quot;show me empty hands&quot; [0], then given a reasonable opportunity to assess his situation and comply.  If he even <i>fires</i> the gun, <i>and</i> injures a cop, he should <i>still</i> be given an opportunity to surrender and make it to the courtroom alive.<p>[0] As &quot;drop the weapon&quot; is confusing to a person not actually carrying one.