There are few things in this world more convincing than a man determined to be stupid, and fewer still more persuasive than a pistol that looks real at three o’clock in the morning.
On April 25, in that cheerful hour when only bakers, burglars, and poor decision-makers are awake, a gentleman named Mitchell Nettles took it upon himself to stroll near Arville and Harmon dressed for a small war and equipped for a misunderstanding. He wore a tactical vest, carried a BB gun dressed up like a Glock, and possessed the strong personal conviction that instructions from a police officer were merely suggestions from a stranger.
Officer Alex Pena, 26 and two years into the profession of making quick decisions in slow company, attempted what the trade calls a “person stop.” It is a polite phrase meaning, “Sir, kindly explain yourself before this becomes educational.”
Mr. Nettles declined the invitation, refused to identify himself, and, in a flourish of independence, ran. Now, running from the police is an old American pastime, but it is generally improved by not producing a firearm, real or theatrical, mid-sprint.
Mr. Nettles, committed to the bit, drew his imitation Glock and pointed it at the officer. At this juncture, the law, which is often accused of being slow and bureaucratic, becomes remarkably efficient.
Officer Pena fired. Fifteen times in total, though one suspects the first six carried the main argument.
The chase continued anyway, which speaks to Mr. Nettles’ stamina if not his judgment. He reached into his vest, never a comforting gesture in these discussions, and attracted further volleys.
Additional officers arrived, forming what is called an “immediate action team,” which is government language for “several people who would also prefer not to be shot today.”
A less-lethal shotgun was employed four times because, in modern policing, a bad guy should get a wide range of experiences. Mr. Nettles, still disagreeing with authority, made for the casino, shed his vest, and was finally taken into custody with injuries that were mercifully not fatal.
No one else got harmed, which is the best line in the whole report and the least rare.
Now, the official machinery is turning. Committees will convene, and papers shuffled, and serious men will ask how a fellow with a toy gun managed to create a situation that required fifteen real answers.
But the plain lesson requires no committee.
If a man points what looks like a gun at a police officer, the distinction between “replica” and “regulation issue” becomes philosophical. And philosophy has never stopped a bullet.
We live in an age that spends a great deal of time explaining away consequences, as though reality were a clerical error fixed by better wording. Yet reality remains stubborn, insisting that poor actions, particularly loud, armed, and ill-timed ones, bring replies.
Mr. Nettles will have his day in court, along with a list of charges long enough to suggest he was not merely passing through. Officer Pena will have his report, his review, and, one imagines, a renewed appreciation for clear mornings and unarmed conversations.
And the rest of us may take a small, unfashionable comfort in an old rule that has survived every reform: if you aim a gun, real or counterfeit, at a man sworn to return fire, you should not be surprised when he proves the point.
The Old Blog in the Desert 
Leave a comment