# NY bill would require cops to "shoot to wound"



## KenpoTex (May 29, 2010)

The utter stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me...

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/nyc/cops-blast-no-kill-legislation-20100525

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI?sms_ss=email


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

Sigh...what a complete bunch of stupidity!  What do these people think the cops are, snipers?  Center mass is what they're taught to shoot at, right?  If so, its because its the largest target.  And this is on someone who is most likely going to be moving.  

Compare this to a sniper, who is making a precision shot, who is setting himself up for that 1 shot, 1 kill.  

This is a failure in the making, IMO.


----------



## Haakon (May 29, 2010)

Stupid, stupid, stupid bill. This will get officers killed sooner or later and isn't going to save anyone.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 29, 2010)

We just had an off duty cop shot and killed here in a robbery attempt, and his father, a retired cop, shot and killed one of the perps... thats exactly what the mother of the perp got on TV and cried about... "he was a trained po-liceman he should have been able to shot him in the butt, he didnt have to kill him!"

Yes, I'm serious.  

****ing stupid bull ****.


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

Heres a thought...when the badguys are shooting at the cops, are they a) shooting to kill them or b) shooting to wound them?  Hmm....shouldn't take much thought to figure out that its A.  So, why oh why oh why, do people honestly think that the badguys life is a higher value than the officer?

Thats ok though...I heard some pretty stupid comments, regarding an incident that happened where I work, this past Monday.  Someone actually wondered why the cops dont carry tranqualizer (sp) guns so they can disable a suspect, rather than a taser or gun.  Amazing, simply amazing.


----------



## seasoned (May 29, 2010)

Taking the decision making out of the hands of the street cop as to what is justified makes for indecisiveness. Once you take away center mass to concentrate on smaller targets, will cause stray shots and jeopardize other people. Not the smartest bill, thought up by idiots.


----------



## JDenver (May 29, 2010)

I'll cite an example of an actual event here in my home city.

A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops.  He was told to get down and did not.  He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).

So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him?  I would think so.  He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.

I'm being devil's advocate, but in this discussion should be examples like the one above where the vast majority of the public can't understand why they had to kill the kid and not attempt to shoot to wound.


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

IMO, I think alot of the time, the vast majority of the public just doesnt understand, because they have no clue what being a LEO entails.  Just like the vast majority of non martial artists, have no clue about the arts, they think the UFC is equivilant to a cock fight, and think the arts in general are brutal.

People see Chuck Norris, Walker, Texas Ranger, shoot a gun out of someones hand, shoot someone in the leg, etc., and assume that everyone can do that, forgetting its a tv show.  

In the story you mentioned, the guys actions gave a resonable impression that he was reaching for something.  I'm not a cop, but I dont think that they're going to wait, anymore than we, as martial artsist should wait, if we saw someone drawing their hand back, to think they may not hit us.  

Would it be possible for them to use a taser?  I'd bet anything, that that question came up.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 29, 2010)

JDenver said:


> So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him?  I would think so.  He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.



Probably not and here's why.  Lets assume that the guy DID have a gun, and his intention was to kill a cop or a civilian standing by... He goes for his gun, cop shoots him in the Butt/Leg whatever... he screams in pain as he continues to draw his weapon and fire.  

Even people who are shot fatally often continue to fight until they collapse.  Its* ridiculous* to assume if you wound someone that means you win and they lose.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 29, 2010)

And which one of these learned, street experienced, firearms qualified lawmakers of thus august body came up with this master plan, exactly?


----------



## repz (May 29, 2010)

In a situation I can see a rule being enforced to where shooting should be to wound, and I see a situation where it doesnt matter where the bullet hits but that it hits to save the officers lives. I am not an expert at laws, but I imagine the shoot to wound is a word of mouth agreement among officers when they arent "sure" of the situation, but its not supported by a law, now it is.

There has been situations where numerous gunshots were fired wrecklessly at people who werent armed. Its not like any bill or law doesnt have something to back it.


----------



## Kyosanim (May 29, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> The utter stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me...
> 
> http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/nyc/cops-blast-no-kill-legislation-20100525
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI?sms_ss=email




My dad was a cop. So is my best friend's dad. Do the law makers even care what the officers families think? My dad dying for a reason like that.... I would lose it. Grief is bad enough but to make it over something senseless like that.
Really? I can't even imagine the amount of anger their families would have  were to come to that.


----------



## Kyosanim (May 29, 2010)

JDenver said:


> I'll cite an example of an actual event here in my home city.
> 
> A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops.  He was told to get down and did not.  He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).
> 
> ...



Thats what the tazer guns are for.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 29, 2010)

Hi ho Silver! The Lone Ranger says, &#8220;I will shoot the gun out of their hand and never mind those pesky citizens behind the bad guy, I use silver bullets so they don&#8217;t get lead poisoning! &#8220;

Marshal Dillon, &#8220;Kitty, it&#8217;s just a scratch, but will you pick up that piece of shoulder blade bone of mine off the floor?&#8221;

For the life of me I just don&#8217;t understand liberals who think you can just wound. I had one ask just why cops can&#8217;t shoot those guns out of the bad guys hands!

Let&#8217;s make it simple.

a) Handguns are weak in power. To shoot to wound invites them to keep shooting.
b) Shooting to wound, because of the anatomy you have to aim for, increases the likelihood the bullet will pass through and endanger anyone behind.
c) Police have a 25 percent hit rate shooting for the center of mass, so just how do they shoot for a non-lethal part of the anatomy and get a good chance of a hit. And any miss endangers bystanders.
d) Even parts of the anatomy like legs and arms have vital blood vessels and a wounding shot is no guarantee it&#8217;s not lethal, yet it dramatically lessons the chance of a stopping hit.

In short, it's a silly law. No a dangerous law! For it forces police to try a tactic that is to difficult to do under stress. The stress of having ones live in jeopardy.

Deaf


----------



## Stick Dummy (May 29, 2010)

Hopefully mayor bloomberg is paying for all of the additional ammo and training time from his pocket LOL

Armed professionals shoot to instantly neutralize a threat if the result is a survivable wound okay, if the wound proves to be terminal oh-well.....

Stupid people become stupid politicians and their stupid ideas make everyone suffer.


----------



## knuckleheader (May 30, 2010)

I guess the cops will just have to write in their reports.

...was trying to wound him. BUT, I hit him in the heart..


----------



## KenpoTex (May 30, 2010)

JDenver said:


> A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops.  He was told to get down and did not.  He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).
> 
> So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him?  I would think so.  He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.



When someone is told "don't move, let me see your hands" or "get on the ground" (or whatever), and they make a sudden move toward a location where people commonly carry weapons (i.e. a movement consistent with a drawstroke), it is reasonable to assume that they are attempting to deploy a weapon.  At that point, the level of force appropriate for dealing with a weapon threat is justified.



Kyosanim said:


> Thats what the tazer guns are for.



No, that's not what tasers are for...tasers are for people who are resisting, but not a deadly threat at that moment in time.  Someone making a sudden move toward a possible weapon after being told to put their hands up or get on the ground does not, in my mind, qualify as someone who is not a threat.

Aside from all the "justification" issues, the amount of training time and the pallet-loads of ammo per officer to get them to the point where they can make consistent hits on the limbs of moving, fighting bad guys would make this whole thing financially impossible.  And then you have to maintain that skill.  We're talking about a level of proficiency that would make a CAG guy jealous...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 30, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Probably not and here's why. Lets assume that the guy DID have a gun, and his intention was to kill a cop or a civilian standing by... He goes for his gun, cop shoots him in the Butt/Leg whatever... he screams in pain as he continues to draw his weapon and fire.
> 
> Even people who are shot fatally often continue to fight until they collapse. Its* ridiculous* to assume if you wound someone that means you win and they lose.


 

EXACTLY. Just because he shoots doesn't mean he'll hit you, and _just because he hits you doesn't mean you're gonna die._


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 30, 2010)

repz said:


> In a situation I can see a rule being enforced to where shooting should be to wound, and I see a situation where it doesnt matter where the bullet hits but that it hits to save the officers lives. I am not an expert at laws, but I imagine the shoot to wound is a word of mouth agreement among officers when they arent "sure" of the situation, but its not supported by a law, now it is.


 
You're right. You are nowhere near an expert at laws.

A firearm only fits at one level on the force continuum: deadly force. If you are not justified in shooting to stop a deadly force threat such as may result in the shootee's death by circumstance,, you are not justified in shooting AT ALL.



> There has been situations where numerous gunshots were fired wrecklessly at people who werent armed. Its not like any bill or law doesnt have something to back it.


 
And were these shots fired by police? During which specific incidents? You gotta cite the ones you mean.

And yes, a bill always has something to back it, but that something isn't automatically legit. Whoever thought up this bill and then whoever was handicapped enough to sponsor it, both need to be sent to LFI.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 30, 2010)

Interesting thought: I wonder how many officers in NY would quit the force if this by some miracle passed. (I know for damnsure I would).


----------



## KenpoTex (May 30, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Interesting thought: I wonder how many officers in NY would quit the force if this by some miracle passed. (I know for damnsure I would).




[whisper] They have a less than 20% hit rate shooting for "center of mass"...How many of them are going to be able to hit an arm or a leg at will? [/whisper]


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2010)

> Paladino, whose association represents 5,100 investigators, said he  showed the bill last week to Vice President Joe Biden, who scoffed and  suggested it be dubbed "The John Wayne Bill" because it demands  sharp-shooting skills of the kind only seen in movies.
> Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...n51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI?sms_ss=email#ixzz0pRggmO69
> ​


Veep Biden gets it...




> Sponsored by Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson (D-Bedford  Stuyvesant) and Darryl Towns (D-East New York), the bill came up  at the Assembly Codes Committee but was held for further consideration  rather than killed or put to vote before the full Assembly.
> Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...n51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI?sms_ss=email#ixzz0pRh28w8k
> ​



Gee.  The rep from Bedford-Stuyvesant wants to cripple the NYPD.  I'm shocked! Shocked, I say, SHOCKED!!


----------



## repz (May 30, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You're right. You are nowhere near an expert at laws.
> 
> A firearm only fits at one level on the force continuum: deadly force. If you are not justified in shooting to stop a deadly force threat such as may result in the shootee's death by circumstance,, you are not justified in shooting AT ALL.


 
Huh? Who is arguing that? I completely agree, but dont see how that fits into my post. There have been situations where people should have wounded (actually, never shot at all... even a wound in these situations are uncalled for). So as nice as this line is, it doesnt happen as simple as that.



> And were these shots fired by police? During which specific incidents? You gotta cite the ones you mean.
> 
> And yes, a bill always has something to back it, but that something isn't automatically legit. Whoever thought up this bill and then whoever was handicapped enough to sponsor it, both need to be sent to LFI.


 
Uhmm, the Amadou Diallo case, where cops emptied 41 shots into a man who was reaching for his wallet to show his id. Supposedbly he fit the description of a rapist so they knocked on his door to question him and he reached for his wallet to show his id. Its only until all 41 shots by all these officers that they noticed it was a wallet, and no, he wasnt the rapist. 

And then theres the death that inspired the law. Sean bell was shot dead, and his friend wounded, neither had any weapons, they came from a club from a bachleor party. In total, police fired 50 shots. Their belief (or guess) that they had a gun was wrong.

It doesnt mean I support the bill, but it doesnt mean I dont ignore how another humans guess can put me in a coffin, or if I leave a club and someone next to me starts shooting at cops, that I might die because they might think I am with them since I am naturally running for cover. Its not like i get coached in being arrested, granted I know enough not to reach into my pockets, but having guns pointed at you isnt something "normal" and can wreck peoples nerves, I have seen people shake and get jittery and not be able to stand still, and they can have easily been fired on if the cops were to guess they were reaching for a weapon. Plus, things can happen with miscommunication, some people dont speak english, or have mental imbalances and hearing/talking problems, and some people just arent too bright... how much guesses do they give them before they are justified to fire?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 30, 2010)

It all comes back to A-O-J.

This is common training standard throughout the US at least, and I like to call it "The triangle that makes things square".

It is comprised of three things:

*ABILITY* (Is this person/this group physically capable of carrying out the threat?) : Does this person possess an advantage in size/strength, weapon or dangerous instrument, known fighting skill( known by you before or during the incident; finding out after the fact is inadmissible), Able bodied v. disabled ( Disability does NOT have to be visible or obvious), male v. female, force of numbers, young v. elderly and so on.


*OPPORTUNITY *( is this person/this group physically close enough to carry out the threat without any obstacle or impediment stopping them?) : For example, as exemplified in the Tueller Drill, a person with a knife is a deadly force threat at 21 feet, but not at 200, across four lanes of traffic. Ability exists but there is no Opportunity, and therefore no Jeopardy.

Swap out the knife with a rifle, and Opportunity is REintroduced.


*JEOPARDY* (Is this person/this group in the process of carrying out the threat, or otherwise behaving in such a way that a reasonable person in your place would conclude that they were in IMMINENT DANGER ( I.E. _"If I wait any longer to do something it will be too late to do ANYTHING"_) of death or grave bodily harm( Protracted injury/loss of use of limb, organ or sense, rape, and in many jurisdictions, arson or kidnap) : You see a guy with rifle at 200 feet away. he is slinging it over his shoulder and is dressed in hunting gear. Ability and Opportunity are both present but no Jeopardy exists.

Swap the scenario around and have the guy unsling his rifle, work the bolt and level the muzzle at YOU, and all three elements are present and you are in the clear to respond with deadly force should you have the means.

All three elements must be present *at the same time* for you to be in the clear as far as deadly force, but they're a good idea to keep in mind even in cases of nondeadly force( after all if there's any group that understands that even hands can kill, it's us).

Where private citizens are concerned, some jurisdictions add a fourth criteria: *PRECLUSION*. It can basically be boiled down to say that if you are not precluded from escaping *in complete safety*( I.e. you are not required to turn and walk away right as a punch/stick/stab is inbound or close enough to be) that you must do so or attempt to do so before your use of force can be justified.

I do not use this fourth category except for informational purposes since I reason that, if I can escape in complete safety, "Imminent danger" has not manifested. 


Now let's see how those apply to the Diallo case:

from wikipedia:



> In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a (since-captured) serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed *that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands".*
> *As the suspect reached into his jacket, Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire* on Diallo and during the burst McMellon fell down the steps. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
> On March 25, a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed-race jury in Albany acquitted the officers of all charges.


 
Why did those juries acquit those officers? The part I bolded holds the key here.

In general police procedures, flight=guilt.( This is why in any self defense course, armed OR unarmed, that knows what the hell they're talking about, the student is urged at the earliest safe opportunity to be the first to get their side told to the police). 

Diallo fled after being notified the four were police officers. Looks bad from the beginning. 

He then failed to comply with directions to stop and show his hands. Since "flight=guilt", and since Diallo was not complying with any directions given this puts a much less innocent perspective on a sudden reach into clothing. 

Under the AOJ Triad, you only need to possess the "Reasonable person standard": If a reasonable person in your place, with your knowledge and your training, would have been placed in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious harm as described above, that perception is all that matters--the person need not actually be armed. It's the same with cases where someone was shot for pointing a toy gun at someone--that person has no way in hell of knowing at that time it's a toy--if you wait to see the gun, you're gonna see what comes OUT of it.

Intention is nothing, Perception is _ALL_.

Now, were the actions of thoise four officers within the reasonable person standard? BOTH juries agreed that they were, in any case.

Now the Sean Bell case. According to wiki this is the story of the incident:



> The night of the shooting, Bell was holding his bachelor party at Club Kalua in the Jamaica section of Queens, a venue that was being investigated by seven undercover police detectives, as a result of accusations that the owners of the club had been fostering prostitution.[11]
> The _New York Post_ reported that, *according to an unnamed undercover officer, Guzman had an argument inside the club with a woman and threatened to get a gun. One of Bell's friends was heard to say "yo, get my gun" as they left the scene.*[12] Fearing a shooting might occur, African American plain-clothed officer Gescard Isnora followed the men to their car while alerting his backup team, prompting the team to confront Bell and his companions before they could leave the scene.[12] *Isnora "held out his badge (by his account), identified himself as a police officer, and told the car to stop."[13]. Instead, Bell accelerated the car and hit Isnora,* then hit an unmarked police minivan.[2] By all accounts, Gescard Isnora thought he saw Guzman reach for a gun while in the car, yelled "gun" to other police at the scene, and opened fire on the car. The other officers and detectives joined him in shooting at the car, firing 50 bullets in a few seconds.


 
Not so innocent as the papers tried to make it out to be. An officer overheard someone threatening to commit a crime( telling someone to "get my gun" after an argument,) and then the suspect used a deadly weapon (his vehicle) to attack police officers. What did they expect? The officers cannot let someone leave the scene and continue to pose a risk to innocents, and they've just been attacked with deadly force, and so pretty much HAD to stop them right there. They had the ABILITY( Someone heard them voice intent to arm themselves, they had a group, they had the vehicle which they did in fact use as a weapon), they had the OPPORTUNITY ( They were close enough to hit the cop with the car and could have been reaching for the weapon that at least one party was overheard to voice intent to get before the fact) and JEOPARDY of IMMINENT danger of death existed( he's just run over one of the cops for crying out loud).

Were their actions within the reasonable person standard of the AOJ triad? The jury that tried them decided so.

This has been in place for YEARS as a measuring stick but people only know what they see on TV or what the news media wants them to.

THAT's why the bill's sponsors need to be sent on a 2 week suspension up to LFI ( www.ayoob.com) and forced to take LFI-I and LFI-II back to back as punishment.


----------



## jks9199 (May 30, 2010)

JDenver said:


> I'll cite an example of an actual event here in my home city.
> 
> A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops.  He was told to get down and did not.  He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).
> 
> ...


Way too many things left for assumption.  The "regular clientèle" I deal with in my current position as a gang investigator are quite different than most of the folks in my jurisdiction -- and they get treated and handled rather differently.  A banger ignoring commands and pulling something out of his pockets stands a damn good chance of getting shot...  because, in the end, *I* am going home at the end of my shift, and I don't want any new scars or visits to the hospital ER as a patient.

This bill is stupid.  I caveat that with the statement that I have only been able to read opinion pieces, and small, incomplete excerpts of the bill.  But the simple reality is that the average cop, under the pressure of a life-death decision like that, is simply incapable of intentionally shooting at a limb or shooting to wound.  Look up the effects of that particular adrenal stress; Dave Grossman has done lots of easily understood work on it.  They lack the fine motor control in their hands and their vision is significantly effected.

But let's ignore that issue.  Cops are taught to shoot to center mass for a simple reason:  Our goal is NOT to kill, it is to stop the imminently presented threat of serious bodily harm or death in the quickest way possible.  The simple fact is that the best odds to do that successfully are shots to the center of the available mass.  Center mass on the body stands a good likelihood of being fatal, and the least likelihood of a miss.  Remember, cops are responsible for every round they fire -- and we don't often have a cleared field beyond the target like on a range.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 30, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Way too many things left for assumption. The "regular clientèle" I deal with in my current position as a gang investigator are quite different than most of the folks in my jurisdiction -- and they get treated and handled rather differently. A banger ignoring commands and pulling something out of his pockets stands a damn good chance of getting shot... because, in the end, *I* am going home at the end of my shift, and I don't want any new scars or visits to the hospital ER as a patient.
> 
> This bill is stupid. I caveat that with the statement that I have only been able to read opinion pieces, and small, incomplete excerpts of the bill. But the simple reality is that the average cop, under the pressure of a life-death decision like that, is simply incapable of intentionally shooting at a limb or shooting to wound. Look up the effects of that particular adrenal stress; Dave Grossman has done lots of easily understood work on it. They lack the fine motor control in their hands and their vision is significantly effected.
> 
> But let's ignore that issue. Cops are taught to shoot to center mass for a simple reason: Our goal is NOT to kill, it is to stop the imminently presented threat of serious bodily harm or death in the quickest way possible. The simple fact is that the best odds to do that successfully are shots to the center of the available mass. Center mass on the body stands a good likelihood of being fatal, and the least likelihood of a miss. Remember, cops are responsible for every round they fire -- and we don't often have a cleared field beyond the target like on a range.


 
System won't let me rep you again so soon but you needed to hear a "Roger That" anyway.


----------



## chaoscombat (May 30, 2010)

Kyosanim said:


> Thats what the tazer guns are for.


 
Except in the case where the officers are not allowed to carry tasers because the admin wont take the time to learn about the weapon, like the dept. I FORMERLY work for. The same dept. would not back an officer if he had to shoot a suspect based on the same situation. We are in a lose lose situation no matter what we do, and we dont make enough to pay our bills in order to protect the citizens that want to hang us for shooting a threat to them or us. Wow...wonder why the suicide rate is so high for police officer...


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

You are using wikepedia as a source, if its not generated by someone, then it came from the newspapers anyway. Theres many sides to both stories, but getting into witnesses and how their reports were dismissed and events of that day will just derail the point and walk along another arguement.

Fact is they fired over 40 shots, and their guesses were wrong. Trajectory, plus the coroner has stated the cops kept firing even when he was down. Sticking to the point of cops firing to wound, this is miles away from shooting over 40 shots and making a mistake that costs someone their life. It happened, and there it is, I dont have to quote a witness where they said they didnt hear cops present themselves and the pauses between shots fired (that would create a whole new thread with reports of eyewitnesses full of links that switch from one side to the next), all that matters is that mortal shots killed an innocent person. The guess was wrong, and the idea of shooting to wound was completely lost in this case.

People who dont speak english, have mental instabilities, arent too bright, are prone to having a panic attack, intoxicated that they cant comply, can be thrown into the category of being capable of being in a situation where a cop can make a bad guess when they dont comply, or do something erratic during an attempt at an arrest, and a whole new case opened up when their "guess" is wrong and they are shot dead, and they can go about doing this unchecked by any law or regulation.

Heres a GRAPHIC video (you were warned) at cops firing at an unarmed person who is on his back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za1lRcSZJ10&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXW59Nx1loU

Here is another case where cops charged in and shot a teen who stole 2 ps3s. One shot to the head, another to the chest.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3868571/

Based on what they thought was gunshots, or a battering ram on the door (another source said the ps3 controller looked like a gun). Obviously they were wrong, he didnt have a gun, and no, the original robbery didnt involve a firearm.

Yes, cops put themselves in danger and they should have a right to arrest without added tension of being jailed in protecting themselves, but we cant just dismiss that an unarmed un-vested innocent can be and have been shot dead by accident when the cop fires to mortally kill or shoot off 40 shots based on a "hunch". Hence why people are pushing for regulations, is target shooting to safer areas realistic, probably not, but there is a reason why there is attention to this issue.


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

chaoscombat said:


> Except in the case where the officers are not allowed to carry tasers because the admin wont take the time to learn about the weapon, like the dept. I FORMERLY work for. The same dept. would not back an officer if he had to shoot a suspect based on the same situation. We are in a lose lose situation no matter what we do, and we dont make enough to pay our bills in order to protect the citizens that want to hang us for shooting a threat to them or us. Wow...wonder why the suicide rate is so high for police officer...


 
And even this many cops make really bad guesses... heres a video (graphic since it involves a death) of NYPD using a tazer on someone who is one floor up.... the dumbest decision ever. They taze him and he falls to his death. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdSXri6yaCU&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_6JDxAJANM


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

While I see your point, what do you suggest?
If cops start shooting it's because they have (correctly or not) identified a person as an imminent threat to the safety of themselves or bystanders. With 5 officers, each fires a couple of shots in quick order, you'll get to 40 bullets quickly. But what do you propose then? That each takes his turn firing a single bullet, examine whether that should be the last one, and if not, fire the next one?

I don't always agree with how things are done, but in the end, when the violence starts, cops are the ones in a life or death situation, and they can't permit themselves the luxury of doing the very least possible which theoretically should be enough. They can't run away and ignore the problem either.

To get back to the guy who reached for his wallet: **** happens, and we don't have the full investigative report so we can't really make the judgment. But again: someone is held at gunpoint and told not to move. He reaches into his pocket and starts pulling something out. At that moment, the time needed to pull out a gun and fire from the hip is like 0.1 seconds or such. Should the cops wait until they can clearly identify the object, at which time it could have been a knife or gun, and the person could have fired at / attacked a cop. Besides, if the person can grab a cop in his attack, the other officers can't shoot anymore because they'd shoot their colleague.

And make no mistake: in some neighborhoods, these scenarios happen regularly. Even if you make a mistake only 1 time in 10, that still means that you or one or more of your colleagues get home in a body bag within a month.

All of this happens in a split second while everybody is high on adrenalin. Ask yourself: what would you do?


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

Thats not up to me, thats up to government if they choose to intervene. I can say a huge list of things that arent possible, like controling gun use and how guns get on the street. Better tactics to scout out a situation, where a teenager in his home wouldnt have to have been shot when the barged in through the door. Or actually thinking and using a brain on how stupid it is to use a tazer on someone who is several yards above the street, and maybe not shooting someone who is unarmed when they are laying on the ground on their back (mind you, these are the same people who have to make this decisions to fire or not). Its easy to point the finger and say what would you do, but its even easier to look up events where situations like this have happened, and no innocents were shot, and examining those situations so they can be repeated.

I wouldnt want to put myself in the situation and say, I would do this, or why did it take a 10 eyes and 40 rounds that kept firing that someone didnt stop and say, "hey, hes not shooting, hes just dying" and maybe my eyes out of the five could have spotted something. Or the way they approached the house and car in the other report would have put them in danger if they had the mentality that they were armed and they had to fire at anything that resembled danger. But, those are what if, and maybes, which wont get anywhere. Thats like me saying, what would you do if someone was deaf and dumb, and you approached while he reached into his pocket for a writing pad, would you shoot him? What if someone was visiting and spoke only a little bit of english and didnt understand you because you were dressed in street clothes, so he reaches for an id to show?

Yes, people have guns, yes there are many events where cops get shot, but it doesnt mean that in every encounter they can shoot someone with a bad guess and get away with it. Cops are there to maintain the peace, to protect, this includes the people they shoot innocently, they get paid to make these decisions right, not to go out wildwest style. It doesnt mean we ignore the situations where innocents were killed, and it doesnt mean we ignore the possibility that mentally disabled (as we seen in the video where they tazed a mentally handicapped man who was standing on a ledge and he landed on his head and died with no one trying to reach for him or trying to soften his landing), nervous jittery people, dumb people, disabled people can easily be put into a situation where they cant comply normally in an arrest and the cop can guess wrong and a 50 shots fly off 4 cops.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2010)

I understand what you're trying to say, I really do, and yes, it does suck when incidents like those we've been discussing happen, and yes, this is why those uninitiated into such matters press for such ridiculous additional regulation, because they don't know about the standard that exists, and don't understand that however "perfect" one may try to make the "rules" things like this will slip through the cracks and that's just the world we live in.

If everyone on the badge AND off knew the score and what to do/not to do , I can't help but feel these things would drop off rather drastically.

One reason why I want the AOJ triad taught in every American school at least at high school level. But like you say, I don't see it happening.


----------



## jks9199 (May 31, 2010)

Let me refer you to the work of Dr. Bill Lewinski and the Force Science Institute.  The dynamics of a lethal force encounter, especially, are very complex.  Often, for example, it appears that an officer shot a suspect in the back.  However, the realities of human reaction time show that a suspect can be fleeing, turn, fire, and turn away again faster than the officer can react -- but the chain of reaction is already in place.  The suspect gets shot in the back...

In the case of the BART shooting, all the evidence suggests that the officer intended to use a Taser.  However, he grabbed the wrong weapon.  This is why almost every agency I know of now requires that the Taser be carried on the weak side, for a cross draw.  

The case of the kid is sad -- but you're kind of glossing over a few factors.  Police responding to a house where people were reported as being armed and dangerous.  The officer who shot hears a loud bang, sees a guy with something he perceives as being a gun, and reacts.  According to the article you posted, two separate grand juries refused to return indictments against the officer; maybe there are facts that you aren't aware of?

We're getting off track here.  The proposed bill in NY is stupid.  It ignores the realities of a lethal force encounter.  Under the stress of a life or death encounter, we have learned that certain things happen.  Tunnel vision (caused by physiological changes in the eyes), loss of fine motor control (again, a physiological response due to autonomic actions), perception changes about time (slowing or speeding up; this one is psychological).  These changes make it IMPOSSIBLE for most officers, in the reality of training that can be done in a reasonable world, to shoot to wound.  More importantly, as others have stated, lethal force is used to stop a perceived threat of serious bodily harm or death; this is a threat that must be met and stopped NOW and effectively.  A shot to the leg or arm may not stop a person; there are plenty of examples to show that motivated people can fight on through massive injuries.  A shot to the center mass of the body stands the best realistic chance of both hitting, and getting that rapid stop of the threat.


----------



## jks9199 (May 31, 2010)

repz said:


> Thats not up to me, thats up to government if they choose to intervene. I can say a huge list of things that arent possible, like controling gun use and how guns get on the street. Better tactics to scout out a situation, where a teenager in his home wouldnt have to have been shot when the barged in through the door. Or actually thinking and using a brain on how stupid it is to use a tazer on someone who is several yards above the street, and maybe not shooting someone who is unarmed when they are laying on the ground on their back (mind you, these are the same people who have to make this decisions to fire or not). Its easy to point the finger and say what would you do, but its even easier to look up events where situations like this have happened, and no innocents were shot, and examining those situations so they can be repeated.
> 
> I wouldnt want to put myself in the situation and say, I would do this, or why did it take a 10 eyes and 40 rounds that kept firing that someone didnt stop and say, "hey, hes not shooting, hes just dying" and maybe my eyes out of the five could have spotted something. Or the way they approached the house and car in the other report would have put them in danger if they had the mentality that they were armed and they had to fire at anything that resembled danger. But, those are what if, and maybes, which wont get anywhere. Thats like me saying, what would you do if someone was deaf and dumb, and you approached while he reached into his pocket for a writing pad, would you shoot him? What if someone was visiting and spoke only a little bit of english and didnt understand you because you were dressed in street clothes, so he reaches for an id to show?
> 
> Yes, people have guns, yes there are many events where cops get shot, but it doesnt mean that in every encounter they can shoot someone with a bad guess and get away with it. Cops are there to maintain the peace, to protect, this includes the people they shoot innocently, they get paid to make these decisions right, not to go out wildwest style. It doesnt mean we ignore the situations where innocents were killed, and it doesnt mean we ignore the possibility that mentally disabled (as we seen in the video where they tazed a mentally handicapped man who was standing on a ledge and he landed on his head and died with no one trying to reach for him or trying to soften his landing), nervous jittery people, dumb people, disabled people can easily be put into a situation where they cant comply normally in an arrest and the cop can guess wrong and a 50 shots fly off 4 cops.



You seem to have  a few misconceptions.  I, obviously, know more than a few cops. * I know NONE who take the use of lethal force lightly.*  I have been within fractions of an inch and probably less than an ounce of trigger pressure of shooting someone.  Fortunately and thankfully, they complied.  I won't complain if I'm never that close again.  

EVERY use of lethal force is thoroughly investigated and reviewed.  Sometimes, the officer is disciplined even though a grand jury or prosecutor's office clears them criminally!  The lessons learned from the investigations are shared (note my comment above about where officers carry Tasers, for example) and reflected in training.  And officers have been charged, prosecuted, and even convicted when their use of force has been improper.

Officers in my area (and I'm sure it's not unique) routinely deal with people with limited or no English.  I've even come across a few people that our paid language support/translation service couldn't find a true translator for!  Most of the time, they get through it without a problem.  I used to carry a spare notebook when I was in patrol because we have a significant deaf population, and I'd had to scramble for more paper on one call!  However, as a general rule... the business end of a .40 caliber semi-auto being held by a person in uniform should generally convey at least the idea of "STOP MOVING!"

As I've said -- this proposal is ridiculous and ignores the reality of a lethal force encounter.  Laws that ignore reality are stupid.  To engage in a bit of hyperbole, my city council can certainly pass a bill stating that gravity is no longer recognized here.  It ain't gonna change whether things fall...


----------



## Haakon (May 31, 2010)

chaoscombat said:


> ...and we dont make enough to pay our bills in order to protect the citizens that want to hang us for shooting a threat to them or us. Wow...wonder why the suicide rate is so high for police officer...



That's too bad the pay is so poor for police officers where you are. Out here sheriffs deputys make $54,660.00 - $76,548.00 without overtime. In Seattle entry level sworn officers make over $64,000, and with 4.5 years of experience over $84,000.
http://www.cityofseattle.net/police/jobs/benefits/salary.htm


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

Well, just to make it clear, I dont really support the bill, I support the attention. Because really, thats the only thing that can be done. Proposing bills and trying to regulate things to protect our freedoms is the truest protection that we have. 

Also, just because a cop doesnt go to jail doesnt excuse his mistake. I do agree it comes with the job, but I dont agree that they should go unnoticed when they make a mistake, especially since other cops are in those situations and dont end up on a coverstory for shooting someone in the back (like which was pointed out).

But when you talk about the jittery sense of caution of a police, and how they can grab a  gun instead of a tazer, or fire at something that is held in the hand that they think its a gun can easily apply to a innocent who has guns pointed at them and are being yelled at that they themselves can get confused (even more so, since thats not their job to be in such a tense situation, but it is for the cops). Its not so far fetched that someone whos english is a second language can panic and do something dumb out of confusion, then it is for a cop to shoot someone in panic because they they mistaked an object for a gun, or didnt think tazer someone a floor up would injure someone. It works both ways. Its easy to say, well dont move when you have the barrels of guns pointed at you, or when you see men say they are cops and have their hands by their hips even tho you are scared out of your mind and have never been in this situation, just like its easy for someone to say... wow, 5 people, and none of them couldnt wait a microsecond more to realize that was a wallet, or after the fifth shot they didnt stop and say, "hey, hes not firing back, hes dying... lets stop" or went for cover and yelled at him to keep his hands out of his pocket or we will shoot. Obviously its not easy to guess human behavior to a given situation, because we are all different.

My cousin was stopped because he fit the description of a criminal, he said throughout the scuffle he swore he didnt hear them announce themselves as cops, could be that he blocked it out in the adrenaline packed fear to protect himself? luckly hes still alive (and its probably because he just looks non-threatening, which always made me wonder how the hell he would fit a description of a criminal), in other situations he could have been tagged as resisting arrest and he showed martial arts like training that he was a possible threat. The witnesses mostly for these situations are the cops themselves. Cops get second chances for mistakes, just like by mistake i hit the gas pedal instead of the brake and I hit a squad car I would be shot to peices, or I panic and I reach for my wallet, or throw my hands up to protect my face by instinct and I get shot because of my mistake of not knowing how to comply in a scary situation that I was never in, nor coached in, nor go through in a daily basis. In those situations, I cant use the reason that I panicked or my nerves lost control, I would be dead or in jail.


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

Haakon said:


> That's too bad the pay is so poor for police officers where you are. Out here sheriffs deputys make $54,660.00 - $76,548.00 without overtime. In Seattle entry level sworn officers make over $64,000, and with 4.5 years of experience over $84,000.
> http://www.cityofseattle.net/police/jobs/benefits/salary.htm


 

NYC contract is going to end soon. I bet you they lower the pay scale so they can hire more cops, so the years of them cancelling recruitment classes under the 40k starting salary using the economy as an excuse, balances out to the same, except they will hire more cops at around 30k (which they would make up for the years before, but have more cops under the same overall budget). Its already in the making, they need more cops, they have no money. 

I heard NJ was a better choice (unless you go state, or go to li). The mayor has a law enforcement background, he would rather get rid of teachers than cops.


----------



## jks9199 (May 31, 2010)

repz said:


> Well, just to make it clear, I dont really support the bill, I support the attention. Because really, thats the only thing that can be done. Proposing bills and trying to regulate things to protect our freedoms is the truest protection that we have.
> 
> Also, just because a cop doesnt go to jail doesnt excuse his mistake. I do agree it comes with the job, but I dont agree that they should go unnoticed when they make a mistake, especially since other cops are in those situations and dont end up on a coverstory for shooting someone in the back (like which was pointed out).


Who has said that shootings shouldn't be examined?!  Or that they go unnoticed?

Let me give you clue.  If a cop shoots someone, it's a guarantee that THEIR agency will initiate two parallel investigations, one criminal, one administrative.  Sometimes, they'll ask for an outside agency -- state, local or FBI -- to look at the shooting, too.  The officer might be charged criminally, they might receive administrative discipline (suspensions or termination), or both.  Sometimes an outside agency gets involved even if they're uninvited; the FBI is notorious for initiating civil rights investigations against cops.  You can also expect a civil law suit against the cop -- even if he was cleared by everyone else!  And it's NOT a guarantee that the agency will pick up the costs of that defense...


> But when you talk about the jittery sense of caution of a police, and how they can grab a  gun instead of a tazer, or fire at something that is held in the hand that they think its a gun can easily apply to a innocent who has guns pointed at them and are being yelled at that they themselves can get confused (even more so, since thats not their job to be in such a tense situation, but it is for the cops). Its not so far fetched that someone whos english is a second language can panic and do something dumb out of confusion, then it is for a cop to shoot someone in panic because they they mistaked an object for a gun, or didnt think tazer someone a floor up would injure someone. It works both ways. Its easy to say, well dont move when you have the barrels of guns pointed at you, or when you see men say they are cops and have their hands by their hips even tho you are scared out of your mind and have never been in this situation, just like its easy for someone to say... wow, 5 people, and none of them couldnt wait a microsecond more to realize that was a wallet, or after the fifth shot they didnt stop and say, "hey, hes not firing back, hes dying... lets stop" or went for cover and yelled at him to keep his hands out of his pocket or we will shoot. Obviously its not easy to guess human behavior to a given situation, because we are all different.


It's not a jittery sense of caution.  It's a reality that there are people out there trying to kill cops.  I've tried to point you to the sources that explain what's going on in a lethal force encounter.  You apparently don't care.  RATIONAL THOUGHT is seldom happening.  It's not at all uncommon for a person involved in a shooting to be shocked to discover that they emptied their weapon, and to only remember one or two shots.  Bluntly, I'm pretty confident that your opinions on this issue are formed and won't be changed... and that you're blind to what you don't understand about it.


> My cousin was stopped because he fit the description of a criminal, he said throughout the scuffle he swore he didnt hear them announce themselves as cops, could be that he blocked it out in the adrenaline packed fear to protect himself? luckly hes still alive (and its probably because he just looks non-threatening, which always made me wonder how the hell he would fit a description of a criminal), in other situations he could have been tagged as resisting arrest and he showed martial arts like training that he was a possible threat. The witnesses mostly for these situations are the cops themselves. Cops get second chances for mistakes, just like by mistake i hit the gas pedal instead of the brake and I hit a squad car I would be shot to peices, or I panic and I reach for my wallet, or throw my hands up to protect my face by instinct and I get shot because of my mistake of not knowing how to comply in a scary situation that I was never in, nor coached in, nor go through in a daily basis. In those situations, I cant use the reason that I panicked or my nerves lost control, I would be dead or in jail.


Actually, most cops give people a whole lot of leeway for making stupid mistakes.  And they often give them lots more than second chances.  Until that mistake endangers the lives of the officers or the public.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2010)

Stupid bill supported by ignorant people. The place to examine if lethal force was justified or not is in THE GRAND JURY....not in the legislative body.


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Who has said that shootings shouldn't be examined?! Or that they go unnoticed?


 
I posted enough articles and videos to show they do go noticed, I mean we are discussing a bill to change those matters now, arent we? Either way that wasnt where I was getting at, cops dont pay for their mistakes, actually le tme rephrase that, law enforcement as a whole for the city doesnt pay or have any regulations enforced, which goes all the way back to my post where I said things become word of mouth with no official regulation. Many people refuse to believe that it comes with the job, or that it comes with the territory, and theres nothing we can do but consider the possibililty that a cop can shoot you in the back, or tazer you out a window based on a mistake. Even if we were to chalk each incident as a mistake that will be forgotten a few months from now, it doesnt change the fact that these stupid things have happened, couple that with the belief that accidents can happen... doesnt sit to well with people



> Let me give you clue. If a cop shoots someone, it's a guarantee that THEIR agency will initiate two parallel investigations, one criminal, one administrative. Sometimes, they'll ask for an outside agency -- state, local or FBI -- to look at the shooting, too. The officer might be charged criminally, they might receive administrative discipline (suspensions or termination), or both. Sometimes an outside agency gets involved even if they're uninvited; the FBI is notorious for initiating civil rights investigations against cops. You can also expect a civil law suit against the cop -- even if he was cleared by everyone else! And it's NOT a guarantee that the agency will pick up the costs of that defense...
> It's not a jittery sense of caution. It's a reality that there are people out there trying to kill cops. I've tried to point you to the sources that explain what's going on in a lethal force encounter. You apparently don't care. RATIONAL THOUGHT is seldom happening. It's not at all uncommon for a person involved in a shooting to be shocked to discover that they emptied their weapon, and to only remember one or two shots. Bluntly, I'm pretty confident that your opinions on this issue are formed and won't be changed... and that you're blind to what you don't understand about it.
> Actually, most cops give people a whole lot of leeway for making stupid mistakes. And they often give them lots more than second chances. Until that mistake endangers the lives of the officers or the public.


 
No one is fighting anything in your post. I said enough times about the dangers they face, and I never said they shouldnt go to jail, but I wont be quiet to a news report that had someone shot when he was unarmed based on a guess. Its the mistakes i am talking about... not everyone does them, some do, and some continue to work even tho their hunches cost an innocent person their life. 

And cops give leeways for mistakes? Tell that to all the people in the examples I put if they got a second chance when they reached to show ids, or stood at the door with a ps3 controller, or were laying on their backs, or were mentally disabled.

And why are we getting into the legal procedures, or we ignoring the part where I said in these cases guesses on the cops part go unchallenged (meaning, hey, it happens attitude) yet no one addresses the posibility of it never stopping, or the fact that disabled, immigrants, mentally slow people can be fired on by mistake? Now it is... hence the attemt at a bill. Is this part of my arguement lost to talk about legal proceedings? Heres a good example of a sad death by a mentally unstable man, Joseph Erin Hamley, and how his nervous habit from his disability made the cop shoot him http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287197,00.html

No second chance for him. How do you explain this... just a mistake? Fine, but how many more mistakes are we afforded until someone tries to do something? Is bringing up to me the legal procedures of law going to matter? The guy in this case got was... 90 days, and was allowed to continue being an officer.

 But I guess its his fault for being disabled, and the others fault for carrying objects in their hands, so they caught 50 bullets, and others caught fatal gun shots.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2010)

Yeah..like this guy. How come this cop didn't shoot this guy in the leg. He had ALL the time in the world to do it. At least he waited until he was ABSOLUTELY SURE the bad guy had a real gun.

http://jjb.yuku.com/topic/604332/t/Video-of-cop-getting-murdered-during-routine-traffic-stop.html

Whatever.....


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

Huh? That is absolutely completely different from all cases and discussions that are going on. In other cases, the guy would have been shot as soon as he went into his pocket, or walked out the car toward the policeman. The cop let him get in his car for some reason, especially after some words and blatant acts of defiance on his part, which was not related to any shape or form to the behavior of these cases discussed because they didnt act in this manner.

I suggest you read this http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/249/news/news/ and read something about innocent deaths in nyc. Theres even a situation where cops killed cops by accident, and some interesting stuff regarding how shootings deaths are actually never covered or brought to light with cited sources in real life situations.

Anyways, all I am seeing is one side say, its dangerous they have a right to make mistakes and shoot if they have to no matter how many shots and officers were on scene or no matter how questionable the choice was (or how idiotic when considering the videos of people being shot in the back while not resisting or tazing someone to death as he falls while no one tries to soften his fall), because they are police and that clears them from mistakes, without actually posting it, and then they wonder why I "dont get it". So fine, I am perfectly fine with that reasoning when it comes to this discussion on the forum enough not to keep going back and forth on this topic that is going nowhere.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2010)

No. You are not getting it.

There already IS a process in place to deal with those situations. They are called district attorneys and grand juries. The poilce don't get to cleat themselves of wrong doing in these shoots. DA's and grand juries of people like YOU do.

You are also following the classic "armchair quaterback" meme. You are basing your opinion on officers decisions based on what you know AFTER THE FACT (the guy was reaching for a wallet and couldn't speak english) instead of what the officers knew at the time. If the argument was that the officers knew he was pulling a cell phone from his belt and pointing it at them. or that the knew it was a BB gun instead of a real gun that would be a different issue.

This proposed law is moronic.


----------



## jks9199 (May 31, 2010)

repz said:


> Anyways, all I am seeing is one side say, its dangerous they have a right to make mistakes and shoot if they have to no matter how many shots and officers were on scene or no matter how questionable the choice was (or how idiotic when considering the videos of people being shot in the back while not resisting or tazing someone to death as he falls while no one tries to soften his fall), because they are police and that clears them from mistakes, without actually posting it, and then they wonder why I "dont get it". So fine, I am perfectly fine with that reasoning when it comes to this discussion on the forum enough not to keep going back and forth on this topic that is going nowhere.


That is not what anyone has said.  Yes, mistakes happen.  Yes, they're tragedies.  And they should be examined, and learned from.  And, if appropriate, the officer should be disciplined in an appropriate manner.  That could be anything from demotion and/or letter of reprimand, through suspension, up to firing.

But that also means that if nothing wrong took place other than a tragic combination of circumstances -- then NOTHING should happen to the officer, either.

And dumbass laws like this proposal do nothing to address the problems; they simply create impossible situations.  Want a bill that addresses the problems? How about mandating and paying for annual, required simulation training based on lessons learned from police shootings?  That'd work on the problem, instead of creating new ones.

Oh, by the way, the dumbass who used a Taser on the guy on ledge was stupid.  He's one of the reasons that Taser training now includes a section on not using it on someone who's on a ledge or about to fall out a window.  But it wasn't any cop's job to cushion the guy on the ledge when he fell either.  You got any idea what's involved in that?  You ever try to catch someone who's falling?  It ain't easy... and it's a damn good way to either get hurt or be pulled down with them.


----------



## repz (May 31, 2010)

I know they thought it was a gun, just like the thought they were the criminals they were looking for, just like their information of them yelling to get their gun was wrong. If I am wrong at my job I get fired, if I use misinformation and destroy something in the process, I get fired and owe something for the loss, but I am not guilty for doing it on purpose. What happens in this situation is that I find a new career choice. Harsh, yes, but so is someone dieing for no reason which i find even more harsh and dramatic.

I know they were cleared in court, and how the court system works, how would I know all these links and not read the proceding court case, so pointing that out doesnt mean anything because I wouldnt want them jailed, and never have I said that. There was much too many of those stories about what witnesses said, and how the only true witness are the ones who were doing the firing, but it was brought to my attention that talk about past cases in depth is against policy on this forum. But a look through history shows how officers have been indicted and have lied and intentionally killed or hurt someone and covered up things in court, so its not something new to nyc. Plus did anyone try to take into account the past history of the nypd, and why the city would want to make such changes? Are you taking in the liberalism that runs in this city? The NYPD list of scandals throughout its history? You wouldnt think a city wouldnt keep this in mind when someone was shot inside a car with 50 bullets, or a person was tazered and fell to his death? Not my personal thoughts in this (but for some people it is), because I think a city with cameras in everyhand and in every corner, storefront, cops have been in control in their actions better than most, something I believe is unrivaled by any big city.

As for the falling victim, I would imagine that they would be concerned for the persons health, and were attempting to prevent him from hurting himself since he had mental problems. The fire department could have supplied some sort of landing platform or net under him (which is quite common during fires) before the genuis decided to tazer him while he was hanging on a ledge (which was originally a call about him attempting suicide, which nypd vowed to the mom they would take care of him). This was deemed an accident, but absolutely idiotic, and it doesnt matter how the court system works, or who judges who, the mistake cost him his life, and the officer with such a huge blunder goes back to work, mind you... what he did was against the nypd policies. I mean the worst he could have done is.... fell. Its not like hes going to grab a gun out of his buttcheeck.

And again, I still dont support the bill,  but i do support the attention its getting.


----------



## jks9199 (May 31, 2010)

In other words, you've decided that someone covered for the cops at court, and that there's some mysterious hidden conspiracy to allow cops to kill people without consequences.  I'm talking to a wall... but I assure you that's not true.  Here's one example: PDF LINK.  It's a lengthy read -- and it doesn't detail what happened to the officer due to personnel rules.  However... a violation of policy was sustained against him and he was disciplined in several ways; this happened in my general area and I know many officers on that department.

I'd suggest that you might find a Citizen's Police Academy quite educational.  These programs are designed to give the public an overview of the jobs, duties, and functions of their local police; they often include some firearms simulation exercises.  I know these sorts of exercises have been quite instructive for members of the press and general public who have gone through them.


----------



## repz (Jun 1, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> In other words, you've decided that someone covered for the cops at court, and that there's some mysterious hidden conspiracy to allow cops to kill people without consequences. I'm talking to a wall... but I assure you that's not true. Here's one example: PDF LINK. It's a lengthy read -- and it doesn't detail what happened to the officer due to personnel rules. However... a violation of policy was sustained against him and he was disciplined in several ways; this happened in my general area and I know many officers on that department.
> 
> I'd suggest that you might find a Citizen's Police Academy quite educational. These programs are designed to give the public an overview of the jobs, duties, and functions of their local police; they often include some firearms simulation exercises. I know these sorts of exercises have been quite instructive for members of the press and general public who have gone through them.


 
Wait... what? You took a whole post I said about me not wanting them jailed but them instead losing their jobs at the very least because even the courts agreed it was a mistake as a conspiracy? I just finished posting something about a mistake where someone did a bonehead mistake about tazering someing and them falling to their death, and him still wearing his badge, or where someone claims he reached and fired and killed someone with their gun because in the heat of holding down an unresisting unarmed man he reached for the wrong device and pulled the trigger, and just like in any job they should be fired, and you managed to turn that into me saying theres a conspiracy?

Or is the part where I talk about NYPD scanadals history, and how people in NYC still remember that, and how I even wrote that thats not the case for myself, but it is for some people somehow confuse you?

I figure why keep posting if this is going to be selective responding, where you only respond to 5 percent of the post, and it be something taking completely into assumption. Thats like me saying you support a cop who made a mistake that shows he is incapable of intense thought and support his continued great work in the police while even though he shot in the back and killed someone unarmed and not resisting because he reached for his gun pulled it out the hoslter and pulled the trigger and said he thought it was his taser, lol.

And you arent even from NYC, you are posting things from google. We have  Civilian Complaint Review Board as our body to report misconduct. In feb of this month, after so many years, it was decided that proscecution will not be made by nypd lawyers due to the need for changes. Here are reports of the Review Board http://www.nyclu.org/node/1343 and how they are failing to meet standards, http://www.nyclu.org/ccrb. I mean what would they know, they are just from nyc like myself.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 2, 2010)

repz said:


> In a situation I can see a rule being enforced to where shooting should be to wound, and I see a situation where it doesnt matter where the bullet hits but that it hits to save the officers lives. I am not an expert at laws, but I imagine the shoot to wound is a word of mouth agreement among officers when they arent "sure" of the situation, but its not supported by a law, now it is.
> 
> There has been situations where numerous gunshots were fired wrecklessly at people who werent armed. Its not like any bill or law doesnt have something to back it.


 
So you can see using lethal force (shooting someone anywhere is lethal force) 'when they're not sure'.........ahuh. 

So you think those situations where 'shots were fired wrecklessly' would somehow be mitigated or in some way made better by having officers shoot at limbs? Really? Think this through much did you?

This law is the dumbest thing since Greedo shooting first, and any defense of it is equally dumb.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 2, 2010)

repz said:


> Huh? Who is arguing that? I completely agree, but dont see how that fits into my post. There have been situations where people should have wounded (actually, never shot at all... even a wound in these situations are uncalled for). So as nice as this line is, it doesnt happen as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

So..........again, somehow shooting to wound is going to mitigated bad decisions exactly how again?

How about this.........officers need more trainining on when to shoot and when not too........that would help those situations.  Training to shoot for limbs?  Not so much.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 2, 2010)

repz said:


> Yes, cops put themselves in danger and they should have a right to arrest without added tension of being jailed in protecting themselves, but we cant just dismiss that an unarmed un-vested innocent can be and have been shot dead by accident when the cop fires to mortally kill or shoot off 40 shots based on a "hunch". Hence why people are pushing for regulations, is target shooting to safer areas realistic, probably not, but there is a reason why there is attention to this issue.


 
In a nation of 300 Million people, one can find plenty of anecdotal 'aberrations' as fodder for arguments.........but the reality is that the perception of the problem is far in excess of the actual problem, and the perceived issue isn't the real issue.

The bottom line is that the intent behind this legislation is to handicap police, pure and simple, by political interests that do not like the police.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 2, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> ... *the business end of a .40 caliber semi-auto being held by a person in uniform should generally convey at least the idea of "STOP MOVING!" *


 
Sorry to jump in so late in the post. The above stuck out like a sore thumb. It makes sense to me, and should me international language, that anyone should comprehend, anywhere in the world. At face value there is a very distinct disrespect for law enforcement, and the idea that " I've done nothing wrong, so why you busting on me" attitude is very prevalent. The fact of the matter is, if you have done nothing wrong, the best way out of any situation you may find yourself in, is, compliance. This is plain and simple.


----------



## repz (Jun 2, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> So..........again, somehow shooting to wound is going to mitigated bad decisions exactly how again?
> 
> How about this.........officers need more trainining on when to shoot and when not too........that would help those situations. Training to shoot for limbs? Not so much.


 
I HAVE never said that, i said enough times in ever post that i dont support the bill. I have said in my post I support better training, and focusing and learning from  those situations where there was no mistakes done where in others there were.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 2, 2010)

repz said:


> I HAVE never said that, i said enough times in ever post that i dont support the bill. I have said in my post I support better training, and focusing and learning from those situations where there was no mistakes done where in others there were.


 
So what was your point of disagreement again?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 2, 2010)

seasoned said:


> Sorry to jump in so late in the post. The above stuck out like a sore thumb. It makes sense to me, and should me international language, that anyone should comprehend, anywhere in the world. At face value there is a very distinct disrespect for law enforcement, and the idea that " I've done nothing wrong, so why you busting on me" attitude is very prevalent. The fact of the matter is, if you have done nothing wrong, the best way out of any situation you may find yourself in, is, compliance. This is plain and simple.


 
Yes, a man in uniform pointing a weapon at you and gesturing and yelling toward you simply transcends language, and is a universal language in itself for 'stop doing whatever you are doing and put your hands up'.


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2010)

A lot of what Police do transcends language.

I was near the Spain/France on a bus to Barcelona when we were boarded by the Spanish police.  They had an....installation....for lack of a better by the side of the road (in the middle of nowhere) and were dressed head to toe in olive drab.  It a bit was creepy especially as we had already cleared customs.

 My Hindi speaking colleague spoke some English ane no Spanish.  I don't know if he made out the term "pasaporte" but he had his papers out before I did.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 3, 2010)

Carol said:


> A lot of what Police do transcends language.
> 
> I was near the Spain/France on a bus to Barcelona when we were boarded by the Spanish police. They had an....installation....for lack of a better by the side of the road (in the middle of nowhere) and were dressed head to toe in olive drab. It a bit was creepy especially as we had already cleared customs.
> 
> My Hindi speaking colleague spoke some English ane no Spanish. I don't know if he made out the term "pasaporte" but he had his papers out before I did.


Good point, Carol. Now if you would have bolted from the bus, told to STOP, in Spanish of course, what then??? I am assuming a lot, but I feel they may have been armed. I wonder if your arms or legs would have been their target????:shock::mp5:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 3, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yes, a man in uniform pointing a weapon at you and gesturing and yelling toward you simply transcends language, and is a universal language in itself for 'stop doing whatever you are doing and put your hands up'.


 
Not for nothing did the (by now) old joke arise of the pump shotgun being nicknamed the "Universal Translator".


----------

