NY bill would require cops to "shoot to wound"

OP
KenpoTex

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
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]

:D
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
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.
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.

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

repz

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
176
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
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.
 
Last edited:

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,304
Reaction score
3,607
Location
Northern VA
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.
Way too many things left for assumption. The "regular client癡le" 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

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
176
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
Way too many things left for assumption. The "regular client癡le" 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

White Belt
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
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

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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.
 
Last edited:

repz

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
74
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

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
176
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
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

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,304
Reaction score
3,607
Location
Northern VA
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

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,304
Reaction score
3,607
Location
Northern VA
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

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
299
Reaction score
10
...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

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,304
Reaction score
3,607
Location
Northern VA
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.
 
Last edited:

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
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

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
195
Reaction score
3
Location
Brooklyn, NYC
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.
 
Top