NY bill would require cops to "shoot to wound"

[Archangel M]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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?

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".