Diallo Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Training is everything, isn't it? From this story, it appears the officers involved lacked training in the prudent use of lethal force. Instead, they were hyped-up on fear and suspicion and over-reacted to a possible threat. While their actions may be a mistake, it will still cost them much. There is a lesson here, folks. Heed it.
 
First off I was NOT impressed that their removal of guns was connected to lower crime. What crimes where they talking about? Carrying a gun?

Secondly, they are a squad that has been "trained" to search anyone due to a "probable" cause (j-walking or merely looking suspicious) for guns, and because that is their focus they have been conditioned to expect a gun to be there.

This was an accident waiting to happen, make no mistake.

Allow law abiding citizens to carry and this conditioning, anticipation, expectation, and mistaken action would probably never have happened.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."



[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited March 30, 1999).]
 
First off I have to say that the officer obviously doesn't know much about pistols. Who ever heard of a 16 shot 9mm revolver?

Next I have to say that in their shoes, I would not have acted ANY diffrently. I do not see how they can be criticized for their actions. One of the jobs of the police is crime PREVENTION, this means that if there is someone acting in a suspicious manner, then you should try to find out if they have anything to hide. If when approaching this person, they pull out something resembaling a firearm, I would shoot, and so would you. In real life a moments hesitation, even the moment it takes to realize that it is only a wallet, can be the diffrence between life and death.


John you said "Allow law abiding citizens to carry and this conditioning, anticipation, expectation, and mistaken action would probably never have happened." I disagree with this because of the simple fact that only an idiot reaches into their pocket to pull something out when armed policemen are coming towards you without first informing them.


The one thing I do not agree that the police officers did correctly was fire control. 41 shoots at one person in an enclosed space is not only very excessive, it is dangerous. Bullets ricochet off brickl walls very nicely and I am sure that some of those ricochets came back at the cops, along with any bystanders that were in the vicinity.

Justin
 
When we atart thinking like they did nothing wrong then we can forget about all this pro bill of rights that we are. I haved worked many years as a cop and I can say that everytime a person is shot like that and nothing is done about it EVERY CITIZENS SLOWLY LOSES HIS RIGHTS. The Cops should have never fired on him until they saw a gun. Sure that puts their life in a little more danger, but we have to take into consideration that as cops we are REQUIRED to go that extra mile to make sure that EVERYONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and that the peopel we are paid to protect are safe from our inner fear that all COps have. And to anyone that would say they agree with the police officers in that case, I would have to say that you need to stop thinking in the SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER mentality that is why gun owners have such a crappy rep, because we act like human life means very little.
 
1. Diallo's death was a tragic mistake.

2. His death was an understandable mistake given the circumstances.

3. I have not been a very big fan of the Street Crimes Unit, or the theories about policing that created it, in the past. AT ALL.

4. The shooting had ZIP to do with the fact that those officers were attached to the SCU. It could've happened the same way if they were Rent-a-cops at the mall, Traffic Officers, or Vermont State Troopers.

5. I plan on going to NYC in late April with several other LEOs to show support for the four officers involved April 21st). I think that they are being railroaded and that the federal gov't will sieze on this case as justification for the "Policing of the Police" by the Federal Justice Department.

4.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Okay.... If we can judge all this so quickly by reading the news article, then "not being there" is no longer a valid argument.

Yep. It was a tragic mistake.
Yep. It could have happened with a rent-a-cop, or even a Security Officer(SO).

But if an SO HAD been the shooter, I'll bet LEOs across America would have lined up to proclaim SOs should NOT have guns because (snicker and sneer), "You don't shoot a citizen for pulling a wallet."

The first cop panicked. He was not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. That's a fact. He made a bad call in the heat of the moment. Though I can understand his fear, he was wrong. Whether his training or ability was the cause, none of us can know. But the shooting was not justified. IMO, he should be charged.

When the first cop fell down the stairs, his partners thought he had been shot. I have more understanding for the other officers than for the first officer.

In this event, the citizen pulled a wallet. Stupid move, of course I agree. But part of being a LEO is realizing that citizens can react improperly out of fear or misunderstanding; because they are truly deaf, drunk, injured, or sick; because they don't speak English (NOT a capital offense); or a host of reasons that LEOs would proclaim loudly if an SO or CHL holder did the shooting.

I am sorry for everyone involved in this incident; but the bottom line to me is that stupidity should not be a capital offense - for the citizen OR the cop.

Flame if you must....
 
My intent of the comment, "Allow law abiding citizens to carry and this conditioning, anticipation, expectation, and mistaken action would probably never have happened." Was to say that with the violation of the 2nd by placing restrictions on citizens to carry for their personal protection the need was created for a special unit to focus on the violation of these restrictions. Thus the expectation of a focused and specialized unit to find "illegal" guns is much higher. Add that to the hightened agitation of the individual stopped for practically nothing and you get a volatile mix that needs very little stimulus to explode.

If these police that form this squad understand the 2nd Amendment and believe that the people that they stop do as well, there will be friction. We have talked about it a lot here on the board.

I think that he should not have even been approached. Looking agitated is not against the law.

Reaching for a wallet without first recieving instruction from the police was a mistake, one that he paid dearly for. But, because of the units focus on guns, that was certainly foremost in thier minds when stopping anyone.


------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
1) If NYC would follow the Second Amendment then this entire situation would never have occurred.

2) It sounds as if the police's rules of engagement were followed. Maybe those rules need to be looked at.

3) As has been stated before, not speaking English well is not a capital offense. NYC officers are in contact with foreigners each and every day. They come in contact with people unable to obey commands because of a language barrier ALL THE TIME. A cop from Podunk, Wherever could be excused for not considering this but not NYC cops. Especially not this unit.

4) If a person can't stand around on the stoop of their own apartment building without being considered suspicious by the police, where can they stand without being considered suspicious by the police?

5) The proliferation of plainclothes officers. Look at the statistics on people impersonating LEO's. Look at the number of assaults, rapes, robberies, and murders done by these people. Something needs to be done about this. When I am approached by someone who gets out of an unmarked car who displays a badge, the first question in my mind is if they are truly an LEO. If the officers in this instance had been uniformed there would probably be a different outcome.

6) Saying it was an honest mistake does not cut the mustard. Saying that all departmental rules were followed does not cut the mustard. An innocent civilian is dead. If following departmental rules resulted in such a fubar then the departmental rules need to be examined and changed.

7) The age of three of the four LEO's. Personally, when I was in my twenties I was somewhat more emotionally volatile than I am in my forties. Not to mention MUCH less experienced.


This is a sad situation. While I am not a "knee-jerk" supporter of the police neither am I a "knee-jerk" police basher. I do know this-the police in this country have a growing problem with their perception by the populace. Not just with the poor minorities. I am talking about the white middle class also. Anything that adds to this growing mistrust of the police is something that is vital for the police to redress.
 
I said it before, I am a knee-jerk supporter of the police. I will give an LEO the benefit of the doubt everytime.

The example of "it could happen anywhere" is more valid thatn one might think.

Within one week of the Diallo incident, there was a similar shooting in Tenn. A rookie cop shot a man for making a sudden move during a traffic stop. The man had no weapon and it is unclear to this day what, if anything, the man did to put the LEO in fear for his life. Oh, you didn't hear about it on the national news? Don't be surprised... It didn't even make the local news. The Cop was black. Am I being a racist for pointing that out? No, it is a simple fact that the racial aspects of the Diallo shooting are 90% of the reason anyone has even heard about the incident. I think that is obvious. Would Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson be marching and getting arrested for protests if a White Stock Broker had been shot... gee, I don't think so, not if he'd been cut in half by 12 officers with 410 shots, who took a coffee break about halfway through and beat the guy's wife with batons afterwards.




------------------
-Essayons
 
Rob,

I don't necessarily agree with your statement that this could have happened with any cops.
Uniformed officers getting out of a marked patrol car would have announced their identity at once. Marked cars also have spotlights that could have been used to illuminate the individual.

When I am stopped, I always keep my hands in view of the officer at all times. If I am in my car I put both hands on my window sill as they approach the car. I don't want to give them reason to be nervous. Sadly, with some I don't want to give them the excuse to claim to have thought I was reaching for a weapon.

A SC state trooper is once again in hot water here. No one was killed. He stopped a local business owner who was carrying concealed. The business owner (known to the officer) got out of his car and told the officer that there was a large deposit on the seat of his car and that he was carrying concealed. The business owner then apparently tried to hand his weapon to the trooper by prominently taking two fingers to draw his weapon. The trooper pepper sprayed and beat him. Back up officers initially supported the trooper's story of events. The videotape from the trooper's car does not. It supports the business owner's version. The back up officers have now dropped their initial version.

This trooper has a reputation of being a gung ho ticket fountain even among local police supporters. He's also stupid. Tell me something, if you were giving an emergency nurse a ticket- would you go out of your way to be verbally offensive? A nurse that would be giving you care if you were injured? This bright boy did. That would not make any difference in the care I would give him but he does not know that. This guy is too stupid to be a cop.
 
Okay, the standard for using lethal force with a civilian is the rule of the reasonable man (in most locales). Being evenhanded, would a reasonable LEO have been in fear of his life in the same situation as the Tenn. rookie? I am VERY careful during traffic stops because the cop has a job that would make me more nervous than a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I move VERY slowly and carefully. I tell the officer exactly what I propose to do before I slowly do it. Many officers grin at the way I act with them but my behaviour is designed to give them no reason to be concerned for their safety.
 
Honestly,I n relation to the shooting in TN, other officers present have said something similar to:

"I did not have the vantage point that officer ***** did."

Which could mean "Hell, no I don't think it was justified, but he's a cop and so am I."

Take that for what it is worth.

Sounds like the tropper in SC is an idiot, but that doesn't explain the person who was stopped wither getting out of his car or trying to hand the officer his weapon unless he was specifically asked to do so.
 
Part of the problem here is the employment of ex-military, especially Delta force types, as police instructors, especially for "special" units.

The military recognizes only two types of people, "us" US forces, and "them" - "the enemy." And "we" are trained to shoot first to kill "them." Civilians or neutrals are rarely in the military picture.

Police are or should be trained to arrest people who are reasonably believed to be violating the law. Civilian safety is very important, and killing is the last resort, not the first.

When military-trained police come to see civilians as "them" or "the enemy" to be shot at the least sign of trouble, we are in deep doo-doo. If CCWs were common in NYC, the cops would only shoot the guy for reaching for his license. And since when did the military worry about the Second Amendment rights of the enemy? Maybe in Iraq? Vietnam? Korea?

The NYC cops were wrong. Period. I cannot and will not support those cops or that type of police action on political or any other grounds. I don't care if Guiliani reduced crime or not; if the cops do it that way, he may not need to worry about getting votes, as there won't be anyone left alive to go to the polls.
 
Rob,
1) You're right. The reaction to this shooting is exacerbated by the fact that
(apparently) white cops shot a black man - a man who probably had a guilty
conscience for lying on his immigration papers.

The racial overtones and exploitation by minority groups of this incident is
hypocritical and contrary to their stated goals but politically rewarding.
Perhaps there is some value in such “venting” but the only justification can
be a fear by the minority that the shooters, in this case the police, will
escape the legal process because of Diallo’s race. (Aside: I wonder who
would speak up if Diallo had been an Anglo...)

2) I am sure you never meant to imply that the shooting would have been
okay if Diallo were white - only that Jesse Jackson wouldn’t have cared.
Right? But let’s also agree that Jesse Jackson and others making a racial
thing of this does not justify the shooting!

3) Law enforcement officials shot an unarmed man who presented no
threat to them. Diallo pulling his wallet out is clearly an innocent act in
retrospect. There was no actual threat to the officer - it was the “perceived”
threat (by Diallo) that caused the first officer to open fire.

I have agreed that this fatal perception was Diallo’s fault because of his
inappropriate action (or “reaction”). Unfortunately for Diallo AND the police,
we can not determine whether Diallo acted out of stupidity, fear, lack of
understanding or because of instructions he may have received from
Immigration (eg. “You must always show the police officer your papers” or
some similar instruction).

The officers’ reactions after the shooting (eg. weeping, inability to speak,
etc.) strongly suggest their own knowledge that the shooting was neither
justified nor necessary.

4) Here’s where we may disagree - the definition of “support”.

4a) Anyone who supports law enforcement by saying "They're right because
they're police!" encourages lawlessness. If said supporter is a police officer,
it is in violation of his oath because such blind support disregards the law.
This path leads to the type of law enforcement (eg. KGB, Gestapo, etc.) that
Cornered Rat so aptly described and (apparently) fears. It creates and
justifies lawlessness, (eg. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.).

4b) Anyone who supports law enforcement by saying “They’re innocent until
proven guilty - just like any other person in America” encourages the rule of
law. If said supporter is a police officer, he should ensure every activity
follows legal procedures. The accused officers should be given the moral
support of their fellow officers and the general public. Investigators should
go to great efforts to determine the truth - the real, honest to God truth.

Police are Americans just like those whom they "serve and protect". As they
so often tell us, "We don't MAKE the laws. We only enforce them." They do
not enjoy some form of "immunity" because of their profession. Frankly,
IMO, they should be held to a higher standard than the people they serve -
taking into consideration the dangers of their job. However, let’s not forget
that police officers are not “drafted”. They are “volunteers” just like the
convenience store clerks, firefighters, and even North Pacific fishermen
(among others) who suffer a higher on-the-job death rate than do police
officers.

Supporting the police, in this case, means ensuring a fair and complete
investigation and subsequent action only as appropriate - just as the law
applies to ANY American. If the police do not have the same level of faith in
our legal system they require of the public, that shows a severe need for
some kind of corrective action - in the law, in its enforcement, and/or in the
judiciary process.

5. Unfortunately members of some local police departments have
whitewashed their own illegal and immoral activities so often that the Feds
see an opportunity to fill that supposed "moral vacuum". While we may hate
that federal intervention, the local departments, all too often, have brought
it on themselves.

6. In this case, it may help to draw a parallel. If someone is standing in
your front yard and if you go out to ask who he is and why he is there, I
recommend you don’t shoot him for pulling a wallet.
 
Well I think with irresponsibility like that, the cops should lose their jobs. Stupid crap like that is why we are called pigs, racist, gung ho killers ect. They should have known better regardless of what other cops say. One thing I have learned from being on the force, is that cops stick together. Well i hope that changes because we have a bunch of bad apples we need to throw out.
 
Well, What I was saying, Dennis, was that the shooting was a tragic accident no matter waht color any of the people involved were. BUT, it has become a political issue because the shooters were white and the victim was black.

I have seen officers involved in significantly clearer cases of justified shootings that have weeped, similarly I have seen some officers get the "jitters" just from pointing a gun at an innocent person or a person who did not need to be shot.

There seems to be a fundamental issue at hand which seperates those calling for the death sentence and those calling for a calm thorough investigation. Those who are out for blood seem to be characterizing these guys as crusaders who came in with their guns blazing, I don't see a single fact to back that position up, so I am at a loss for further discussion against the opinion. The amount of bullets does not indicate the intention of the officers, furthermore the accuracy achieved, in context, seems to speak AGAINST the idea that they were simply firing randomly or in a "suppressive" manner.


I agree that LEOs should be held to a higher standard and I think in most cases they certainly are.

The idea that we have bad apples is 100% correct. The people invovled in the Plunger Sodomy case: bad apples... truly sick guys who need to punished beyond the extant of current law. Cops on the beat who accidentally but understandably shoot someone, maybe they should lose their jobs, but they should not lose their freedom, much less their lives.
 
If by calling himself a "knee jerk police supporter", Rob means to say that he prefers to wait on the facts before condemning the cops, I guess I'm one also.

At some point, however, we each have the right to say "I've heard enough" and express a personal opinion. When that point is reached, is up to the individual. IMHO, when we hear of 6 cops raiding the wrong house and gunning the owner, I can generally decide pretty quickly that someone (perhaps the brass) should be facing criminal negligence charges, at a minimum.

In a case like Biallo's, I'd prefer to wait at least until the officers make a statement at trial.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited March 31, 1999).]
 
I think it's definitely possible that if Diallo hadn't been black, there would not be a media free-for-all going on, because he wouldn't have been randomly accosted and shot by aggressive, unprofessional cops.
 
Regardless of his race we all should be blowing the whistle on these guys. True enough the Black communtiy is the first to call out against anything that they might concieve as a treat to their little crime rdden community but in this case I think they have a good point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top