NYC cops kill teen holding hairbrush, firing 20 shots...

Juan,
my neighbor ( LEO of 20+ years ) was involved in a shooting a few years back - he had no recollection of how many shots he fired till he checked the magazine after the shoot. Turns out he fired 8 times in less than 4 seconds...things happen FAST in a shooting..

From the news reports today it sounds like it was a suicide by cop situation; tragic that it ended the way that it did, but I don't fault the officers in this situation.
 
You won't find verbiage in any state's laws that require you to only shoot to stop the threat. That silliness came right out of the vacuum between the ears of seminar-givers. There are laws regarding the application of deadly force, and deadly force means exactly what it says.
 
We're not talking about an ongoing gun battle here, guys. We're talking about a situation in which some cops thought a guy had a gun, and then in a matter of a few seconds, managed to squeeze off 20 rounds. If a burglar was coming through your window, and you shot 2-3 times, most DA's wouldn't say a hell of a lot. On the other hand, if you squeezed off 10 rounds (like one of the cops apparently did), I can guarantee that there would be LOTS of questions.

I'm not saying the guy didn't have it coming. What I am saying is that there is apparently something going on with NYPD (training?? attitude???) that somehow makes them think it is appropriate to turn a shooting into a full scale war.
 
Hell, I'll give 'em 1 or 2 shots a piece
Click to expand...

Under your rules, police will be very happy to carry derringers and o/u shotguns only. :barf:


Good shoot in my opinion. I don't understand why we're supposed to feel sorry for people who look at police gun barrels and think they're going to be just fine to charge them. If I was a cop, I would've shot the perp too. I would've shot til he hit the ground and wasn't pointing the object at me anymore. If that took ten shots from me while my back up started to open up too, then so be it.

What everyone seems to forget in these "X amount of rounds fired" senarios, is that this is all happening at one time. They aren't taking turns, popping their few and then letting the next guy go. Five trained officers, 2 seconds? Twenty shots is a reasonable number.
 
Good shoot in my opinion. I don't understand why we're supposed to feel sorry for people who look at police gun barrels and think they're going to be just fine to charge them.
Click to expand...

Well, at least some (like myself) are less concerned with the the victim of the shooting and more concerned with where the other 12 rounds went and whether other bystanders were put at unnecessary risk.

EDIT: And not necessarily even "somebody needs to go to jail" or "somebody needs to get fired" concerned. Just thinking it sounds like it might be a training issue, since it's not exactly an isolated incident.
 
Call it a good shoot if you want guys, but plenty of questions are going to be asked as to why this many rounds were fired. Sounds more like the closing scene of "The Wild Bunch" to me. There are plenty of departments that expect their officers to account for each and every shot fired. You can think that's wrong or right, but you can bet Al Sharpton will be there asking the same questions......
 
Well... a bit of a cultural experience....

I was visiting some family in NYC. As a part of my trip, I usually visit a pizzaria or 2. As I was eating with a bunch of people, a group of NYPD Police Officers were sitting a few tables away. I overheard bits and pieces of their conversation.... 'yeah sarge, I could use a gun collar soon'.. 'yea bro, bang them out' .... 'overtime this.... overtime that....'...

My point is, NYPD Police Officers are a different breed. For those of you that venture into NYC on occasion... leave the guns home. These LEO's will have no problems with arresting anybody for any BS charge. Stay clear of NYC... it's a nightmare. I can't wait to get home.
 
EDIT: And not necessarily even "somebody needs to go to jail" or "somebody needs to get fired" concerned. Just thinking it sounds like it might be a training issue, since it's not exactly an isolated incident.

I would say that 95% of NYPD cops have never touched a gun until their first day at the firing range up at Randalls Island for the academy. Most of them are city people. The closest thing they ever experienced with guns (pre NYPD) was video games.
 
I would say that 95% of NYPD cops have never touched a gun until their first day at the firing range up at Randalls Island for the academy. Most of them are city people. The closest thing they ever experienced with guns (pre NYPD) was video games.
Click to expand...

Hey, same applied to me when I joined the Army.
 
"Anyone else here old enough to remember.... "

When LEOs could shoot someone fleeing they believed had committed a felony.

Got a runner.... Bang. Result? Up intil relatively not so long ago, a good shoot.

At that point, would it matter if it was one round or twenty? what if it was the wrong guy? After all, it was up to the officer's believe at that time.

But I digress...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-nyshot1113,0,2281113.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

Given these facts, its a good shoot by any standard, old or new.

A four round an officer average isn't necessarily excessive, particularly if you're the closest officer(s).

On high shot tallyies: A shot high tally does not equate to a bad shoot. It isn't even necessarily a bad thing; or a good thing. It is what it is. In this case, it is four shots per officer.

On high miss tallies: A high miss tally does not equate to a bad shoot. It is a bad thing. It may contribute to high shot tallies, though not necessarily so. It also is what it is, which is an indicator that square range training isn't what the administrators wish it to be, and reflective of a need for improved training and tactics.
 
Yes. I see you're equating what are supposed to be peace officers in a peaceful country with soldiers fighting in a warzone. And that scares me.
Click to expand...

Don't let it scare you. It will be okay. I was not comparing "peace" officers in a "peaceful" country (where did you get that naive idea that we were in a peaceful country?) to soldiers in a warzone. I was comparing armed personnel dealing with life or death conflicts where they are sometimes fired on by an enemy who knew they had the upper hand because they could not be fired on first.

If the goal of police has become self-preservation, tell me again why I should call them if there's a problem?
Click to expand...

Well the goal of law enforcement is not suicide. They get to protect themselves against those that would try to harm them or give the impression of pressing an attack against them just like you and me. As for why you should call the police, I don't care if you call them or not. If you do call them, don't threaten to kill them, don't claim to have a gun you don't have and pretend to use another object in a gun like fashion, and when the cops tell you to stop, show them your hands, etc., follow directions. It really is pretty simple.
 
From all the reports I have read, the officers involved would have been damned fools not to protect themselves be shooting. If someone says they have a gun and are going to shoot you, you would be an idiot, and a dead one at that, if you wait until you are shot to assume the treat is real.
 
A police officer's Job

Their job used to be to protect the population, worry about the welfare of others before their own backside. Now, they're more like soldiers, IMO. Respond to threat, eliminate threat. Not "peace officer" anymore.
Click to expand...


Their literal job is to enforce the law, not to protect citizens. If a cop stops a robber from killing you, legally it is because robbing and killing are against the law and it's their job to enforce law; not necessarily to protect you.

This is actually one of the important factors in the DC v. Heller case and why each camp in the case is beating each other over the head with "stand by while citizens die" language.

Of course the human factor is, most cops would step in from the instinct to protect a citizen in situations where it's obvious they need the help.
 
Their literal job is to enforce the law, not to protect citizens. If a cop stops a robber from killing you, legally it is because robbing and killing are against the law and it's their job to enforce law; not necessarily to protect you.
Click to expand...

I see quite a few police cruisers with "To protect and serve" painted on the trunk or door. I guess thats a little misleading then.

I think the officers acted out of necessity. The guy had a suspisious object in his hand, and was aproaching officers. I could understand 2 or 3 shots total, but I think they went overboard.
 
RedneckFur - It's not misleading at all: The cops serve the government, which enacts laws to protect the citizens... or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. :rolleyes:

Colin
 
It's interesting to consider how the majority understands the cops' view point. A man in the dark is advancing with a dark obscure thing in his hand and he doesn't stop as told; cause for action. Had the same thing happened to a civilian, having shared the same feeling of fear, the case would be a rag drag in court. Pathetic.
 
I really get sick of hearing about these "rambo" style cops who feel the need to unload all their handguns at once at a single suspect without any consideration to where the missed shots are going. So who's side am I on? Neither really. Both the cops and the dead suspect were in the wrong. First off, I don't care how mad you are about whatever domestic dispute you're in. When a cops tells you to stop you better do so because cops can legally kill you. But the cops were also in the wrong and IMO more wrong than the suspect. The suspect may of been believed to be a threat, but in the end it was the cops who were way more of a threat by spraying bullets everywhere. :mad:
 
Quote:
Their literal job is to enforce the law, not to protect citizens. If a cop stops a robber from killing you, legally it is because robbing and killing are against the law and it's their job to enforce law; not necessarily to protect you.

I see quite a few police cruisers with "To protect and serve" painted on the trunk or door. I guess thats a little misleading then.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It can be taken anyway people like. Maybe tagging "..the law" to the end would lend a truth-in-advertising spin to the saying. Whatever public relations message we hear, the law is clear and longstanding.

I'm not second guessing the officers' decision. Given the circumstances, I'd of likely drawn down too. The response in force is a little hard to reconcile - panic, fear, anger, a suspect that wouldn't stay down - hard to say.
 
well dying by gun fire is not painfull and its a honorable death
What if that man would have survived after being shot with 20 9 mm rounds and still kept moving unharmed like the T-1000 in terminator 2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top