NYPD shooting, what do you think?

T

TomMarker

New member
http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/31/ny.police.shooting.03/

A guy who was wielding a hammer was being taken into custody. After trying to take him down with Mace, the guy proceeds to whack the cop with the hammer.

4 of the 6 cops pull their guns and shoot the guy in the torso, killing him...

Now everyone is screaming "excessive force!"

What do you think? Personally, I want to know what the other two cops were doing instead of bringing him down. If you pull a gun on a cop, you will get shot, if you pull a knife on a cop, you will get shot. Why not a hammer?

Any LEO want to chime in on this one?

...tm
 
Hmm. A hammer is certainly a deadly weapon, but there were at least 6 officers present, and one suspect. It's hard to use a hammer in very close quarters (like under a pile of 6 officers), but a knife or gun would still be dangerous. Based on the odds, you would think maybe they could subdue him, but they already tried the mace and that didn't work. And there's always the danger that he could gain a better weapon (police sidearm) during the scuffle, so that's not necessarily as easy as it sounds. If the officer was within reach of the BG (since you said he was being struck with the hammer, I guess he was), you'd have to assume his life was in danger.

So, the perp showed:
1) Capability - he was armed with a dangerous weapon (hammer)
2) Intent - he showed he wanted to harm/kill someone (the officer)
3) Proximity - he was close enough to be able to inflict the intended harm with the weapon he had at hand

In Georgia, that would be a justified shooting.

But I do wonder if the other officers were just sitting back watching, or if they were actively involved in the arrest attempt (not an accusation, just curiosity).

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.
 
Kind of hard to say in this situation. If it were one on one no question that a double tap is called for if he dosen't comply with orders to drop the weapon. With six officers on the scene it does seem possible that the subject could have been taken down without shots being fired. But I don't like to second guess the officers they were there I wasn't.
 
From what little info we have, it looks like another case where cops may have gotten themselves into, er, a difficult situation...but the core incident was justified. Anyone objecting to the incident should volunteer their own skulls for a "what if the cops did NOT shoot?" test. The guy attacked a clearly-identified cop with a deadly weapon...not much room/time/resources for stopping him.

One could argue that nightsticks could have been used instead, but that's more dangerous to the cops than point-and-click.

Better to discuss whether the cops got themselves into a dangerous situation that they had to shoot their way out of. Perhaps they shouldn't have gotten within reach...but their job was to disarm and restrain the guy.

Another sucky situation.

Any cops wanna weigh in on this matter?

(Any bets that the anti's will want to disarm cops because of this? Didn't think so...)
 
Justified? Unjustified? From a legal standpoint, I couldn't say.

From a practical standpoint, I believe deadly force should be met with deadly force. The fact that you have the other side "out numbered" is only a statement of your luck of the draw. I wouldn't expect any other citizen to give the guy the benefit of leveling the playing field; a cop is no different.

Had this happened in Boise, I doubt we'd be second guessing it....that's the price NYPD pays for it's past blunders.
Rich
 
The details are sketchy...

Emotionally disturbed guy with a hammer threatening and screaming at people... Cops have been out there multiple times. Does something to earn himself a trip downtown, and when he's maced, he attacks the sgt. and the 4 bring him down.

They also mention 7 witnesses who confirm the cops story, as well as the fact that the man (6'4" 190) hit a guy in the face with a hammer on Sunday.

Should we feel bad? Maybe a little bit, as killing someone regardless of reason should never be a joyous task, but that doesn't mean it was excessive. If I was the Sgt. I would be grateful for having 4 guys alert enough to subdue the attacker when necessary.

I think the NYPD has brought this upon themselves though, considering the last 3 infamous excessive force cases.
 
Did he have nails, or was the hammer unloaded?

------------------
10MM Magnum.... tried the rest, now I got the best
 
Frankly, my only concern is whether the four officers who fired were not endangering the Sergeant, fellow officers, or any other bystanders. A surprising number of officers are killed each year by the gunfire of fellow officers.

As for the argument that the officers should not have gotten within the suspect's reach, please revisit the Tueller Drill. In any case, how are the officers _supposed_ to subdue him without approaching him? Cuff him by telekenesis? Use a giant butterfly net on a really long pole? Certainly clubbing him into submission would have been suitably ironic, but someone in the crowd always seems to have a video camera handy.
 
I can't give a clear answer because I wasn't there. Every situation is different. The department that I am afiliated with has a force continueum, standard for all agencies.
1. Presence
2. Verbal
3. Hands On
4. Chemical defense
5. Intermediate weapons
6. Deadly force

In this situation the officers used verbal commands, used hands on only to be assualted with the hammer. Chemical defense which didn't work. Intermediate weapons, I personaly would not get close enough to try hitting someone with a baton who is armed with a hammer, because a hammer can do some serious damage. The last method on the force continuim is DEADLY FORCE. He attempted to assualt/kill an officer with the hammer and deadly force was used. If you feel that your life or another persons life is in danger then use deadly force. The officers in this scenario felt that their fellow officer who was being assualted life was in danger and acted upon that beleif. As we all know the maniac in atlata first killed his entire family with a hammer before going on a shooting rampage. I cant make the decision for you if it was justified, your opinion is your opinion. Just my .02cents.
 
Well, if someone is armed with some sort of blunt instrument, bat, hammer, stick, etc, and is acting in a menacing manner, I think the reasonable thing to do is maintain safe distance, put the BG in your sights, and politely ask him to drop the weapon. Then you take the BG into custody. If the hammer was concealed on him, and he produced it from nowhere (i don't think that was the case) then it's another story.

Wrestling away an impact weapon from a rather large guy should be a last-resort thing, eh?

I'm not an LEO, but I would think that you would try to take care of that sort of thing before you close the distance. Now if he just lunged at the guy from X feet away, then he most definetely deserved to be put down.

Arrest by telekenesis would be something though. It might make the "How to defeat the SWAT team" thread interesting ;)

"build a safe room, lots of long arms and an aluminum foil hat :)"
[rant mode ON]
anyways... the reason i posted this was that one of the women quoted who was protesting said to the media "He had a hammer, it's not like he had a gun."

If some whacko was swinging a hammer in my general direction, I'd want something more between us than just my forearms :) Deadly force is nasty regardless of the manner it is executed... Most people attacked are probably looking at the end of a lead pipe or a bat or a kitchen knife than anything else IMHO...

[rant mode off} ;)
 
I think shooting was justified.It doesnt say how many rounds. With four shooters and two in reserve it was probably about 26-28 rounds. Probably a fair amount of adrenalin so that ought to be about right.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed




[This message has been edited by Ed Brunner (edited August 31, 1999).]
 
Hammers have become popular tools for resolving difficulties in my area. As have kitchen knives and the occassional baseball bat.

If a large man did not relinquish his weapon at the command of several armed officers, he clearly was looking for a confrontation. Body armour wont protect an officer's face.

Human beings do go into adrenal or chemical/ alcohol fueled rages and then attempt to avoid blame for the carnage. If what has been reported by the infotainment industry is in the neighborhood of the truth, we have here a case of such an individual who was stopped before he could go berserk on anybody else.

I recall cases where police piled on other weapon wielding punks and forcibly restrained them. All of these cases are unique; what works in one may not operate in another. In one instance, the perp had a nunchuku. In another, the criminal was going for his firearm arsenal.

In another case that raised hell in Philadelphia, police called out to restrain a crazed family member "accidentally" polished off the guy. The perp, reportedly delusional from not taking his medicine, attempted to strike an officer with a tool (screwdriver or hammer, forgot which). The officer's body armour prevented injury. Police restrained the nutjob, who was found later on to have illegal narcotics in his bloodstream (cocaine or crack, I believe). During the process of cuffing and stuffing the guy into a squad car, he suffered some manner of injury and eventually died. Officers claim that the guy's injuries were the result of his own violent struggle and that the drugs contributed to his demise. Forgot the verdict in this matter but the city did fork over a big wad to the deceased's family.
Jeff
 
We had, at one time, a number of people killing dope dealers with baseball bats. No one missed the dopers but the damage done to them was gawdawful.

Not long ago we had four people murdered by a hammer wielding doper looking for money.

Any blunt object will do you in right quick. NYPD has had some real bad shootings but this one sounds ok to me.



------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
I have two things:

1. It is unreasonable to judge the officers as a group. What if all six of them thought, "I guess the other guy will keep me from getting my skull bashed in..."

It is clear that each shooting officer could easzily have felt like he or another officer could easily have been seriously injured or killed by this guy. a review board is going to judge each officer on his own actions, and it certainly seems that any one of the shooters would have been easily justified.

I am glad to see that most people are clearly coming down on the side of this being justified.

2. I do not however, love the idea that people just seem to take it for granted that the NYPD has this massive propensity to use excessive force. I don't think we should re-hash old discussions in this thread, but too often we take for granted what the media wants us to think. Just because Al Sharpton and NBC news keep telling us that NYPD has a propensity to use excessive force does not make it so. Afterall, are any of you starting to become convinced that "there is no need for anyone to own one of those guns!!" ;)

------------------
-Essayons
 
A few years ago in Seattle the SPD had a several hour stand off on the sidewalk with a mental patient weilding a very sharp sword. They tried all the standard non-lethal weapons, finally suceeding with some combination of a fire department roof ladder (single section, 12 feet long) and a 2.5 inch fire hose (a few hundred gallons a minute at 50 or so psi.) They used one end of the ladder to pin him against a building, and blasted him with the hose. When they arrested him, he was wet, but alive.

Maybe all cops should start driving around in fire trucks.

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
I'm fairly impressed by the variety of responses, but remember this always, and remind those who cry out in shocked outrage: We weren't there!

I personally have misgivings as to why they had time to use O.C. spray, but no one deployed an ASP or any kind of baton. Or maybe they did; I wasn't there.

I would think the ideal response would be to break the guy's arm with a baton, and take him down hard, given that there was a healthy mismatch of cops to perp. But, I wasn't there.

Cooper was a bit critical of an officer who used his firearm to kill a dog, saying (correctly) that a properly trained officer should be capable of cleanly dispatching a canine without causing the undo disruption of a shot, but, with all respect to the good Col., he wasn't there. (Do you detect a theme? Good. :) )

This also goes to the "questionable" decisions juries may make, and I KNOW we all have a few in mind! We didn't sit through the days/weeks/possibly months of evidence presented "under the Rule." They did.

Does the phrase "walked a mile in their moccasins" ring a bell? Hmmm? [grin]

------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited August 31, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top