• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Police shooting!!

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Finger at night from a suspect who's already been fleeing.
:rolleyes:

Two bystanders were grazed and suffered minor injuries, it's at best a civil matter. The check is probably already on the way from the city...
:rolleyes:

However if there is real reform to be made, a citizen ought to sue with the claim that NYPD command staff are responsible due to the 12 pound trigger on the glocks
:rolleyes:

The poster above me got it right.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
After approaching him they say the man reached into his pocket as if grabbing a weapon, and two officers fired shots.

America needs to DEMAND that LE nationwide adopt "do not fire unless fired upon" ROE. If they don't like it they can get a different job.

images

Except said image was directed at someone who thinks the police should be restricted from ever shooting people who don't guns and shoot first. Which is stupid, he seems to think that it is not acceptable to prevent use of deadly force with deadly force in general. Hence he rates an insult for having the mindset of an anti-gunner. If somebody looks like they're pointing a gun at you do you have to wait until being shot at to react

Your strawman is showing...
The cops were not reacting to a gun!
The cops were not reacting to the threat of deadly force!
The cops were OVER reacting to a man with his hand in his pocket!

The cops never reacted to someone that looked like they were pointing a gun at them, nor a cell phone, nor a wallet, nor even a pointed finger!
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
It may have been an attempted "suicide by cop"

Finger at night from a suspect who's already been fleeing.

Two bystanders were grazed and suffered minor injuries, it's at best a civil matter. The check is probably already on the way from the city...

However if there is real reform to be made, a citizen ought to sue with the claim that NYPD command staff are responsible due to the 12 pound trigger on the glocks



"Witness Mike Favilla told The News that the man took out his Metrocard and "aimed it at the cop. He was pretending like he had a gun...He definitely looked like he was high on something or was mentally off. He couldn’t walk in a straight line. He was limping and jerking his legs around.” Kelly added, "The individual was blocking traffic and appeared to be attempting to be hit by cars."

http://gothamist.com/2013/09/15/cops_mistakenly_shoot_two_female_by.php
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Except said image was directed at someone who thinks the police should be restricted from ever shooting people who don't guns and shoot first. Which is stupid, he seems to think that it is not acceptable to prevent use of deadly force with deadly force in general. Hence he rates an insult for having the mindset of an anti-gunner. If somebody looks like they're pointing a gun at you do you have to wait until being shot at to react

WOW is all I can say to you about your comments.

In Vietnam toward the end of the war our own soilders couldn't fire at anyone unless fired upon first.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the same rules have on and off applied to us (yes I spent two tours in both lovely places). We were told that we couldn't fire unless fired upon and this also means if someone points a weapon and you then you can't fire back unless lead actually is heading your direction.

It is funny how you give these paroniod cops a pass on shooting an unarmed citizen and injuring two unarmed citizen just out of their fear. If they act this way in NY can you imagine them in Iraq?

I don't think our local cops should have a looser set of standards dealing with US citizens than our military in a combat zone has to deal with the enemy. Those are my thoughts and if you EMS SEATTLE haven't served in a combat zone you might want to go join up and maybe you will understand, of course maybe you won't.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Is it a criminal matter when a cop discharges a firearm in the course of their perceived duty in the vain attempt to defend themselves. It seems that the answer is, no. Is it a criminal matter if it were a citizen in the same situation? It seems that the jury is still out on this one.

The real issue is why cops are trained to shoot at someone on a crowded NYC street.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
WOW is all I can say to you about your comments.

In Vietnam toward the end of the war our own soilders couldn't fire at anyone unless fired upon first.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the same rules have on and off applied to us (yes I spent two tours in both lovely places). We were told that we couldn't fire unless fired upon and this also means if someone points a weapon and you then you can't fire back unless lead actually is heading your direction.

It is funny how you give these paroniod cops a pass on shooting an unarmed citizen and injuring two unarmed citizen just out of their fear. If they act this way in NY can you imagine them in Iraq?

I don't think our local cops should have a looser set of standards dealing with US citizens than our military in a combat zone has to deal with the enemy. Those are my thoughts and if you EMS SEATTLE haven't served in a combat zone you might want to go join up and maybe you will understand, of course maybe you won't.

I really don't know anything about military ROE, and it's not even really relevant to this discussion.

the military also doesn't use hollowpoints, do you? do you use any CS based self defense sprays? those are also banned for military use on the battlefield. whatever the military managed to come up with for a combat zone has zero bearing on domestic law enforcement or self defense. to the best of my knowledge Police agencies do not have an "acceptable casualty" ratio for conducting law enforcement, if an officer is there they have to make split second decisions, they don't have the luxury of hunkering in a foxhole or an armored humvee and waiting for the commanding officer to radio them back.

and the same goes with private citizens, if you weren't there then you're judging the incident in rosy glasses of hindsight getting to evaluate circumstaces the shooter could not have known about. people (including cops) are not wired to kill people, how many police officers do you think want to shoot someone? the cops I know have told me the worst day of their lives will be when they have to fire in the line of duty. same with private citizens, ergo if someone gets to the point of drawing and firing a gun in defense it should already be a presumption that the person using the firearm believed their act was reasonable and should be dealt with accordingly unless there is solid evidence that malice was involved.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
whatever the military managed to come up with for a combat zone has zero bearing on domestic law enforcement or self defense.

Clearly, the police need all the trappings of a military, and their enemy – the American people – is evidently far more dangerous than any faced by the actual armed forces, for the police can't survive with the same limitations. :rolleyes:

On what planet do you live where an American soldier's life is worth less vis-à-vis a foreign insurgent's than is an American cop's vis-à-vis another American citizen?

Grow up.

By the way, I don't have to have been there to know I wouldn't have been shooting bystanders because some guy didn't point a gun at me.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Clearly, the police need all the trappings of a military, and their enemy – the American people – is evidently far more dangerous than any faced by the actual armed forces, for the police can't survive with the same limitations. :rolleyes:

On what planet do you live where an American soldier's life is worth less vis-à-vis a foreign insurgent's than is an American cop's vis-à-vis another American citizen?

Grow up.

By the way, I don't have to have been there to know I wouldn't have been shooting bystanders because some guy didn't point a gun at me.

but if you Believed that he pointed a gun at you you would fire in defense right? and who said anything about shooting bystanders, are you accusing these officers of intentially shooting bystanders?
if say there's a man pointing something at you and you think it's a gun so you draw and fire, miss and the bullet goes down an alleyway into a cardboard box and kills a homeless man inside, do you consider yourself guilty of a crime, drop the LEO v civie distinction for now, we'll get back to it, do you consider yourself guilty of a crime? if you come out your apartment building and a hear gun shots, and see a well dressed man fall to the ground with a gun, and you see a gangster looking teenager in a hoody with a saturday night special and you shoot him thinking he's the bad guy, and later witnesses say the well dressed man was shooting randomly at people and the gangster looking teenager stopped him from continuing... do you consider yourself guilty of a crime?

IMO in those cases I think a case can be made you're guilty of a crime.... but I personally think those should be a civil matter. unless you're so overcome with guilt that you want to plead guilty to something and go to prison I personally think someone in those cases shouldn't go to prison.. because they were acting in the heat of the moment on imperfect information.

on what planet do I live on? I have nothing to do with writing ROE for military operations... how in the hell can you possibly pin that on me?
I have never studied any form of international law or military law relating, I have no idea what goes into the heads of whoever writes that, it's out of my zone of knowledge.

on the other hand, I have read case law and statutory law of several states involving use of deadly force by cops and private citizens. to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife" there is nothing in civilian law that requires a civilian, regardless of their employer, to take bullets before they can defend themselves or others.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I really don't know anything about military ROE, and it's not even really relevant to this discussion.

the military also doesn't use hollowpoints, do you? do you use any CS based self defense sprays? those are also banned for military use on the battlefield. whatever the military managed to come up with for a combat zone has zero bearing on domestic law enforcement or self defense. to the best of my knowledge Police agencies do not have an "acceptable casualty" ratio for conducting law enforcement, if an officer is there they have to make split second decisions, they don't have the luxury of hunkering in a foxhole or an armored humvee and waiting for the commanding officer to radio them back.

and the same goes with private citizens, if you weren't there then you're judging the incident in rosy glasses of hindsight getting to evaluate circumstaces the shooter could not have known about. people (including cops) are not wired to kill people, how many police officers do you think want to shoot someone? the cops I know have told me the worst day of their lives will be when they have to fire in the line of duty. same with private citizens, ergo if someone gets to the point of drawing and firing a gun in defense it should already be a presumption that the person using the firearm believed their act was reasonable and should be dealt with accordingly unless there is solid evidence that malice was involved.

Actually you have it wrong again.

1. Most of your military police carry in addition to their service weapon and handcuffs an ASP (extending stick), and CS spray. I used to work at the gate at Mountain Home AFB after I retired and as a civilian officer I along with the active duty both carried the CS Spray.

2. You are correct that the active duty don't use hollow points (most of the time) but again I was a federal officer working on a military base and we all carried hollow points.

3. You are just blowing smoke out of your “you know what” when it comes to "acceptable casualty" thoughts. ONE is too many even in a combat zone. You have no clue about hunkering down in a fox hole either. Combat isn't what you see in the movies and as you point out you haven't been there so your options on this really don't mean squat. For your information a lot of what we do in the field is a split second decision and you rely on training and trusting in your buddies to have your back.

4. It is evident that the cops in NY are being wired to shoot first and not worry about who they hit. The stop and frisk was also a way to shred the US Constitution. Cops in NY are thugs and have been programed to think this way. Your comments about two of the three victims only being grazed shows your lack of caring about Americans freedom and liberty. If those women would have been your mother and grandmother would you still give the cops a pass?

Cops need to be held to a higher standard that the average citizen when it comes to using their weapons, I would settle for the same standard but we are not getting that.

All I can say is you’re a piece
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
but if you Believed that he pointed a gun at you you would fire in defense right?

Diversion. It would not be reasonable for me to believe there was a gun pointed at me in this circumstance, and therefore I would not do so.


and who said anything about shooting bystanders, are you accusing these officers of intentially shooting bystanders?

The NYPD have quite a history of doing this.


if say there's a man pointing something at you and you think it's a gun so you draw and fire, miss and the bullet goes down an alleyway into a cardboard box and kills a homeless man inside, do you consider yourself guilty of a crime, drop the LEO v civie distinction for now, we'll get back to it, do you consider yourself guilty of a crime?

Given a reasonable belief that the "something" is a lethal weapon (not present here, but for the sake of argument)...

No, I would not be guilty of a crime. What I would be is personally civilly liable for the damages incurred, irrespective of my "belief" about that or anything else.

So, no, you don't get to ignore the cop/citizen distinction, just because it all of a sudden suits you, thanks to the brilliant concept of qualified immunity.

if you come out your apartment building and a hear gun shots, and see a well dressed man fall to the ground with a gun, and you see a gangster looking teenager in a hoody with a saturday night special and you shoot him thinking he's the bad guy, and later witnesses say the well dressed man was shooting randomly at people and the gangster looking teenager stopped him from continuing... do you consider yourself guilty of a crime?

WTF? Irrelevant, and too specific to generalize from.

on what planet do I live on? I have nothing to do with writing ROE for military operations... how in the hell can you possibly pin that on me?

Fair enough. I take it that you then reject any limitations in military ROE.
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
Too many UNARMED individuals are getting shot, killed, or shot at by LEOs in the USA on a weekly basis.


Cops now seem to believe whatever they may think at the time covers them if they shoot, "I thought he had a gun" would NEVER justify a non-LEO shooting so why should it with cops??????????
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I just hope that my primary sexual organs don't itch whenever I am near a cop or DMV employee (yes, they exempted DMV employees in my state).

These guys appear to act like they are Judge Dredd.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
but if you Believed that he pointed a gun at you you would fire in defense right? and who said anything about shooting bystanders, are you accusing these officers of intentially shooting bystanders?
if say there's a man pointing something at you and you think it's a gun so you draw and fire, miss and the bullet goes down an alleyway into a cardboard box and kills a homeless man inside, do you consider yourself guilty of a crime, drop the LEO v civie distinction for now, we'll get back to it, do you consider yourself guilty of a crime? if you come out your apartment building and a hear gun shots, and see a well dressed man fall to the ground with a gun, and you see a gangster looking teenager in a hoody with a saturday night special and you shoot him thinking he's the bad guy, and later witnesses say the well dressed man was shooting randomly at people and the gangster looking teenager stopped him from continuing... do you consider yourself guilty of a crime?

IMO in those cases I think a case can be made you're guilty of a crime.... but I personally think those should be a civil matter. unless you're so overcome with guilt that you want to plead guilty to something and go to prison I personally think someone in those cases shouldn't go to prison.. because they were acting in the heat of the moment on imperfect information.

on what planet do I live on? I have nothing to do with writing ROE for military operations... how in the hell can you possibly pin that on me?
I have never studied any form of international law or military law relating, I have no idea what goes into the heads of whoever writes that, it's out of my zone of knowledge.

on the other hand, I have read case law and statutory law of several states involving use of deadly force by cops and private citizens. to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife" there is nothing in civilian law that requires a civilian, regardless of their employer, to take bullets before they can defend themselves or others.

So all anyone has to do if they shoot an unarmed person is to say they thought they felt treatened and it will be dropped?

Again you are wrong and to all your comments about shooting someone that isn't armed than yes you are guilty of a crime it might be manslaughter or 2 degree murder but it is still a crime. If a cop or a civilian has so much fear as to shoot first and then look to see if there is a gun than yes it is a crime and should be treated as such. How would you like to be mowed down by a cop as you OC? Your giving the cop an excuse to shoot you as he might have feared you would shoot him. Where is the line? Just say I thought he was going for his gun?

As we as civilans are responsiable for each round that comes out of our weapon so should the cops. One of the basic principles of shooting is know what is behind your target. You are actually saying it is ok for (anyone or just cops?) to move down people just to get one that might have a weapon?

Put yourself in the cops shoes, do you think you would get off with a "he feared for his life" from an unarmed man and two unarmed ladies? Or maybe you have to have a badge to have the get out of jail free card.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Diversion. It would not be reasonable for me to believe there was a gun pointed at me in this circumstance, and therefore I would not do so.

See again, you weren't there, you don't know for sure what you would have done.

The NYPD have quite a history of doing this.

private citizens have a history of killing their fellow citizens too, and in much greater numbers

Given a reasonable belief that the "something" is a lethal weapon (not present here, but for the sake of argument)...

I see you are the sole arbiter of "reasonable"?

No, I would not be guilty of a crime. What I would be is personally civilly liable for the damages incurred, irrespective of my "belief" about that or anything else.

So, no, you don't get to ignore the cop/citizen distinction, just because it all of a sudden suits you, thanks to the brilliant concept of qualified immunity.

Which comes from the fact the police officers are expected to act whereas private citizens are not. your job is not to arrest people all day. Every action you take at your job is probably not reviewed by different courts. King county, near where I live has over 200 different judges, you can't personally sue an officer every single time one of these two hundred different individuals rules some act a violation of someone's civil rights.otherwise everyone would be sued out of the job, although that's probably what you want anyway.

WTF? Irrelevant, and too specific to generalize from.

just to provide an idea of how you can be genuinely wrong due to rapidly evolving situations.

Fair enough. I take it that you then reject any limitations in military ROE.
when I eventually read some international law I'll get back to you.

my response bolded
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Fair enough. I take it that you then reject any limitations in military ROE.

Actually I do believe EMS would like our military to have one arm tied behind their backs in a combat zone (We haven't actually won a war since WW2 when they started restricting the military with ROE other than the Geneva Convention).

I also believe that EMS thinks that cops can do no bad, that all cops are good and misunderstood. That we should bow to our masters and kiss their feet and thank them for letting us live today.

Either he actually believes this or a cop is standing behind him as he writes his options. I hope it is the second one.
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
EMN: Again apologizing for unacceptable behavior under most circumstances. I don't know much about military ROE, but I know from my friends and family who served that they cannot open fire unless they have been shot at. Not shot towards, shot at! They enforce these rules strictly. If a civilian carrying found himself in a situation where he was being fired at, shoots back in self-defense, and in the action of legally defending himself injures an innocent bystander, they are liable for their injuries. Adrenaline, having to respond quickly, every other silly argument you used goes out the window. Why should law enforcement get a free pass when they injure innocents?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
So all anyone has to do if they shoot an unarmed person is to say they thought they felt treatened and it will be dropped?

No, I did not say that, I said that is someone has to make a split second decision and their thoughts were reasonable that it's not a crime.

Again you are wrong and to all your comments about shooting someone that isn't armed than yes you are guilty of a crime it might be manslaughter or 2 degree murder but it is still a crime. If a cop or a civilian has so much fear as to shoot first and then look to see if there is a gun than yes it is a crime and should be treated as such. How would you like to be mowed down by a cop as you OC? Your giving the cop an excuse to shoot you as he might have feared you would shoot him. Where is the line? Just say I thought he was going for his gun?

one does not have to be armed to constitute a thread, if a big muscular guy is threatening a guy in a wheel chair it's a clean shoot. the standard is are you reasonably in belief of danger of death or grave bodily harm

no one said shoot someone and then see if they're armed. the article I read on this incident says the officers were pursuing this guy and he truend and put his hand in pocket and pulled the hand back out. if it's a dark night and someone's adreneline is pumping and the guy is acting mentally ill (and he was) then I do see reasonable as being too far away.
merely carrying a firearm secured in a holster where legal is not a crime nor is it a threatening or furtive movement in any jurisdiction where carrying openly is legal.


As we as civilans are responsiable for each round that comes out of our weapon so should the cops. One of the basic principles of shooting is know what is behind your target. You are actually saying it is ok for (anyone or just cops?) to move down people just to get one that might have a weapon?

I don't think those officer intended to "mow down" anyone, I think they reacted to a percieved threat. maybe their training is inadquate, maybe they shouldn't have fired, maybe the 12 pound "NY1 Trigger" caused a rookie to jerk his shots, at worst you have negligence and not malice. frankly I think even negligence is a stretch these women recieved minor injuries, the police department should do the right thing and pay for their medical expenses and maybe give them some spending money for another day in the city on top of that. if the department is liable due to lack f proper training then they should remedy by improving training standards if the officers are liable due to acting outside of police they should give the women a grand or two each as well.

Put yourself in the cops shoes, do you think you would get off with a "he feared for his life" from an unarmed man and two unarmed ladies? Or maybe you have to have a badge to have the get out of jail free card.
unless I actually am a cop in this fictional scenario I wouldn't be dealing with mentally ill people in the middle of street, it's unlikely as a private citizen I'd involve myself in something like that. I'll grant you you're right a private citizen would probably be charged, but is the solution there to limit the actions of cops or to increase what's permissible by a LAC

response in bold
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Actually I do believe EMS would like our military to have one arm tied behind their backs in a combat zone (We haven't actually won a war since WW2 when they started restricting the military with ROE other than the Geneva Convention).

I also believe that EMS thinks that cops can do no bad, that all cops are good and misunderstood. That we should bow to our masters and kiss their feet and thank them for letting us live today.

Either he actually believes this or a cop is standing behind him as he writes his options. I hope it is the second one.

what makes you think I would like stict military ROE.... I said three things on the subject

1) military ROE is not relevant to civilian law.
2) I do not set policy for military ROE
3) I know nothing about international law

what of this implies I favor a police of strict ROE? I think it's stupid you have to wait to be fired at before returning fire... I'm aware of no civilian jurisdiction anywhere that requires that insanity of anyone. I think it should be perfectly acceptable to prevent injury to yourself.

I think you're making a giant strawman out of what I'm saying.....
 
Top