[rick_reno]

Tragic.

NEW YORK - In a tragic case of mistaken identity, police shot and critically wounded an off-duty officer as he pointed a gun at a suspect outside a fast food restaurant early Saturday, authorities said.

Eric Hernandez, 24, was hit three times and was hospitalized in extremely critical condition, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.

The officer who pulled the trigger, identified only as a 20-year veteran of the force, was being treated for trauma at another hospital.

Hernandez had been in line at a White Castle restaurant in the Bronx shortly before 5 a.m. when he was assaulted by a half-dozen men, Bloomberg said. It wasn’t immediately clear what sparked the fight, but it was captured on the restaurant’s security camera.

A White Castle employee called 911, and Hernandez—with his gun drawn—ran into the parking lot after his assailants, Bloomberg said.

He apparently subdued one of the suspects, and when a patrol car arrived, was pointing his gun at a man on the ground.

One of the two officers, apparently believing Hernandez was about to shoot,in the car opened fire, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

Hernandez, who joined the force in 2004, never fired his weapon, authorities said. He was shot in each leg and the abdomen and lost a lot of blood, Bloomberg said.

Kelly said officials were questioning eight individuals about the shooting, including the six who fought with Hernandez inside the White Castle.

It was believed to be the NYPD’s first friendly fire shooting since Desmond Robinson, who wasn’t in uniform, was shot in the back by an off-duty officer in 1994. Robinson had his gun drawn on a subway platform, and the officer mistook him for a criminal.

[Thain]

Thank God the cops in New York all know that no private citizen can own a handgun or carry a concealed weapon. He must have been a criminal!

[Lucky]

Sounds like a situation that could be completely avoided by training in appropriate procedures.

Or maybe Hernandez did something to give them legitimate reason to suspect he was about to shoot.

[Old Dog]

A tragic event to be sure, but one wonders if there will (again) be a call to restrict off-duty law enforcement officers from carrying ...

[Technosavant]

Cops arrive on scene. They see one person (unknown ID) holding another (unknown ID) at gunpoint. Weapon is NOT pointed at police. Do they attempt to ascertain the ID of either man?

Nope. They open fire.

Seems negligent at best. While I don't think police need to obtain complete psychological backgrounds on everybody in every "man with a gun" incident, in those instances where the gun is not pointed at the cops, it might be a good time to ask questions FIRST.

[palerider1]

what an idiot, you never shoot first and ask questions later.:D

[MDG1976]

Yet another example of the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that seems to be inforced by many PDs across the country. As a CCWer, I honestly am more afraid of being shot by a cop than by a bad guy.

[Steve in PA]

First, what happend is a tragic event. I cover off-duty encounters every year when I qualify my dept. Responding on-duty LEO's may not recognize, or even know you. They have no idea of your intentions, which in this case was to hold a suspect at gunpoint until on-duty LEO's arrived. The responding officers pull up and see one guy pointing a weapon at another guy.

Did the off-duty LEO identify himself? Did the on-duty LEO's order the man (off-duty LEO) to drop his gun? Did they have time to issue such order? Did or could the man (off-duty LEO) have heard such an order if it was given? The on-duty officers perceived a threat to the man on the ground and did what they thought was necessary to save his life.

I guess they should have waited to see if the guy holding the gun would have shot the guy on the ground, right? And no there won't be a call to restrict off-duty carry of a weapon. The man holding the gun could have easily been holding a knife or a pipe. Same threat of deadly force exists.

[Old Dog]

More uninformed speculation from those who weren't there. Note:
One of the two officers, apparently believing Hernandez was about to shoot,in the car opened fire,If Hernandez didn't identify himself as a cop when the other cops showed up ... who knows ... law enforcement is justified in shooting to save a life. Article provokes more questions than it answers, so once again, making judgements about this shooting is useless and will only engender another "bad cop shooting" thread.

what an idiot, you never shoot first and ask questions later.And you base this statement upon how many incidents you've been involved in where guns were drawn?

[Steve in PA]

Come on, lets hear from the "experts" on this board.

Put you in the same situation. You come around the corner and see one man over another. The man on top is holding a weapon (I'll let you take your pick, gun, knife, pipe, rock, etc) and looks like he is about to use it against the other man, what do you do?? Right now, not two seconds from when you turn the corner, not sitting behind your monitor, from the second you see the above, what are you going to do???

[carebear]

Given my training and knowing that I personally can't ethically make life-or-death assumptions about a situation such as this I come upon, I'd probably take the time to aim in and challenge and then fire if disobeyed. I accept the risk I might be shot because, as a private citizen, I choose to.

The police should do the same, but instead of by choice rather because that is what we pay them to do.

I wasn't there but, running some possible scenarios, if the off-duty ignored a command to drop his weapon, or looked like he was actually squeezing the trigger, I can agree it is a tragic accident caused primarily by the off-duty's actions.

If he was shot because the responding officer just dumped the guy with the gun without attempting to figure out what was going on (off-duty officer and armed self-defense by non-LEO's being legal and not incredibly uncommon and all) then it is a tragic (or negligent) accident caused by the responding officer not making a responsible decision.

If the man with a gun was truly a bad guy and the officers delay in shooting him caused by trying to figure out the situation led to the death of a good guy on the ground, that would be murder by the bad guy and still the most responsible overall choice by responders.

We have to roll the dice in favor of the innocent, even at risk to ourselves.

[TexasRifleman]

Come on, lets hear from the "experts" on this board.

Put you in the same situation. You come around the corner and see one man over another. The man on top is holding a weapon (I'll let you take your pick, gun, knife, pipe, rock, etc) and looks like he is about to use it against the other man, what do you do?? Right now, not two seconds from when you turn the corner, not sitting behind your monitor, from the second you see the above, what are you going to do???

Well, I'm not an expert, but I would hope to GOD if it was me that the cop on the scene would order me to drop my weapon, and keep BOTH of us covered until he sorted out who was who.


IF that happened and I was stupid enough to ignore the command to drop my gun then all bets are off.

That's my hope as a citizen with a concealed permit. Anything other than that I'm dead and I hope my widow sues whoever shot me into oblivion.

[CraigJS]

Depends on how accurate post #1 wrote the information and how accurate the information he read was.. (please Rick_reno don't be offended!) Commish Ray Kelly makes it almost sound like the uniforms were affraid that the off duty cop was going to fire into the car.. It didn't sound like the uniforms rolling in gave Hernandez the chance to ID himself.. good thing he wasn't a good shot! (I wonder how many times the car cop had to fire to hit where he did?) Did the guy calling in the problem know that Hernandez was an OD cop? Or did he just report a guy with a gun ready to shoot up another guy/guys? Thats the trouble with getting info from TV or the papers, how accurate is their reporting? Just a bit more accurate info could change the entire view of what went on... That OD cop could have been more proactive (I hate that word, sorry!) in his own safety.
We as private permit carriers have to react under a bunch of different rules than a LEO gets too. I know that and I'm NO expert.

[michiganfan]

Sad

[Ryder]

Put you in the same situation. You come around the corner and see one man over another.

When I have no way of determining that the person being attacked doesn't well deserve what they are receiving I'll do nothing besides ensure my own safety. That's not theory, BTDT. I don't get paid to save everybody.

If I believe it is an undeserved criminal assault I would not shoot without words unless it was a family member being threatened. I will attempt to find out what is happening. If he threatens me for interfering whether he replies or not too bad for him.

[nfl1990]

What do you expect in NY, non-uniformed guy w/gun =Crimminal there.

[Maxwell]

More training again?
They dont need training, they need the common sense not to shoot somone on sight just because they have a pistol in their hand.

The nature of this story leads me to believe they didnt do so much as shout at him or look at the situation before opening fire.

[Standing Wolf]

This terrible tragedy was obviously caused by other states' extremely lax gun laws.

Bloomberg rant at 11:00.

[Lucky]

More training again?
They dont need training, they need the common sense not to shoot somone on sight just because they have a pistol in their hand.

The nature of this story leads me to believe they didnt do so much as shout at him or look at the situation before opening fire.

Good point. I was assuming that they were acting as they were trained, and that their training was faulty.

As for common sense in a crisis, might be easier said than done. Maybe the guys writing the policies need the common sense.

[Steve in PA]

Again, answer the question, you see someone holding a weapon on another person and have to make a split second decision....RIGHT NOW!!! What do you do?

Based on what you see, if you hesitate one guy looks like he is about to kill another guy. Should a warning be issued? Of course, if time permits. The police were dispatched to a call about a man being assaulted. They pull up and see one man over another with a gun being pointed. Did the officer that shot, over react, fire too soon? Perhaps. But if the guy he shot was indeed a bad guy, he'd be a hero.

[One of Many]

You can not trust the news organizations to get the facts correct. The cable TV news reported this as an accidental shooting; meaning, I am sure, that the three shots accidentally fired were in fact deliberately fired without the facts being ascertained first, and without identification of the off-duty officer being made before the trigger was pulled (three times). One story has the officer who fired the shots being treated for trauma (I would guess that means he knows he screwed up).

[f4t9r]

VERY SAD , SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME TYPE OF WARNING FIRST.
IF A CCW PERSON DID THIS THEY WOULD BE IN BIG TROUBLE

[Hypnogator]

Again, answer the question, you see someone holding a weapon on another person and have to make a split second decision....RIGHT NOW!!! What do you do?

I teach judgmental use of force to law enforcement agencies.

If you are not responding to an "active shooter" situation, and have no knowledge that the armed suspect has used his weapon to shoot others, you would take cover, cover the suspect, and yell "Police! Don't Move! Put the weapon down!" You would use deadly force only if it appeared that the suspect was about to shoot the third person, or if he tried to turn the weapon on you.

If, however, it appears that the suspect is about to shoot, you would be justified in shooting without warning. The courts require that a verbal warning be given before using deadly force [I]when feasible[./I] If you believe that giving a warning would be likely to result in the serious injury or death to the third person, you would be justified in using deadly force without giving warning.

That's the downside to carrying a concealed weapon if you're a retired officer, ccw holder, or out-of-jurisdiction officer. :uhoh:

[GRB]

I have not been posting here lately for a personal reason; but when I saw an article on this shooting on a local NY news website I also then wanted to see how all the armchair experts at THR would react to the tragic shooting of this officer. So I stopped by and saw this thread. As I expected, a great number of you have made up your minds on this issue as it being a bad move by the cop who fired the shots, and as far as I can see some of you used, in essence, the following concepts to bolster your particular form of reasoning:

NYC cops are less than intelligent

It Happened in NYC so what else could one expect

The cop who fired did not follow proper procedure (I wonder have you been trained by the NYPD, are you aware of their procedures)

All cops are less than intelligent

Whatever you feel is correct is the way it must have happened (I guess because you are all gurus of some sort)

The News media are the gods of truth and everything they print in an article must be absolute truth when it makes a cop look bad.

Of course there are more concepts behind your reasoning that I could mention but you get the idea. Now - read the article below and rethink (if you actually thought at all before writing the first time around) about what some of you have written here. This article (http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_028090932.html) was posted just about 1 hour ago at 9:53PM eastern time by a local NY radio station on its website. Sure adds some more alleged facts to the mix, doesn't it.

Jan 28, 2006 9:53 pm US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) (NEW YORK) An off-duty police officer holding a man at gunpoint after getting into a fight at a Bronx fast food restaurant was shot three times by another officer Saturday morning in a tragic case of mistaken identity, authorities said.

Eric Hernandez, 24, who joined the force in 2004, was in grave condition at St. Barnabas Hospital, said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Hernandez underwent almost four hours of surgery following the 4:55 a.m. shooting, where he was struck once in each leg and a third time in the abdomen.

The officer who shot Hernandez was taken to Jacobi Hospital for treatment of trauma. Officials identified him only as a 20-year veteran of the department.

According to Bloomberg, Hernandez was in line at a White Castle restaurant in the Tremont section when he was assaulted by a half-dozen men. It was unclear what precipitated the fight, which was captured on the restaurant's security camera.

A woman called 911 from the restaurant, and Hernandez — with his gun drawn — ran into the parking lot after his assailants, Bloomberg said. The officer apparently subdued one of the suspects, and was standing over him with his gun pointed when a patrol car arrived.

One of the two officers in the car "apparently thought (Hernandez) was about to shoot another individual being held at gunpoint," said Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. The officer then opened fire, Kelly said. Two of the bullets struck main arteries, leaving the wounded officer with massive blood loss.

Hernandez never fired his weapon, authorities said.

Tests conducted at the hospital indicated that Hernandez was intoxicated at the time of the incident, according to a law enforcement official.

Civilian witnesses told investigators they heard the patrol officers tell Hernandez to drop his gun, said the official, who asked not to be named because of the nature of the investigation.

The officer's father was at the hospital with his son in the hours after the shooting.

Kelly said police were questioning eight individuals about the shooting, including "most of" those who fought with Hernandez inside the White Castle.

It was believed to be the NYPD's first friendly fire shooting since Desmond Robinson, who was in plainclothes, was shot in the back by an off-duty officer on Aug. 22, 1994. Robinson had his gun drawn on a subway platform, and the officer mistook him for a criminal.

The shooting came one day after another officer died following a struggle with suspects on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Kevin Lee, a 10-year NYPD veteran, was part of a surveillance team that was tailing a group of men who appeared to be casing stores on Lexington Avenue shortly before 6 p.m., police said.

After being told by employees at one of the stores that the men might have taken a laptop computer, the officers moved in to make an arrest.

Lee, 31 died at Lenox Hill Hospital just before 8 p.m. Friday. The cause of death remained undetermined.

(TM & © 2006 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO & EYE Logo TM & © 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. In the interest of timeliness, this story is fed directly from the newswire and may contain occasional typographical errors. )

I am not saying the 2nd article is correct or complete but it adds much more to the mix for those of you who were so sure that:

Thank God the cops in New York all know that no private citizen can own a handgun or carry a concealed weapon. He must have been a criminal!

Seems negligent at best.

what an idiot, you never shoot first and ask questions later

Yet another example of the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that seems to be inforced by many PDs across the country. As a CCWer, I honestly am more afraid of being shot by a cop than by a bad guy.

What do you expect in NY, non-uniformed guy w/gun =Crimminal there.

More training again?
They dont need training, they need the common sense not to shoot somone on sight just because they have a pistol in their hand.

The nature of this story leads me to believe they didnt do so much as shout at him or look at the situation before opening fire.

VERY SAD , SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME TYPE OF WARNING FIRST.

I am not saying the second article is correct and the first is incorrect, but I am saying that anyone who made an absolute judgment based on the first article was out of line. When you look at just two added sentences in the 2nd article, I think you might be able to envision another scenario other than one in which the shooting officer did not identify himself and tell the officer who wound up shot to drop his weapon. You might also think, hey maybe there was a REALLY good chance that Officer Hernandez, who was shot, did something he should not have done when the other cop ordered him to drop his weapon and maybe, just maybe, it was because of something that INFLUENCED him.

Tests conducted at the hospital indicated that Hernandez was intoxicated at the time of the incident, according to a law enforcement official.
and

Civilian witnesses told investigators they heard the patrol officers tell Hernandez to drop his gun, said the official, who asked not to be named because of the nature of the investigation.

I think there is still a lot more to this story that has yet met the eye of the average Joe reading a news article. For instance there was a 911 call, what did the caller tell the 911 operator about the incident and possibly about Hernandez! It also seems much more likely that the arriving officers may have followed proper procedure and that Officer Hernandez may not have followed proper procedure if the second article is correct. Do you know what is the proper procedure to follow when uniformed officers wind up on a scene and tell you “Police, don’t move” or “Police, drop the weapon” or “simply drop the gun”. Do you know what would then justify an officer shooting in such a situation where the guy being ordered to do something by uniformed police does not follow the orders. I really find myself wondering if Officer Hernandez did not follow whatever commands he may have been given, and if he did not follow proper procedure himself, if for no other reason than because he was allegedly intoxicated at the time. Give it some time before you fry anyone in this shooting, get at least most of the facts before you absolutely damn someone. Of course you can continue to speculate, but why not call it as such – speculation and guesswork based on what little you know instead of taking the low road. Can you imagine the psychological hell the shooting officer will go through, even if the officer who was shot does not die, and even if he was fully justified in shooting. I am pretty sure he doesn’t need your help in making himself feel guilt ridden whether he is guilty or not of a bad shooting, and he especially does not need your help at making him feel even more guilty if it was in fact a good shoot.

Whatever, it is a dammed shame it happened at all.

Best regards to all,
Glenn B

footnote: I kept calling the article I quoted in full 'the 2nd article' in this thread, and I was of course referring to the original post of this thread as having contained article number 1. Now that I have read that 1st post over a few more times I see that it was never quoted as being a complete article. Could it be that someone selectively editied the artcile and just placed whatever words he felt were important, or whatever he wanted to comment upon, in said post. I am not saying that Rick Reno did any wrong, I don't know if those are his sumations or a whole article verbatim, it does not really matter. Those who read that post and did not even think that it may have been paraphrased or edited made, I think, a big mistake if you condemed the actions of anyone based on that thread and your feelings alone. Maybe the best thing to do would be to keep both of the officers, the physically wounded one, and the psychologicaly traumatized one, in our thoguhts and prayers. Hopefully both will pull through this.

[Firethorn]

My impressions were such that I'd substitute 'well trained' for 'intellegent', Glenn.

Tragic accident, that we all have to worry about if we're forced to use our firearms in self defense.

If you're not in uniform, be careful of how you arrest people?

[KriegHund]

To much is not known here, however

Why didnt the odd duty officer inform the police as soon as they arrived?
Did the regular police officers shoot as soon as they saw the off duty officer? if they did, then ide call bad shoot. If they told him to put the gun down, THEN shot, i would understand.

it seems as if they arrived, shot him immediatly...

[jtward01]

Come on, lets hear from the "experts" on this board.

Put you in the same situation. You come around the corner and see one man over another. The man on top is holding a weapon (I'll let you take your pick, gun, knife, pipe, rock, etc) and looks like he is about to use it against the other man, what do you do?? Right now, not two seconds from when you turn the corner, not sitting behind your monitor, from the second you see the above, what are you going to do???

In the case of a gun, how do you tell, from a distance, if someone is simply holding a suspect at gun point, or is "about to use it?" You can't assume the person holding the gun is going to shoot, you have to make an effort to find out before you open fire.

[O.F.Fascist]

Come on, lets hear from the "experts" on this board.

Put you in the same situation. You come around the corner and see one man over another. The man on top is holding a weapon (I'll let you take your pick, gun, knife, pipe, rock, etc) and looks like he is about to use it against the other man, what do you do?? Right now, not two seconds from when you turn the corner, not sitting behind your monitor, from the second you see the above, what are you going to do???

I assess if the person on the ground is anyone I know or care about, if not then back up, get cover, get my weapon ready, then ask what the ???? is going on.

If the person on the ground is someone I know then I would likely draw my weapon and kill the other guy.

[Vex]

I recently graduated from an Ohio police academy (passed, certified with the state, but not yet commissioned, i need to find a job with a police department), and this is my worst fear. Being on either side of this situation would be horrible. Logically, I don't want to be shot by a fellow officer, but even being the shooter... knowing that what I did was what I felt was right... the trauma would be devastating.

I hope both of these cops (shooter and shootee) make it out of this situation alright.

Also, think about this theory (since none of us were actually there, and we're just theorizing): Cop in white castle, off duty. He gets in a fight with six guys. He tells them, "Get away, I'm a cop" and draws his weapon. White Castle employee calls the cops and says, "There's an off duty police officer getting in a fight with six guys, he needs help." Cops rush to the scene. First car approaches and sees a guy holding a gun on another guy. You don't know is who. I think a reasonable person would think, "The cop is in trouble because he's fighting 6 guys, which means he's automatically going to be losing, which means the guy on the ground is the cop, which means the guy with the gun is a bad guy and is going to shoot the cop."

Think about it. Would you ever believe 6 guys would be running from one person? The shooter could easily have thought that the guy with the gun is going to shoot an off duty cop. He fired to save the life of the off duty cop. Turns out he was wrong.

[carebear]

If they told him to drop his weapon and he didn't comply that makes it the off-duty's "fault", I am sorry for his family and for the fellow officer who had to do what was apparently the right thing at the time.

Which is exactly what I and many others said we'd say before the "he was challenged" information came out.

[CraigJS]

We still don't have enough accurate information, to make an accurate reply to this post.. All our, he should haves, he needed to's, I would have's, if only's, etc. may as well be guesses, or farts in the wind. They mean about as much....

[mete]

The story at this point from the NYPD is that the officer had , after completing his shift, stopped into three different bars. Then he went to White Castle where he got into ann arguement or fight with a group...The proper procedure of course is for the nonuniformed officer to immediately follow orders from the uniformed officer....Investigation continues ....

[Matthew Temkin]

I have not been posting here lately for a personal reason; but when I saw an article on this shooting on a local NY news website I also then wanted to see how all the armchair experts at THR would react to the tragic shooting of this officer. So I stopped by and saw this thread. As I expected, a great number of you have made up your minds on this issue as it being a bad move by the cop who fired the shots, and as far as I can see some of you used, in essence, the following concepts to bolster your particular form of reasoning:

NYC cops are less than intelligent

It Happened in NYC so what else could one expect

The cop who fired did not follow proper procedure (I wonder have you been trained by the NYPD, are you aware of their procedures)

All cops are less than intelligent

Whatever you feel is correct is the way it must have happened (I guess because you are all gurus of some sort)

The News media are the gods of truth and everything they print in an article must be absolute truth when it makes a cop look bad.

Of course there are more concepts behind your reasoning that I could mention but you get the idea. Now - read the article below and rethink (if you actually thought at all before writing the first time around) about what some of you have written here. This article (http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_028090932.html) was posted just about 1 hour ago at 9:53PM eastern time by a local NY radio station on its website. Sure adds some more alleged facts to the mix, doesn't it.



I am not saying the 2nd article is correct or complete but it adds much more to the mix for those of you who were so sure that:















I am not saying the second article is correct and the first is incorrect, but I am saying that anyone who made an absolute judgment based on the first article was out of line. When you look at just two added sentences in the 2nd article, I think you might be able to envision another scenario other than one in which the shooting officer did not identify himself and tell the officer who wound up shot to drop his weapon. You might also think, hey maybe there was a REALLY good chance that Officer Hernandez, who was shot, did something he should not have done when the other cop ordered him to drop his weapon and maybe, just maybe, it was because of something that INFLUENCED him.


and


I think there is still a lot more to this story that has yet met the eye of the average Joe reading a news article. For instance there was a 911 call, what did the caller tell the 911 operator about the incident and possibly about Hernandez! It also seems much more likely that the arriving officers may have followed proper procedure and that Officer Hernandez may not have followed proper procedure if the second article is correct. Do you know what is the proper procedure to follow when uniformed officers wind up on a scene and tell you “Police, don’t move” or “Police, drop the weapon” or “simply drop the gun”. Do you know what would then justify an officer shooting in such a situation where the guy being ordered to do something by uniformed police does not follow the orders. I really find myself wondering if Officer Hernandez did not follow whatever commands he may have been given, and if he did not follow proper procedure himself, if for no other reason than because he was allegedly intoxicated at the time. Give it some time before you fry anyone in this shooting, get at least most of the facts before you absolutely damn someone. Of course you can continue to speculate, but why not call it as such – speculation and guesswork based on what little you know instead of taking the low road. Can you imagine the psychological hell the shooting officer will go through, even if the officer who was shot does not die, and even if he was fully justified in shooting. I am pretty sure he doesn’t need your help in making himself feel guilt ridden whether he is guilty or not of a bad shooting, and he especially does not need your help at making him feel even more guilty if it was in fact a good shoot.

Whatever, it is a dammed shame it happened at all.

Best regards to all,
Glenn B

footnote: I kept calling the article I quoted in full 'the 2nd article' in this thread, and I was of course referring to the original post of this thread as having contained article number 1. Now that I have read that 1st post over a few more times I see that it was never quoted as being a complete article. Could it be that someone selectively editied the artcile and just placed whatever words he felt were important, or whatever he wanted to comment upon, in said post. I am not saying that Rick Reno did any wrong, I don't know if those are his sumations or a whole article verbatim, it does not really matter. Those who read that post and did not even think that it may have been paraphrased or edited made, I think, a big mistake if you condemed the actions of anyone based on that thread and your feelings alone. Maybe the best thing to do would be to keep both of the officers, the physically wounded one, and the psychologicaly traumatized one, in our thoguhts and prayers. Hopefully both will pull through this.
Amen to that.
As a NYC Court Officer we were trained in how to both issue and respond to a challenge.
As are the other 16 or so law enforcement agencies that conduct business in NYC.
I have both been challenged and issued them, and not once was there a problem.
Of course, I never took action when drunk, and usually believed that the best way to get involved was to dial 911, but hey, what does a dumb guy like me from Brooklyn know?
Hope this turns out well, and according to sevearl colums in today's Daily News, the responding officers did what they had to do, considering the circumstances.

[m14rick]

Guns and booze don't mix well, it seems......

[Maxwell]

Id agree theres a world of information we would need before passing judgement on those officers...however.

If they told him to drop his weapon and he didn't comply that makes it the off-duty's "fault"

This depends on how much time they gave him and how they read his body language. (and not to spin this the wrong way, but I do worry being a non leo and having to potentially use my weapon in a situation similar to that).

I can see something like this: Youve got a suspect at gunpoint, someone behind you shouts "drop the weapon", if you turn to see who it is do you get shot by a trigger-happy police man?

I should ask the question, how many convienienct store robberies altercations will an officer arrive at that are still in progress?

If its unusualy for you to find someone with a gun still holding someone else hostage when you get there (or holding them at bay as the case may be) woulndt that suggest that things are far more complex than they seem?

[GRB]

Guns and booze don't mix well, it seems......That in essence used to be one of the commandments of firearms safety. Somehow because some legend in his own mind gunslinger decided there were only 4 primary rules, this one is today often forgotten.

[Graystar]

NYC cops are less than intelligentWell, when you see them driving through stop signs and red lights all the time, nearly causing accidents and running people over, that’s the impression they give.

It Happened in NYC so what else could one expect Yeah, like the other innocent people shot by NYC cops.

The cop who fired did not follow proper procedure (I wonder have you been trained by the NYPD, are you aware of their procedures)Amadou Bailo Diallo. 4 cops, trained to take cover when approaching a dangerous suspect (which they thought Diallo was) instead stood out in the open, making an endless barage of bullets their only defense.

Timothy Stansbury. Shot by a cop who wasn't following procedure by having his gun unholstered without a clear need, and having his finger on the trigger without a clear and present danger.

It has been the pattern that innocent people die when cops don't follow procedure.

Civilian witnesses told investigators they heard the patrol officers tell Hernandez to drop his gun, said the official, who asked not to be named because of the nature of the investigation.And THAT is reliable?? Did you forget about the shooting of the Jean Charles de Menezes in London? The cops said he was running, jumped the turnstile, big coat, and none of it was true.

Personally, I think that the Yupi’k village of Hooper Bay in Alaska has it right. There, the police are forbidden to carry any firearms. In NYC, considering that more cops die by suicide than on the job, it seems like a good idea.

[GRB]

Graystar,

We were not talking about the shooting of Amadou DiAllo here or about any other shooting than the one at hand. We were discussing the particular shooting that was brought up in the original post of this thread. Now to say that the cop who fired the shots in this incident was wrong because of others who were wrong in the past is absolutely ludicrous and apparently nothing more than an attempt to flame emotions in order to try to get your opinion believed unless you can show exactly how in FACT the current situation is the same as those others. The fact is that right now you cannot do that because the facts as reported differ greatly from those other shootings. Why not stick to the facts of this particular situation in trying to judge this situation. Why not let me direct you to the current factual allegations in this case if only because you don't care about the facts in my estimation. You only seem to care about blackballing the police. Let's see if I can shed some more light on this but first let me shed some light on your apparent outlook by asking you some questions:

1) Did you mention the thousands of times that NYC cops save lives each year?

2) Did you mention the thousands of times that they protect lives, protect property, get the job done correctly, or do anything else right? (Of course you did not.)

3) When you say 'yeah, like other innocent people shot by NYC cops', did you even think of mentioning any of the countless number of so called "good shootings" in which NYC law enforcement officers have been involved wherein they used good judgment? It is pretty obvious to me you are being quite prejudice in your post. Note, I never said this was a good or bad shooting from the standpoint of whether or not the officer firing did it wrong or right; all I said was to examine the facts before absolutely condemning anyone. I guess you are omnipotent (godlike) in that you know it all already without having all the facts regarding this particular case. Wow I wish I had that capability - to get it right no matter what, even when the factual allegations seemingly indicate that this may be more complex than mentioned by you.

4) When you referred to NYC cops going through lights, do you know if they were responding (in silent mode) to a duty call or not? Do you have any knowledge at all of NYC cops actually doing this, because they certainly do respond silently in some instances.

5) And finally, do you know the additional factual allegations made in today’s NY Daily News?

The first four questions were rhetorical, the third requires an answer from you, so hurry to the NY Daily News website to read the latest article. Oh wait, I'll save you the trouble. Instead of trying to pour gasoline onto the already flaming emotions you have exhibited, I will instead, provide factual allegations that appeared in the NY Daily News article. Better than that, instead of appearing to be selecting what I want from the article, I'll post the whole thing with a link:

**********************************************************

Cop shoots cop at burger joint

One fights for life, other's traumatized (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/386729p-328131c.html)

BY ALISON GENDAR, VERONIKA BELENKAYA, JONATHAN LEMIRE and ROBERT F. MOORE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS


Police scour White Castle in Tremont, the Bronx, for clues yesterday after tragic shooting in which cop unknowingly shot off-duty officer Eric Hernandez, leaving him gravely wounded.

A drunken off-duty cop holding a man at gunpoint outside a Bronx White Castle was shot three times by a veteran officer in a stunning case of mistaken identity yesterday, police and hospital sources said.
"Drop the gun! Drop the gun!" the uniformed cop yelled, repeating the warning a third and fourth time before firing and gravely wounding Officer Eric Hernandez.

The cops who confronted Hernandez, 24, a star running back on the NYPD football team, had no idea the victim was a member of the force until paramedics found the rookie's badge while treating him in an ambulance, sources said.

Mayor Bloomberg called the shooting a tragic accident, saying many unanswered questions remained about the early-morning mayhem that left Hernandez fighting for life.

"That's unavoidable in a situation where life and death decisions are made in an instant," Bloomberg said shortly after the 5 a.m. shooting, which took place less than a day after another cop dropped dead while chasing an alleged thief in Manhattan.

The uniformed officer who shot Hernandez - identified by police sources as 19-year NYPD veteran Alfredo Toro - was later treated at Jacobi Medical Center for trauma.

Hernandez, who is assigned to the 52nd Precinct, had been standing in line at the White Castle on Webster Ave. in Tremont when he was assaulted by five men and a woman, police said.

The clash, which was captured by security cameras, spilled out a side door. Hernandez chased a man he wrongly believed was one of his attackers and drew his gun, cops said.

When cops responding to 911 calls about a "man with a gun" arrived, Hernandez had young Brian Muñoz on the ground and was pointing his pistol at him, witnesses said.

"The police officer said, 'Drop the gun!' He said it four times," said witness Anthony White, 38. "The guy just turned around and pointed the gun right at the cops."


Toro fired three times, hitting Hernandez once in each leg and a third time in the abdomen, sources said. The bullets pierced major arteries, causing him to lose a significant amount of blood.

Hernandez, who had gotten off work five hours earlier, never fired.

Several minutes after the shooting, emergency workers pulled Hernandez's police shield from his pocket - and Toro crumpled to the ground in dismay, sources said.

Hernandez, who joined the department in July 2004, had a blood-alcohol level twice the legal limit, according to a source at St. Barnabas Hospital, where he was listed in critical condition late yesterday after four hours of surgery.

An off-duty cop is not allowed to carry his gun if he is drunk, according to NYPD regulations.

Hernandez - about 6 feet tall and nearly 200 pounds - had spent the night bar-hopping with a female relative, a police source said.

Yesterday's shooting was believed to be the first friendly-fire incident involving city cops since Desmond Robinson, a plainclothes officer, was wounded by an off-duty cop in August 1994. Robinson had his gun drawn on a subway platform, and the other cop mistook him for a criminal.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and dozens of other cops gathered yesterday at St. Barnabas to comfort Hernandez's family and search for answers.

The cop's relatives prayed in the hospital chapel as officers rushed to donate blood.

NYPD Sgt. John Muldoon, who plays on the department football team with Hernandez, said he wasn't surprised that the cop, a Sacred Heart University grad, was fighting to survive.

"He's just tough as nails," Muldoon said. "He's the toughest kid pound for pound on the team."

Toro, meanwhile, was described as a smart, aggressive cop with 1,300 arrests to his credit. "He did everything by the book," said a police source.

Kelly said police were questioning eight people about the shooting, but none were among those who scuffled with Hernandez in the White Castle.

"This is a classic off-duty confrontation," a police source said. "They didn't know he was a cop. It's the worst possible scenario - a cop shooting a cop."


With Austin Fenner, Bob Kappstatter,
Jose Martinez, Paul H.B. Shin
and Jess Wisloski


Originally published on January 28, 2006
**********************************************************

The bold face and underlined sentences above were highlighted by me. I think those sentences add even more information than we had last night. Note in particular the one about the actions that Hernandez reportedly took when Toro told him to drop the gun. The picture I am beginning to develop is that Officer Hernandez was most likely the one at fault, although I will not say this as fact, it is the idea I am getting after having read a few different articles. of course I will not say the press has it completely right so I can only go on what I read, therefore I make no final judgment. Final judgment in this world will be made by others than myself, those who will have many more facts before them to review before passing judgment. Let us hope they do not try to use the past actions of others to condemn the actions of officer Toro, he deserves his own case to be heard based upon the actual facts of his own case.

I do have some more questions for you before I close, are you aware of Officer Toro's service record? Are you aware of any other shootings in whcih he may or may not have been involved? Are you aware if he has ever gotten it right during his career. Are you aware if he has ever gotten it wrong in his career? Are you aware of anything factual, even factual allegations or reported fact, related to this shooting that you can discuss without flaming emotions?

Just one final question from me: How long should Officer Toro have waited before Toro shot Hernandez, how many commands to drop the gun should he have made, should he have waited for Hernandez to actually fire his weapopn (and who knows that he would not have done so if he was truly as intoxicated as was reported)? If you know the answer to that, then you must be in the mind of Officer Toro or you must be all knowing/all seeing or just a whole lot smarter than most of us here. Had Hernandez shot the guy on the ground, my bet is you would have condemned him, and you still would have faulted Toro too, but instead of saying Toro shot too soon or used excessive force, you would have said he should have shot sooner. Then again, that's just my guess but at least I base it on your style of response.

Best regards,
Glenn B

[Maxwell]

I recall we had an argument here about the rule of "mind where you point your gun" not applying to cops... seems it does when you dont know their a cop.
The slippery slope here is justifying why it would have been a good shoot if it was a drunk civilian with the weapon, but a bad shoot because he was a drunk Leo.


Lets at least take the "off duty cop" part out of this.

So the story goes:
Someone with a CCW responds to an incident, might have been under the influence, and as events go they got shot by repsonding police officers.

...Im assuming that if this guy had a chance to talk he would have identified himself as the "good guy".
To me, on the outside, it still sounds like they were trigger happy.

[Graystar]

We were not talking about the shooting of Amadou DiAllo here or about any other shooting than the one at hand.
But I was only explaining why such comments are made. You made it seem like they’re just knee-jerk reactions to a bad shooting, but they’re not. There’s valid history behind such comments.

An off-duty cop is not allowed to carry his gun if he is drunk,So there you are. We now have confirmation that this tragedy was cause by a cop, once again, not following procedure.

1) Did you mention the thousands of times that NYC cops save lives each year?

2) Did you mention the thousands of times that they protect lives, protect property, get the job done correctly, or do anything else right? (Of course you did not.)
I would very much like to see any statistics that demonstrates NYC cops saving ANY lives. And considering the rampant property crime in this city vs. the NYPD’s below-average closure rate, I doubt that much property is protected either.

They certainly were of no help when I was shot, I was burglarized, when my mom was robbed, or any other criminal acts friends and family have suffered. For my 40 years in NYC, criminals are batting 1000 against me, my family, and my friends.

And it pisses me of that Toro became upset AFTER the shooting, when he realized he shot a fellow cop. If he did nothing wrong, and the shooting was absolutely justified, then why would he be any more upset?? Why are we all assuming that Hernandez was performing his duty as a cop, and not actually getting ready to kill the guy out of rage?? The whole thing stinks of trigger-happy cops all around.

[joab]

I'm not a cop but I have seen them work and I'm wondering

Wouldn't this be the type of call that uniformed officers in marked cars with sirens running would respond to.

I'm thinking if I have a gun pointed at someone and am not wearing anything to ID me as a fellow officer I'm going to do every thing possible to convince those cops not to shoot me long before they feel the need to tell me to put the gun down, unless I'm drunk

[DRZinn]

1. The flashers were not on, else Hernandez would have known it was cops telling him to drop the gun. Is this a violation of policy?

OR

2. The flashers were on, but Hernandez was a rookie --> was a young male in New York --> had an almost inate distrust of the cops --> being drunk, saw them as the "enemy". A second later, he would have realized his error, but it was too late.

OR

3. When he turned, he didn't point the gun at them, and the witness or the story was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Cosmoline]

NYPD cops are taught early and often that firearms are inherently evil things, that must be treated as poisonous snakes. They see one, they shoot to kill. They see something that might be one, they shoot to kill. They see someone who might have a firearm, they shoot to kill. The circumstances don't matter. Unless you have a uniform, even having a firearm on your person is grounds for summary execution in NYC.

With luck the NYPD will keep offing each other and we'll be rid of the problem.

[WvaBill]

How many times would anyone expect a civilian ccw holder to issue the command to "drop the weapon you are pointing in my direction"?

Or ...

self-deleted

[k_dawg]

Since the NYPD refuse to treat their own officers under the same standards of law, as any other citizen; AND this "us versus them" mentality of the police that "only criminals would have a gun"... well, can't say I find any tragedy here.

Well, except for those who were being chased down the street with a looney brandishing his gun.

[k_dawg]

NYPD cops are taught early and often that firearms are inherently evil things, that must be treated as poisonous snakes. They see one, they shoot to kill. They see something that might be one, they shoot to kill. They see someone who might have a firearm, they shoot to kill. The circumstances don't matter. Unless you have a uniform, even having a firearm on your person is grounds for summary execution in NYC.

With luck the NYPD will keep offing each other and we'll be rid of the problem.

It is not even limited to having a gun. Having a wallet in your hand is reason for summary execution in many districts in NYC. At least, this time, it was not an innocent citizen who was gunned down. [ hurrah for small miracles ]

[GRB]

And it pisses me of that Toro became upset AFTER the shooting, when he realized he shot a fellow cop. If he did nothing wrong, and the shooting was absolutely justified, then why would he be any more upset?? If this pisses you off, then maybe you do not understand human nature at all. he would be more upset over shoting a bad guy than a good guy, and even more upset because the guy he shot was a cop because he is on the same job. I imagine you feel no special affinity for those with whom you work, or those to whom you are close, or to those upon who your own life may have depended at one time or another. Are you realy pissed off, then you need some help to understand the way 99.9 percent of the population would feel about shooting a coworker as opposed to him being a bad guy. You really do like to play on the emotional flamming don't you!

As far a a cop causing it; yes maybe he did but not the shooter from what I have read so far although I reserve final judgement based on further review of additional factual allegations. Is a cop doing something stupid or careless a justification to take away all police firearms or to blame the shooter as your first post implied? No in either case. Are the shootings of a small percentage of innocents such as you used as examples a reason to take away all police firearms? Be careful because you are treading on this ice if you say yes, but I ask it nonetheless and please answer yes or no to that last question.

[English John]

1) Maybe it's better to learn ALL of the facts, as best you can, before delivering a decision you may want to change later. 2) Alcohol and guns don't mix- do you think it may have affected the ODs judgement and response? 3) Now that Graystar has told us that all 13,000 LEOs in NYC are trigger happy buffoons we are fore-warned. Maybe he should move to a safer place. 4) The shooting that Graystar alludes to was judged- finally- as a clean shoot. "Suspicious" person at night in a doorway is told "Don't move!" but reaches behind him and comes out with something black in his hand- Cop shoots him- he doesn't go down (perhaps because of 9mm hardball or the suspect is leaning against the doorway) so cop shoots again, and again. His partners join in, and all shoot to slidelock. Suspect finally goes down. One of our NY Senators, as quick to judge as some of the earliest replies to this original post, calls it murder in the press (and later retracts.) 5) When I carried a badge, this situation was covered in training, and over-and-over in police publications. Rule one is: THE UNIFORMS ARE IN CHARGE! They have to be; they were sent there to control the scene. We were taught to have our ID out, and if possible, our gun put away. 6) If you are told by a Cop to "drop the gun" and your response is to point yours at him, you will very likely be shot (remember this). 7) If the guy on the ground was a good guy, and the BG had the gun, how many would criticize the RO for NOT shooting or waiting too long to shoot? 8) GB and Steve passed out some pearls of wisdom which I hope some of you absorbed. 9) It's real easy when you're home in your easy chair; it's not so easy out on the street. 10) Boy, some of you guys really like to bash cops. EJ

[One of Many]

None of the news articles that have been posted as text (not as links - I did not look at any links) have stated that witnesses reported the responding police officers first identifying themselves as police. It has not been stated that the squad car had lights and/or siren turned on. It is possible that the cop that was shot did not know that police officers were on the scene; he was drunk - and he may have had auditory exclusion affecting him, as well as tunnel vision (you do remember those terms from CCW training, don't you).

It is quite possible that he thought that one of the other five assailants had returned with a weapon to re-engage him in the assault, so when he heard someone yelling at him (without complete understanding of what was being said) he turned to identify the new threat.

It is obvious from the additional information that has been supplied, that the officer who was shot was in violation of police procedure, and possibly the law as well (drunk with a firearm). It is conjecture that the shooting officer was in violation of procedure. From the information supplied so far, I suspect that both officers made mistakes in how they acted in this matter.

The one thing that is certain is that two police officers have been removed from service to the city, until they can recover from their injuries (physical and emotional). The possibility exists that one or both of them may never return to police work, as a result of this incident (not accident). I would not be surprised to hear that both officers leave service on medical retirement.

It is obvious that some of the people posting to this thread have a severe anti-cop attitude; others are more open minded; yet others have an attitude that no cop can do any wrong. The truth will eventually be determined, but the truth is not yet known, and we can not expect to learn the truth by reading early news reports (that are based on the need of the agency to publish something - anything - before their rivals in the news industry).

We (the howling pack - the mob) are the reason that news organizations rush to print with inaccurate and incomplete articles - articles that emphasize the sensational, and sacrifice the truth as being less important than the extra sales achieved by the first to print. The gun owning community is no different than any other segment of society when it comes to letting our emotions overcome common sense. We have our own bias and prejudice, and it shows in the postings we make.

I don't think speculation is necessarily wrong, as long as we identify it as such, and remain open to the truth when it finally becomes known. There is certainly no call for flame wars on matters where such little evidence has been exposed.

[MechAg94]

This was sad situation, but the comments that disturbed me the most were those that said if they know one of the people involved, they would assume the other guy is bad and fire. I can only assume that everyone those posters know is virtuous and good and would never do anything wrong or start a fight.

In general, I don't think LEO's should open fire without knowing what is going on on defending themselves. Even if someone gets shot before they figure it out, I still think telling LEO's they should open fire if they "think" someone is the bad guy is not good policy. If the last article was right, they didn't in this case and that is a good thing.

[simon691]

I thought that police officer should always say:

"POLICE, DROP YOUR WEAPON"

At this point the off duty cop would identified himself. Unless, the gun was pointed at the cops arrived on the scene, then it's a different story.

[Graystar]

If this pisses you off, then maybe you do not understand human nature at all.I do understand human nature, That’s not the problem. The problem is that in the eyes of Toro, a bad guy suddenly becomes a good guy just because he’s a cop. It doesn’t matter to this cop if his fellow cop was right or wrong. All he cares about was that he was a cop.

Do you think he will feel the same way if an investigation showed he had gunned down a respected law abiding citizen that had actually subdued a criminal with his licensed handgun?

Is a cop doing something stupid or careless a justification to take away all police firearms…
Like the anti-gun people like to say...”if it saves just one life then it’s worth it.”
Suspicious" person at night in a doorway is told "Don't move!" but reaches behind him and comes out with something black in his hand- Cop shoots him-
If the cops had followed procedure, which was to take cover before approaching suspects assumed to be armed and dangerous, instead of standing out in the open like a bunch of cowboys in a western, then maybe they would have taken the time to be sure of the what was going on instead of gunning Diallo down on the possibility that he might have a gun.

The real tragedy was that those cops didn’t go to jail for murder.

[Vex]

IMHO, the "monday morning quarter backing" in this thread is disgusting.

These situations are never cut-and-dry. To sit here and blame one or the other for the incident is amateurish. None of us were there, and we really have no right to form an opinion based off a single liberal-based news article.

Take, for example, the incident involving an off-duty police officer in raleigh, NC in August. Plenty of people were easily able to say "bad shoot" and "this cop is in deep water," but the fact is that it was obviously a good shoot, the cop was NOT indicted by a grand jury.

I guess this just hit a soft spot on me.

[MechAg94]

I think most people are just throwing out their opinion based on what they read (assuming the read the entire article). :) I don't mind honest discussion, but leave you ego and personal feelings at the door.

What really gets annoying is when posters take comments personally and start arguing incessantly for 3 pages of a thread. I usually ignore try to ignore those posters.

[BlkHawk73]

Sounds like a situation that could be completely avoided by training in appropriate procedures.

Or maybe Hernandez did something to give them legitimate reason to suspect he was about to shoot.


Like not identify himself or not put the gun down. Without more info, I'd side on the arriving officer's side. You see a person w/ a gun you imediately orde the gun down. proberly hernandz didn't comply and/or identify himself.

[jd25q]

Glenn, (in particular)

It sounds as if you already know what I just found out. There is a real ugly anti-police bias on this forum. People who have never worn a badge know it all and we're all buffoons. They have the unusual insight to gleen from news accounts (from a press they wouldn't trust for anything else) that the shooting of the day was only a symptom of a larger problem, those incompetent thugs in uniform. They think the world is so cut and dry, good and bad, and you see it in the posts here. Every situation has a right and a wrong, and if only we shared the amazing gift some of these guys apparently have, why it would always work out.

What they fail to understand is the lose-lose situation. This is one of the first lessons to come with experience. Sometimes, being who we are we are called to deal with things when all else has failed, and failed repeatedly. This lose-lose situation doesn't exist on the web forums. There's always a solution here. Here there are a finite number of circumstances that exist under which a shooting can take place. They've discussed them and they've got the answers for each as it comes. Lose-lose exists in the real world. The world where decisions must be made in a split second. The world where sometimes there are no good outcomes, only varying degrees of bad.

There's an old saying that talks about walking a mile in another man's shoes. Try it. Go out and do a ride along. I think you'll find that these people in uniform aren't the villains you've made them out to be. Nor are they incompetent. And they're not super hero's either. We are ordinary people, occasionally confronted with extraordinary circumstances. Those in our ranks make mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. I'm not here to offer excuses for that. Occasionally people die as a result. Just as dead as when an irresponsible gun owner makes a mistake. I'm sure many of you detest it as much as I do when people paint all gun owners with the same stroke.

I don't expect any of you who've never been there to understand this. You can't. There's a very distinct feeling you get when rushing to a call and realizing that this one could be the one. When you get to the point of breaking leather there's either a million things going through your mind, or you get tunnel vision. Neither is particularly good but they're part of the human psyche. You can't train it away. And things happen fast. Then it's over. Some kid whose parents just put them through Princeton puts the facts down on paper best they can get them from the brass and the witnesses. Then the trial begins. Not in court, not yet. This "story" is exhibit "a". And they'll try to hang you with it.

[Vex]

Very powerful words, Amen.

[k_dawg]

Id agree theres a world of information we would need before passing judgement on those officers...however.



This depends on how much time they gave him and how they read his body language.

more than what is given during a no-knock raid at 3am in the morning.

[k_dawg]

Glenn, (in particular)



There's an old saying that talks about walking a mile in another man's shoes. Try it. Go out and do a ride along. I think you'll find that these people in uniform aren't the villains you've made them out to be. Nor are they incompetent. And they're not super hero's either. We are ordinary people, occasionally confronted with extraordinary circumstances. Those in our ranks make mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. I'm not here to offer excuses for that. Occasionally people die as a result. Just as dead as when an irresponsible gun owner makes a mistake. I'm sure many of you detest it as much as I do when people paint all gun owners with the same stroke. it.


I agree. Try being in the shoes of an innocent civilian, who is gunned down in a barrage of flying lead.. soley because you had a wallet in your hand.

[NineseveN]

My oh my, the bias from both angles is pretty amazing.

1. Drunk with a gun. Bad.
2. Get into a fight, while drunk with a gun. Double Bad.
3. Chasing the folks you got into a fight with, while drunk, waving your gun around. Triple bad.
4. Allegedly ignore verbal commands from arriving uniformed officers while holding agun, while drunk. Quadruple bad.
5. Allegedly point your gun towards a uniformed officer or make a furtive movment while you have another man on the ground that were just pointing your gun at. Quintuple bad.

I don't see any other way to call it based on the information we can get from this thread. Herandez seems to have screwed, sometimes stupid hurts permanently.

[Maxwell]

more than what is given during a no-knock raid at 3am in the morning.

I'd have to agree somewhat.

Rules of shooting or expecting to get shot should apply reguardless of your job or rank. Im not pro or anti leo, its just an unfortunate fact that cops and soldiers commit crimes too.

It disturbs me to think that if this drunk guy was in his uniform, and doing the exact same things they supposedly shot him for, his attacker would have been seen as in the wrong.

The responding officers should feel no remorse for doing the right thing, assuming they actually did the right thing.

[Lennyjoe]

There is a real ugly anti-police bias on this forum
Don't be so sure about that. Plenty of Active/retired LEO's here.

There seems to be a small amount of bias against the law but not enough to say "real ugly";)

[Cosmoline]

I don't expect any of you who've never been there to understand this. You can't.

So police are a breed apart from "civilians" and we who have not worn a badge cannot sit in judgment upon them?

Everything I know about the NYPD and the laws they enforce tells me they are the enemy. I won't set foot anywhere near that place. It's a veritable police state. I'm no more inclined to give those people the benefit of the doubt than I would give the LAPD or the Chinese Military the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve it.

[Carl N. Brown]

There is the problem that a person in flight-or-fight or just enraged
may sometimes be temporarily deaf and operating with tunnelvision.
That is supposed to be an effect of adrenalin.

Unfortunately, the responding cops could yell "POLICE! DROP YOUR
WEAPON!" and a person in fear of their life, or outraged, simply would
not hear them.

News stories must grab the reader in the first paragraph. Then they add
some details, to some arbitrary limit, say 300 words. Then they go into
more or less detailed account, then a summary. This lets the paper
receiving the feed to cut it off when the space between the car tire
ad and the underwear ad is filled up. All the news that grabs then fits.
I still do not have a handle on the full context of this event.

We had a guest editorial in our local Tennessee paper in 1999 by a New
York magazine editor (who lived in Connecticut) who remarked that New
York City Police are among the most trigger-happy in the nation. So
"THR" armchair experts are not the only ones guilty of prejudice
against cops. We got here as many people who automatically defend
police as we have people who are automatically cynical. When the
two factions clash, then it gets ugly, but sometimes we get a
few good points made from calmer heads on both sides.

We should not jump to conclusions about this shooting til we get full
facts, and then look at it from the perspective of how we could avoid
any mistakes made.

This event also makes a good argument against a CCW holder trying
to hold a suspect at gunpoint, but that (armed citizen arrest) is a whole
'nother thread.

[jerkface11]

Let's pretend the guy who got shot was a CCW holder. He would have been brought up on charges for carrying a firearm into a bar. Probably more for fighting and brandishing a weapon.
Now let's pretend the shooter was a CCW holder. He'd be in jail for shooting an off duty cop. But since both were cops NO ONE will be charged.
Much like THIS case http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178717 in St. louis where a cop's gun went off in a restraunt she fled the scene and threw the gun away. No charges. I guess a badge means it's always a good shoot.

[English John]

That was the best advice in 3 pages. If your local department allows it, do a ride-along. You might get to see how quickly life-or-death decisions must be made. Cop-on-cop shootings get a lot of press (remember the subway shooting?), but when the cop handled it right, and the person (or OD cop) did what he was told, it works out OK but you don't read about it in the press. When you challenge someone at gun-point (whether on the street or in your house) you may use all of the available time to consider that he may be deaf, drunk, suffering from auditory exclusion, a foreigner from another culture who doesn't understand us in the USA, or just plain stupid. When all of the available time is gone (and that may have been a fraction of a second) and now he is pointing what you sincerely believe is a weapon at you, what would YOU do? I hope you were right, because now we have months and months to review your split-second decision, and the public will use their emotions, not fact, to come up with a judgement. And yes, it is better to cover someone from behind something that is bullet proof if it is close and available, but what if you are in a parking lot or on the street and the situation just blows up in your face? I don't believe that all 13,000 NYC LEOs are saints, and if you have truly been abused by any of them you can see a civialian review board or start a lawsuit with the FBI because your civil rights were violated. We had a similar discussion last summer when some of you believed that if you were arrested and confessed and the judge asked you if Miranda had been read to you, then the cops MUST have beaten a confession out of you everytime without exception. If you truly believe this, and that every LEO on your local police force is a trigger happy buffoon with an inflated ego who is out to get you personally, then I would strongly suggest you move to Mayberry.

[Zen21Tao]

Are the shootings of a small percentage of innocents such as you used as examples a reason to take away all police firearms? Be careful because you are treading on this ice if you say yes, but I ask it nonetheless and please answer yes or no to that last question.

Using the relatively few accidential and/or reckless uses of a firearm that kill innocent people compared to those times a firearm is used to save innocent lives is the same type argument gun grabbers use to justify taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I have no doubt that daily life in a city with such strict anti-gun laws as NY would lead a NY police officer (even if only uncounsciously) to see any armed person as a criminal rather than a possible good guy. Thank Liberalism for creating the very incidents they use to justify their arguments.

[Maxwell]

You might get to see how quickly life-or-death decisions must be made.

So no matter how you explain it, Im just to common a man to understand, is that it?

You cant imply that LEO's are the best people to use lethal force because of good training and experience, then exceuse their mistakes more often when they screw up just as badly as anyone could have.
If they claim to be super human, people will hold them to super human standards.

[molonlabe]

Let's pretend the guy who got shot was a CCW holder. He would have been brought up on charges for carrying a firearm into a bar. Probably more for fighting and brandishing a weapon.
Now let's pretend the shooter was a CCW holder. He'd be in jail for shooting an off duty cop. But since both were cops NO ONE will be charged.


And that my friends is the rub to all of us unwashed masses.

[jd25q]

So police are a breed apart from "civilians" and we who have not worn a badge cannot sit in judgment upon them?

I see that a couple of you got this out of my post and I'm not saying that at all. I have never served in combat, and I can't know what that is like either. There are limits as to what can be taught or explained.

[NineseveN]

First, let me say that I do agree that there are some folks on this board that are most assuredly anti-LEO, their bias is obvious.

However, for many of us, it's not the individual LEO that bothers us so much as it is the whole "thin blue line" thing. A lot of LEO's feel they are not civilians, they feel they are different and different rules apply to them because the system tells them so. Examples such as the thread here where the bookie was killed by an officer's negligence and in that thread it was brought up that there is no safety rule #2 (never point a weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy) for LEO's, or this case where this guy is drunk carrying a weapon and gets into a fight (unknown if he started it or not) and then proceeds to chase down the folks he was fighting with, waiving his gun around in public (again, mind you, he was under the influence of alcohol).


It's not the cop's fault that he is not going to be charged with the same things a civilian would in the same situation, he doesn't control that. So while I think Hernandez should be charged with some felonies and do some jail time just like any Civilian would in this case, how can I fault him if the folks in charge of that won't push the case? I can't. I can fault him for what he did, but the system bears the blame for allowing him to be subject to different rules no doubt simply because he caries a badge. He'll be fired, maybe. We'll see what happens, that is just my presumption given the track record of law enforcement punishing one of their own.

To me, a police officer is a civilian that has a job like anyone else. It's more dangerous than being an accountant, but less dangerous than being a crabber or an underwater welder. When he or she is off duty, they're a civilian unless a situation calls for immediate police presence, then they can provide that.

Now I have a feeling folks are going to come at me with the old "read the definition of the word, 'civilian' and you'll see LEO's are not civvies." I understand the definition of the word, but I cannot get past what I have been educated to understand, the DoD (my employer through sub-contract) regards local law enforcement as civilian law enforcement, as do many other federal agencies I am sure. I remember back when police officers were called just that, police officers...when the change went to popularizing the term 'law enforcement', the police forces across the country became militarized and now all of the sudden they're non-civilians as far as they're concerned and the rules don't apply to them. That's just not right.

However, the same can be said of the flip side of that coin. Holding law enforcement officers to a higher degree of scrutiny than one would any other civilian in a high-impact profession is wrong, thinking the police are always in the wrong is just as bad as thinking they are always in the right or that somehow the rules don't apply to them. Both methods of thought are counterproductive and false, and I see a lot of such bias both ways here. I think the pot and the kettle should realize that they're both black on this one.

Peace.

[mbt2001]

Yet another example of the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that seems to be inforced by many PDs across the country. As a CCWer, I honestly am more afraid of being shot by a cop than by a bad guy.

I agree with you there....

[jd25q]

Nineseven,

Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree that the role of police in the US is as a civilian force. I've been a member of the National Guard as well where we trained for both roles, both as civilian assistants to law enforcement, and of course as soldiers. Very different roles. I'll be the last to argue that different rules should apply to the police. I think it's just that we find ourselves in those situations much more frequently. A police officer will draw their weapon many more times in the course of their duties than an armed citizen, but we still need justification for doing so.

This was my statement that you are referring to:

Examples such as the thread here where the bookie was killed by an officer's negligence and in that thread it was brought up that there is no safety rule #2 (never point a weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy) for LEO's,

My statement was that rule #2 does not apply to law enforcement. Perhaps I could have worded it a little better, but there are situations when it is necessary to cover someone at gunpoint. And I'm not saying it doesn't apply exclusively to law enforcement.

And this is the point that I think upset some people on the other thread. There are instances where it is necessary for an armed citizen to do the same. In fact the example I gave was of someone encountering an intruder in their home. How many of us would challenge them at the low ready? Not me. Whose under you? Is the floor a safe backstop? What if the guy comes at you? That's part of what I mean by a lot of stuff to weigh in a short time. That's just one situation and you never know the circumstances of the next until your confronted with it. How about the guy with a knife. He want's to die but can't do it himself. As you are covering him he's thinking about it. When he makes up his mind and charges I don't want to start off from a handicap. A highly fluid situation like either a self defense situation or a felony arrest has too many variables to consider all of them in advance. Don't get me wrong, rule #2 is gold for the range, hunt, home, etc., but there are times when it has to be violated. And as I said before, the individual making that decision has to take responsibility for that.

[NineseveN]

My statement was that rule #2 does not apply to law enforcement. Perhaps I could have worded it a little better, but there are situations when it is necessary to cover someone at gunpoint. And I'm not saying it doesn't apply exclusively to law enforcement.

I agree, it should have been worded better. The problem that folks will have is that we all know there is abuse by poorly trained or screened police officers. I have seen and heard about cops covering folks with their muzzles that have shown no aggression, no intent, are not suspects of a violent crime and have not made any suspicious movements or gestures because they feel that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Now, they may be right, a gun does give some power, but they're here as civil servants, all I ask is that a concerted effort be made for police officers to be mindful of whom they serve. Probably about 30% of the folks I talk to and interact with are LEO or former LEO, I am in no way bashing cops, I have a high respect for them, but only when they follow the rules.


There are instances where it is necessary for an armed citizen to do the same. In fact the example I gave was of someone encountering an intruder in their home. How many of us would challenge them at the low ready? Not me. Whose under you? Is the floor a safe backstop? What if the guy comes at you?

Not relevant unless a cop confronts a violent perp in the cop's home. In my opinion, a police officer does not have the same rights in public while performing their duties that a free citizen has while being the victim of a crime in their own home. There is no comparison.



How about the guy with a knife. He want's to die but can't do it himself. As you are covering him he's thinking about it. When he makes up his mind and charges I don't want to start off from a handicap.

The man has a knife in this scenario, it is a weapon, command, cover, then follow procedure. This is a far cry from a guy that makes money taking sports bets or any other non-violent offender. At this point the perp has opportunity to use deadly force, the officer may legitimately be thought of as in danger or close proximity to it. It is reasonable to cover the suspect with your muzzle in this case.



Don't get me wrong, rule #2 is gold for the range, hunt, home, etc., but there are times when it has to be violated. And as I said before, the individual making that decision has to take responsibility for that.

The care with which one treats rule #2 shows a lot about how seriously they take safety, and in the realm of law enforcement or even military, it shows a lot about their character in regards to doing their job.

Rule #2:
Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to or are willing to destroy.

If you're going to tell me it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect in danger", we will disagree vehemently and argue until the cows come home. This, IMHO, is completely unacceptable and is highly indicative of the reasons why some of the more rational and unbiased of us still have an inherent lack of trust when dealing with unfamiliar officers of the law, no matter how much respect we have for the profession.

Peace.

[SSN Vet]

judge not lest you be judged

isn't that why we have boards of inquiry and jurys

[Legionnaire]

I feel badly for all the officers involved. From the information shared thus far, it sounds like Toro did his thing "by the book." And I feel especially bad for him because of the trauma of discovering he shot a fellow officer.

Thinking about it, though, I disagree with the comments that seem to suggest that Toro should not have collapsed when he discovered this ... that he should feel no difference between shooting a "gremlin" versus a fellow officer "in the wrong." There's a big difference.

Imagine yourself coming upon and breaking up a violent assault by three men on a young woman. As you break it up, two of the perps get away; you tackle the third. You roll him over and discover ... it's your teenage son. What do you feel? The situation didn't change, but what do you experience? My sense is that a big part of it would be shock, disbelief, maybe a sense of betrayal ...

I imagine that Toro felt much the same. He could know he was absolutely right, and still feel the shock of the discovery. Seems completely natural to me, and in no way an indication that he necessarily valued the life of a fellow officer more than the life of the guy on the ground he might have just saved, or that he had been mistaken in is actions.

I feel for the guy.

[jd25q]

Not relevant unless a cop confronts a violent perp in the cop's home. In my opinion, a police officer does not have the same rights in public while performing their duties that a free citizen has while being the victim of a crime in their own home. There is no comparison.

But you are admitting there are circumstances where it doesn't apply. I'm not going to argue arrest procedures. They have been refined over the years and are based on experience. Sounds like you've made up your mind and I know I have.

[NineseveN]

But you are admitting there are circumstances where it doesn't apply. I'm not going to argue arrest procedures. They have been refined over the years and are based on experience. Sounds like you've made up your mind and I know I have.

Actually I am not, I fully intend to destroy anyone in my home uninvited and I don't think many here will find anything wrong with that.

Again:
If you're going to tell me it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect in danger", we will disagree vehemently and argue until the cows come home. This, IMHO, is completely unacceptable and is highly indicative of the reasons why some of the more rational and unbiased of us still have an inherent lack of trust when dealing with unfamiliar officers of the law, no matter how much respect we have for the profession.

[Maxwell]

... that he should feel no difference between shooting a "gremlin" versus a fellow officer "in the wrong." There's a big difference.

Apparently he felt his job was to protect himself and us from the "gremlin".
Apparently he felt he performed his duty... until he found out who the gremlin was.
That makes it questionable.

If Im a postal worker and I just shot a fellow postal worker who was trying to rampage-massacre everyone in my office, Im supposed to feel guilty?
Maybe if it was someone I knew, but if one officer knew the other than the chances are it wouldnt have ended with 3 shots fired.
If a criminal throws on a blue uniform, are the police supposed to treat him differently?

At the least these kinds of shootings show a double standard.
If a civilian used their pistol in the way many police do (drawing on non threats, brandishing, pointing the weapon directly at bystanders, firing warning shots, shooting anyone they "think" is a threat before that threat has proven itself to be dangerous) they would find themselves in the clink before lunch.

Maybe its a bias in the system and not the officers fault, but that dosnt make it fair.

[1911 guy]

First off, I'll agree with Glenn Bartley that we don't know all the facts and can't make a final judgement on this. But, with what we have to work with, the shot officer was wrong. On many counts actually.

Carrying a weapon when intoxicated. Not had a few beers, but very drunk. Now we got a drunk with a gun in public.

Pursuing the situation when the threat left. The men who confronted him left, he chased them. So now it's a drunk with a gun in public chasing people.

Didn't respond when ordered to drop the gun. This would have been the right time to say "I'm a cop", as the uniformed cop is looking for a response. This reinforces the impression of being the BG.

Turned to face the uniformed cops with a drawn gun. What are the cops supposed to think when they respond to this call, don't know who's who and somebody points a gun at them?

Tragic all the way around. You've got a guy who may generally be a Genuine Nice Guy who had a bad day and decided to tie one on before going home. He then makes a series of bad choices that nearly cost him his life. Thankfully, he lived. I can only hope both officers can get the medical and psychological treatment they need to recover and move on with their lives.

[jd25q]

Actually I am not, I fully intend to destroy anyone in my home uninvited and I don't think many here will find anything wrong with that.

You need to rethink this response. A fellow deputy woke up about 5:00 am to the sound of someone in his house. Turned out to be a drunk high school kid. His buddy's let him out on the wrong street and he thought it was his house. He kicked the door in thinking his brother locked him out. Stupid? Absolutely, but in no way a deadly force situation. The vast majority of the "intruder" calls I've responded to have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Kids coming home from college in the middle of the night, etc. Even sleepwalking neighbors! Even if your state law allows it a bad shoot is a bad shoot. You'll likely just wind up the cause of bad case law.

As has been my point throughout these two threads, you cannot oversimplify these situations.

Even if many here agree with you, it's unlikely any of them will be on your jury.

[DRZinn]

He kicked the door in thinking his brother locked him out.Stupid hurts. He kicks the door in, he's asking to be shot.

[NineseveN]

You need to rethink this response.

Nope, I'm quite alright thank you. I have 2 (Two) security doors, if someone kicks them in, sorry, not their day.



A fellow deputy woke up about 5:00 am to the sound of someone in his house. Turned out to be a drunk high school kid. His buddy's let him out on the wrong street and he thought it was his house. He kicked the door in thinking his brother locked him out. Stupid? Absolutely, but in no way a deadly force situation.

Physically breaking and entering is an aggressive action, in case you missed that. Apples to oranges. I specifically said "a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat" in regards to police officers covering a subject with their muzzle. I am not required to ascertain the intent of the offending party when in my home, only that a reasonable person would feel a threat is present given the circumstances at the time of the event. Breaking down a door at any hour is a credible threat, regardless of what hindsight and after-action facts tell us.

Look, I'm sure you can find all kinds of stories about "drunk high school kids", peoples own kids, cops responding to calls and I can find an equal amount of stories where the opposite is true and a real threat does exist, whatever, it matters not; come into my home uninvited and display aggressive action, I will shoot, period. I am under no obligation to engage in dialogue or negotiations with someone that has forcibly entered my home against my will at any hour of the day. In defending my own life and home, you will not be getting the benefit of the doubt, and I am not required to give it to you, morally or legally. Your conscience, situation and state may be different. YMMV.



The vast majority of the "intruder" calls I've responded to have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Kids coming home from college in the middle of the night, etc. Even sleepwalking neighbors!

I have no children, I have steel security doors, my neighbors should know better. Not relevant anyway.



Even if your state law allows it a bad shoot is a bad shoot. You'll likely just wind up the cause of bad case law.

Explain this.


As has been my point throughout these two threads, you cannot oversimplify these situations.

I'm not, I gave fully detailed and qualifying statements, it is you that have tried to oversimplify and overcomplicate it all at the same time depending on when it suits your position or attempted derailment of the topic at hand. Are you sure you're not an attorney?

You do not point a weapon at anyone or anything you are not willing to or have intent to destroy. You say this rule does not apply to Law Enforcement. My case is that a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat has no business being held at gunpoint by a police officer. You disagree, and instead of giving evidence as to why it is acceptable, you try to make a parallel between a police officer on duty performing their job and a citizen in their home during a breaking and entering, offering evidence unknown until after the fact as a compelling reason not to shoot someone who broke down your door at 5AM. There is no comparison to be made. You are grasping at straws because you have no argument for your case, only that you're "not going to argue arrest procedures. They have been refined over the years and are based on experience."


Even if many here agree with you, it's unlikely any of them will be on your jury.

Doesn't matter. Knowing my DA's office, it wouldn't even go to trial. If it did, I will take my chances. Are you saying the person in your story went to jail? Were they charged? With what? Do you have a link to a news story or documentation about it?



Again, Rule #2:
Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to or are willing to destroy.

Are you telling me that it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect" in danger?

A simple yes or no will suffice. Don't dodge the question or the issue, don't start making wild-eyed comparisons and hypotheticals between a police officer on duty and a citizen in the confines of their own home during the commission of a crime against them, apples to apples, answer, don't dodge.

[jd25q]

Are you telling me that it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect" in danger?

The basis of your question is false. My position is clear in that it is perfectly reasonable under some circumstances to cover someone at gunpoint without the intent to shoot them.

[NineseveN]

The basis of your question is false. My position is clear in that it is perfectly reasonable under some circumstances to cover someone at gunpoint without the intent to shoot them.

That was not the question. It covered intent and willingness. For instance, someone has a knife, but they are not attacking anyone, and seem calm, yet the threat of deadly force exists because they have means and opportunity. Covering them with your muzzle because you are willing to shoot them if they use the threat they have demonstrated to have within their means and power is not intending to shoot them, but it is meeting the level of force or threat with appropriate levels of force or threat.

Covering a subject (i.e our bookie in the other thread) with no indication of threat is not appropriate in most, if not all circumstances.


Demonstrate for us some stuations where no credible or reasonable threat exists yet a police officer should cover the subject with the muzzle of a firearm. But you and I have derailed this thread enough, care to take me up on that challenge in a new thread? I'll start it and we can get back to discussing the correct topic in this one.

[jd25q]

Since we've gone this far perhaps the moderator could start the thread with our prior off topic posts.

[NineseveN]

New Thread and poll (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2212381#post2212381). Sorry for the Hijack all.

[Legionnaire]

Maxwell, you said:Apparently he felt he performed his duty... until he found out who the gremlin was.That makes it an "either/or" situation. My point is that it might very well be "both/and." By use of analogy, I was trying to demonstrate that one can both (1) feel you've done your duty, AND (2) be shocked, dismayed, sorrowful for what that duty required you to do. Seems to me the poor guy discovered the lose-lose nature of the situation after he was deep into it. That's a shock. I believe he can feel that shock and still know he did the right thing. The right thing can be painful sometimes! I don't see that the article implies what you seem to be implying, that the officer thinks/feels/believes: "Had I known he was a fellow officer, I wouldn't have shot him." I just am presenting the possibility that he thinks/feels/believes: "It sucks having to shoot a fellow officer!"

I still feel for the guy!