This gets way outside our scope here. Unfortunately the way civil law works in determining restitution for damages like this, there tends to be a very adversarial relationship between the wronged party and the city or state. Get a lawyer, demand a $billion, settle on 37 million for your 2 day hospital stay. Is it fair, is it right? We can't decide that here, and shouldn't drift into a tangent debating for it.
As requested by moderator hso: Video of NYC ESB shooting 8/24/2012
- Thread starter paramedic70002
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
But it's unreasonable for cops?
Let me see if I understand this...
Police have a LOWER standard of care in a self-defense shooting than citizens?
Deanimator
Member
Only if knowing your target and what's beyond it involves no change. Clearly doing that would be a BIG change for them.
If shooting INNOCENT people is ok, I guess they are perfect...
Look, that's the only information we have. They said he was HIT ten times. They didn't say he had ten exit and entrance wounds.If you just don't want to believe it, that's fine. But in the absence of any DATA to the contrary, we really must work with the best/ONLY info we do have.
Heck...maybe they multiplied by three while they were counting! Let's see...ten hits, er "wounds" but that's really only three, hmm...actually three point three three three...but you can't have .333 of a hit! Why I think they're totally making it up! I'll bet they didn't hit him at ALL!
DING DING DING! This is not a SELF-DEFENSE shooting! And therin is part of the difference. This is a shooting of a murderous criminal in the line of duty.
This is the attempt to stop what for all they knew was a mass-murder in progress. An attempt to save more lives under terrible circumstances.
They do not have a lower standard of care. They have protection from personal liability because some problems they face don't have SAFE answers, as I've said before, and they must be able to act even accepting that their actions may cause risk to the safety of others.
Deanimator
Member
What it does is demonstrate a mindset involving the use of deadly force and its consequences, or more accurately, the lack thereof.
The Diallo, Dorismond and Bell killings and these shootings point to a chronic and long-term attitude toward the use of deadly force.
Deanimator
Member
So then you're saying that if the killer HADN'T pointed his firearm at the cops, they STILL would have been justified in shooting him?
If that's the case, why were the police SO emphatic in saying that he'd pointed a gun at them and using that as justification for shooting him?
You and the cops are arguing AGAINST each other.
This seems pretty simple to me - any private person who had done exactly what these cops did would be liable for all 9 injured bystanders. A cop has (or at least SHOULD have) the same standard of responsibility, and they should be held accountable just as anyone else would be.
Perhaps the NYPD needs to emphasize Rule #4 as much as civilian training institutions do. At the paid training I've attached and virtually every practical-type competition, there has been significant time spent with hostage targets, to really hit home the point that a miss can hit a bystander.
Perhaps the NYPD needs to emphasize Rule #4 as much as civilian training institutions do. At the paid training I've attached and virtually every practical-type competition, there has been significant time spent with hostage targets, to really hit home the point that a miss can hit a bystander.
They obviously DID know their target, and they also knew (undoubtedly) what was behind it. They faced no real, realistic option but to take action even though that action carried risks.
They are in a city. There ARE bystanders. Any shot fired carries great risk of harming someone else. Sometimes you are faced with the terrible need to shoot ANYWAY.
There is nothing perfect about this. There is nothing that could be perfect about having to kill someone in the line of duty and of having to take risks in order to stop a threat. It is a horrible situation. We are all hugely thankful that no one else was killed.
Hopefully this will raise the bar higher for police training so maybe the next time an officer is faced with a terrible shoot-or-allow-others-to-die situation s/he will be even more precise.
But the blame here lies entirely with the murderer.
Question one: When you say "these shootings", what (multiple) shootings are you referring to?
Question two: Why are you implying that shooting an armed murderer who pulls a gun on you is a bad choice?
That depends. If he drew that gun --at all-- (and he did...) then YES.
Because they can. It adds to their justification. The police had a duty to apprehend a murderer. That murderer drew a weapon on a public street. He pointed it at people. Some of those people were the responding officers.
Deanimator
Member
It doesn't ever seem to have done so before.
Why expect it now?
No, the blame for murdering Ercolino lies entirely with the murderer.
He didn't fire a shot after that.
EVERYONE shot after the murder of Ercolino was shot by police.
Shooting Johnson was justified. Shooting the bystanders was NOT.
Blaming anyone else is simply trying to evade responsibility.
He's not. Not at all, actually. He's using a demand of perfection in making the best decision under "no-win" circumstances, to hold the police officers up to the harsh light of an unreasonable standard.
And to try to denigrate the idea of indemnification for law officers acting in the line of duty.
The purpose of the exercise is to build up the rights of the citizen to defend one's self by tearing down the institutions by which we empower our sworn officers to be able to act swiftly and boldly in the face of danger and risk.
The fact that a citizen would not have the same protections and duties as a law enforcement officer really doesn't change the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the actions taken.
I thought this thread was about what just happened the other day?
Is there a reason you are evading questions about this incident by bringing up old stuff?
Am I the only one who sees serious irony in a guy who calls hims "de-animator" preaching about NYPD's supposed attitude towards the use of deadly force?
Is there a reason you are evading questions about this incident by bringing up old stuff?
Am I the only one who sees serious irony in a guy who calls hims "de-animator" preaching about NYPD's supposed attitude towards the use of deadly force?
Expect what? What, exactly, would you like NYPD to do to their policies/procedures/rules/regulations/training, etc?
Should they require that officers only use deadly force if they are 100% certain that no innocent person could possibly be harmed, even if not using deadly force risks having an armed murderer go on to murder more?
Deanimator
Member
Not giving the answer you WANT isn't evasion.
It's not enabling those who endorse the shooting of INNOCENT people.
Deanimator
Member
Do you believe 10 hits out of 16 shots in a life or death combat shoot is poor marksmanship?
4 of 10 sounds a bit high even.
Police shootouts don't occur on a square range with a static paper target under good lighting. The target is a moving lethal threat, you are moving, your support hand probably isn't even on the grip of your gun, because you've probably got a flashlight to hold, doorknobs to turn, obstacles or barriers to move, etc.
I've gone with pistol in one hand and Taser in the other several times. When you roll up on a violent suspect first, he's either going to comply verbally or he's getting one or the other. If he complies, then I holster and grab handcuffs keeping the Taser at contact range.
I've never shot at a human. But I'm fairly certain that when it happens I won't have a chance to use both hands or get a decent sight picture, it's probably going to be reactive and I'm going to be trying to gets rounds off befose I'm dead.
The police dynamic as it pertains to shooting is vastly different than a shooting range. I won't argue the poor hit percentage, only the idea that live shootout accuracy is comparable to acceptable accuracy at the square range.
NOBODY ENDORSES shooting innocent people. The fact that three innocent people were shot, and six innocent people were struck by flying debris/fragments is unfortunate, just short of tragedy.
Letting a killer continue to kill (again, which they had NO reason at the time to believe was not his plan) is MORE of a tragedy.
Terrible risks caused by terrible actions of a deranged person.
The officers HAD to act.
The officers were the ones on the scene. Not some other officers, a pair of USPSA Grandmasters, or the Delta Seals.
The officers on the scene were possessed of a certain level of skill. Not perfect skill, only that which they'd been able to attain through their training to date.
They had to act, and had to act to the best of their ability. They could not turn away, they could not go "time out" and go get someone better. A proven killer had drawn his gun and was pointing it up the street, at them.
We're sitting in judgment of them and but can offer nothing beyond that they should have been better or they should have been luckier. Yes, they SHOULD have been! But they did what they could with what they had. And the killer was stopped and no one else died. We can be thankful of that.
Sometimes I wonder if we're all looking at the same tape.
Questions and observations:
1. The shooter crosses to the outside (streetside) of the planters (at .02)...did he already see the officer's approaching?
2. He glances over his left shoulder just before he is obscured by the light pole (.05)
3. He reaches into his bag, draws his gun...all shielded from the view of the officers by his body.
4. He turns to confront the officers in a classic gunfighter's point shooting stance
5. The lead officer moves toward his right (off-line and toward cover) while drawing...this is to his advantage as he is left handed.
6. The second officer initially also moves in the same direction before moving toward his left. This could be because he realizes he will be behind the other officer or because he remembers to providing distance between targets (for the shooter) may offer a better shot...he may also think that the lines of fire are better toward the street.
7. The second officer extends his right arm and shoots one-handed while running. For a right handed shooter, shooting from a two-handed grip is awkward as you have to withdraw the strong arm.
8. It would have been easier for the lead officer to move to his left while shooting...he could have maintained his more practiced shooting grip/stance. But I doubt he really wanted to cross the line of fire of his cover officer.
9. Typically, the lead officer determines which direction officers will break when moving to cover.
The number of hits on the shooter really is surprisingly good at over 60%...NYPD must have improved their training over prior years. Learning that the number of bystanders who were actually injured by fragments rather than direct bullet strikes also speaks of improved training.
This incident also is a good argument for not using bullets/loads (FMJ/Solids) which routinely over penetrate the intended target.
Having worked in crowded environments, I'm aware of the issues involved in shooting an escaping violent criminal. Sometimes chasing one is preferable to taking a immediate shot. But once a criminal turns and threatens offices or others in a crowded situation, your responses are limited and sometimes you have to accept that innocents might be injured while trying to stop a greater threat.
Questions and observations:
1. The shooter crosses to the outside (streetside) of the planters (at .02)...did he already see the officer's approaching?
2. He glances over his left shoulder just before he is obscured by the light pole (.05)
3. He reaches into his bag, draws his gun...all shielded from the view of the officers by his body.
4. He turns to confront the officers in a classic gunfighter's point shooting stance
5. The lead officer moves toward his right (off-line and toward cover) while drawing...this is to his advantage as he is left handed.
6. The second officer initially also moves in the same direction before moving toward his left. This could be because he realizes he will be behind the other officer or because he remembers to providing distance between targets (for the shooter) may offer a better shot...he may also think that the lines of fire are better toward the street.
7. The second officer extends his right arm and shoots one-handed while running. For a right handed shooter, shooting from a two-handed grip is awkward as you have to withdraw the strong arm.
8. It would have been easier for the lead officer to move to his left while shooting...he could have maintained his more practiced shooting grip/stance. But I doubt he really wanted to cross the line of fire of his cover officer.
9. Typically, the lead officer determines which direction officers will break when moving to cover.
The number of hits on the shooter really is surprisingly good at over 60%...NYPD must have improved their training over prior years. Learning that the number of bystanders who were actually injured by fragments rather than direct bullet strikes also speaks of improved training.
This incident also is a good argument for not using bullets/loads (FMJ/Solids) which routinely over penetrate the intended target.
Having worked in crowded environments, I'm aware of the issues involved in shooting an escaping violent criminal. Sometimes chasing one is preferable to taking a immediate shot. But once a criminal turns and threatens offices or others in a crowded situation, your responses are limited and sometimes you have to accept that innocents might be injured while trying to stop a greater threat.
Deanimator
Member
Both officiers had to shoot the bad guy - plain and simple. Thank God only the bg died. Pray for the recovery of the innocents and the officiers.
Maybe this will be a wakeup call for more practice and possibly better ammo.
Maybe this will be a wakeup call for more practice and possibly better ammo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
