Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes. Of course they have a legal duty. They have discretion in how they apply their department's policies, but they MUST do so. They do not have the lawful ability to turn away and not act.
As requested by moderator hso: Video of NYC ESB shooting 8/24/2012
- Thread starter paramedic70002
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
From whence does that LEGAL duty arise, and what is my recourse if they don't fulfill it?
The name Konerak Sinthasomphone comes to mind...
R.W.Dale
Member
Are you sure about that?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia#section_3
The police are not the military. They can not do their job, screw it up, quit or just generally be lazy just like all other CIVILIAN employments.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
Deanimator
Member
Last edited:
I can't decide if you are being serious or not.
I'll assume you are.
My first question to you: Do you believe the officers were out of line in choosing to confront the armed murderer? Please respond with yes or no to this question only, we can deal with each individual choice separately...without talking about you running over squirrels the next time you get behind the wheel.
Deanimator
Member
I wouldn't know why you'd doubt my seriousness. I'm as serious as shooting nine bystanders.
As I stated previously, it was a justified shooting carried out VERY badly, and in a way which would cause anyone else to be sued and or prosecuted.
The gunman was a threat. The bystanders weren't. There was neither justification nor excuse for shooting them, PERIOD.
The cops own EVERY one of those bullets they sent downrange.
All the hand waving in the world won't ever change the fact that one or both of those cops shot and wounded a bunch of INNOCENT people. No doubt though, at some point the victims will be both blamed for their injuries and or have their character impugned for seeking compensation for those injuries, regardless of their magnitude.
What should the officers have done differently?
Deanimator
Member
I'll got out on a limb and suggest, "Shoot only the threat, which was neither shooting back, nor moving significantly."
So you want 100% combat accuracy when faced with an armed murderer.
What you ask is not reasonable.
Deanimator
Member
And yet it happens frequently, with both cops and citizens.
And shooting a bunch of INNOCENT people is "reasonable"?
Is it "reasonable" for ME in a self-defense shooting?
What's a "reasonable" number of innocent people to shoot while defending yourself?
Depends on the totality of the circumstances.
There is a lot that can be learned from and changed (by the NYPD) as a result of this, but demanding 100% combat accuracy is not reasonable.
If the only thing you can do is say "well, they shouldn't have hit an innocent", then your 'critique' of the incident is not helpful.
Deanimator
Member
What are the "totality of the circumstances" in THIS case that justify or excuse shooting a bunch of INNOCENT bystanders?
History says that in all likelihood, NOTHING will be "learned" OR "changed", certainly not for the BETTER. The names Diallo, Dorismond and Bell suggest exactly the opposite.
The NYPD declares itself blameless and lurches toward the next fiasco. At least this time, they managed to only KILL the RIGHT person. I'm not sure how much comfort that'll be to one of the victims if they lose a limb or die of MERSA. Doesn't matter I guess. They or their families will be slimed for seeking redress, regardless.
Start by watching the video if you want to get an idea what the circumstances were.
Also, all I have seen so far is you rant and rave about how bad the result was. That doesn't help. When asked what they could do differently, you rant and rave about how they won't do anything differently.
What do you think could have been done differently?
What would you like to see NYPD change going forward?
Deanimator
Member
I have the opinion I do BECAUSE of the video.
All I've seen you do is make excuses for shooting a bunch of INNOCENT people.
Hit their target and not INNOCENT people.
Let's see... they could learn to shoot and be aware of their target and what's beyond it. Some people would call that "unreasonable".
Jaxondog
Member
the potted plant's were never in direct line of fire and no one used them as sheild's. I also doubt there was a richocet off one either. You must be a leo to say such. Play the vid over slowly and you will see. Also, what would the first thing most people would do when a gun shot ring's out close by? My guess would be to stop and back up and try and comprehend where the shot came from in order to know which way to run or get out of harm's way.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Once more, if the reports that they hit 10 for 16 are actually true, then they did about TWICE as well as the average for hits on target in a lethal force encounter.
They did hit, directly, three bystanders. It is unknown at this time if those shots passed through the bad guy, or were just misses. That is terribly unfortunate, but quite possibly not unreasonable given the need to shoot right at that moment, the accuracy level it is reasonable to expect of a law enforcement officer under those conditions, and the density of the crowd on a New York City street.
Doing nothing was not an option. To say that any collateral injuries are UNACCEPTABLE would require -- literally -- that the officers take no action at all, because that is the only way to utterly prevent collateral injuries.
Deanimator
Member
Have you reconsidered your assertion of a LEGAL duty to act?
Of course I never suggested that they do NOTHING. I "suggested" that they NOT shoot INNOCENT people. I've been told that's "unreasonable". However, the person I asked hasn't told me whether it's "unreasonable" for ME.
We don't REALLY know HOW many times the killer was shot, nor which are entrance or exit wounds. The cops don't get to count exit wounds as ADDITIONAL hits to artificially inflate their hit:miss ratio.
Well?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes. The fact that sometimes police are unable to (or for whatever reasons do not) protect an individual person -- and that the courts have ruled they cannot be sued because they did not do so, does not negate the fact that they have a duty to respond and react to a crime that they are witnessing.
Even if instances arise where an officer DOES ignore a crime, is anyone here suggesting that they SHOULD, especially in this case? A murder in broad daylight, in public. Police responding in the moment at the scene, who witness the murderer leaving and follow to apprehend.
Is someone saying the police would be upholding their duty to let him go on killing?
Obviously, it is not legitimate to apply the (unsubstantiated) belief that since he'd killed the one man he hated, that he was now harmless and would kill no one else.
Deanimator
Member
"Well" WHAT?
You got my answer.
If you're waiting for an answer that excuses shooting a bunch of INNOCENT people, you've got a VERY long wait.
Is it "unreasonable" for ME to not shoot a bunch of INNOCENT people?
Well?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Nope. You may keep trying, though.
Just because they cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting a certain individual ... but I repeat myself.Repeat:
This has been suggested, but not proved or even supported by any information. YOU/WE don't get to berate the cops for claiming an inflated hit ratio if there is no evidence that that is what they're doing.
No. It is perfectly reasonable for you not to shoot a bunch of innocent people.
Deanimator
Member
I asked you from whence this supposed "duty" arises.
I also provided counter-examples with no known, meaningful negative consequences.
The truth is that NO such "duty" exists.
A "duty" with no enforcement mechanism is nothing more than a suggestion.
Deanimator
Member
Neither do we get to absolve them by ASSUMING a FAVORABLE hit:miss ratio.
I just had to clarify your position that the policies and procedures of the NYPD were perfect and that they don't need to change a thing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
