Dumbest thing I have ever heard!

[dk-corriveau]

Well folks I just can't make this stuff up! :banghead:

Shoot to hurt, pol urges cops

BY JOE MAHONEY
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

ALBANY - Sen. David Paterson is pushing a bill that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force - drawing outrage from officers.

The bill also would create a new provision for second-degree manslaughter that would be reserved specifically for an officer who "uses more than the minimal amount necessary" to stop a crime suspect.

Paterson, who is on Eliot Spitzer's ticket as lieutenant governor, has reintroduced the bill twice since first sponsoring it in 2001, refusing to let it die.

In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: "There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective."

Current law gives cops a wide berth to use deadly force when a suspect presents a danger to another person's life.

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try toshoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

"This bill shows absolutely no understanding of just how difficult it is for a police officer when they get into situations requiring the use of deadly force," John Grebert, director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, told the Daily News.

His sentiment was echoed by Dan DeFedericis, president of the New York State Troopers PBA, who said: "We are definitely opposed to this bill ... and we strongly believe it could endanger the lives of police officers and innocent civilians."

While Spitzer already has the endorsement of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, that group's Albany lobbyist, John Poklemba, said, "This bill is very ill conceived. I can't imagine any police agencies not being opposed to it."

Paterson told The News last night that his bill would safeguard the public. He explained that he wrote the bill in response to the acquittal of four NYPD officers charged in the 1999 shooting death of the unarmed Amadou Diallo in the Bronx.

"Many people were surprised the officers weren't guilty of something, criminally negligent homicide or something that involved some negligence," he said. "I thought I was writing the bill that really mirrored what the department rules are."

A Spitzer spokesman declined to comment.

Originally published on February 23, 2006

 

[Janitor]

... when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective.

Ok. A cop in a traffic stop finds himself confronted with a crackhead that's just drawn a knife and starts to charge. You have less than 2 seconds (actually, probably less than 1 second) to make your decision.

Your choices are:

A - Do the most you can to stop the scumbag and save your (and probabaly others later) life.

B - First try something that "may" stop him.

This has got to be one of the most inane, irresponsible bills I've heard come up in a long while.

Edit: Once after watching a news story about an event where an LEO had to turn a thug into a good thug, my wife asked me "Why do the cops have to shoot to kill?" I said that they don't really shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat. Being made dead is simply a frequent, possibly unfortunate (for the perp) byproduct of being stopped.

 

[foghornl]

Brings up a question....

When the Bad Guy(s) attack Sen. David Paterson, is he going to be yelling at the Police to only "shoot to wound"? ? ? ?


As Bugs Bunny would say "What an ultra-maroon!!"

And it has nothing to do with the the color purple.

 

[middy]

Something tells me that a certain senator needs to stop spending so much time watching the Cartoon Network and playing Xbox...

 

[orionengnr]

good case for term limits

in his case, two weeks in office would be about right.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

in his case, two weeks in office would be about right.

... and he took office on February 9... buh bye...

What happens when deadeye detective deters a deadly dispicable devil by doing just what was proposed?

What happens if dd hits the femoral artery? Just a thought, the medical THRs can answer.. I don't know.

 

[#shooter]

Pathetic

Politicans can be so stupid.

 

[straightShot]

This is laughable.

 

[Justin]

Like most politicians, he probably lacks the work ethic or general level of intelligence needed to hold a job at Taco Bell.

Elected public service: the last great hope of employment for utter nitwits.

 

[Sinsaba]

I'm willing to offer the Senator a challenge... I wear body armor protecting my vitals (got to work up something for a helmet) and we will duel at 20 paces with 9mm weapons.

He gets to aim for my arms and legs and I get to aim for whatever I want. I'll even give him first shot.

 

[Fly320s]

Like most politicians, he probably lacks the work ethic or general level of intelligence needed to hold a job at Taco Bell.

Not to mention that he doesn't understand the definition of deadly force.

Shooting a guy in his big toe may cause death or serious injury, despite what one may have intended.

 

[TheEgg]

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try toshoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

How many times have we heard from various sources (including a LOT of police sources) that police officers are intensively trained in the handling, operation, and shooting of their firearms, unlike 'civilians'. Therefore they should be the only ones with firearms.

Then they should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to the discharge of firearms, and should be easily able to comply with this law, shouldn't they? Right? Right?

Hello? Anyone?

OK -- lame sarcasm, but I couldn't resist.

Stupid law -- just as stupid as the argument about 'police officers' being the only ones that should have arms because of their superior training.

 

[Stickjockey]

This guy needs to take a course from LFI or something. I think it would give him an entirely new perspective on his "shoot to wound" idea.

 

[SomeKid]

In theory, it really isn't that bad. (It is in the real world, we simply know that his fashion will not work.)

Instead of mandating that cops ALWAYS try to make tough shots first, it should mandate that if they shoot an innocent they get charged with (insert crime here). That would leave room for shooting to kill in needful siutations, but allow for bad cops to see the inside of a jail.

 

[busterbrown]

femoral artery= dead

MD

 

[bigdaddyb]

I have no problem with 'shoot to hurt'.

I've been told a center of body mass shot hurts like hell.

This guy obviously carries enough stupid on his person to 'share with the class'.

It doesn't bother me that people have opinions different from my own. It's morons like this guy, who attempt to speak with authority on subjects that they are so obviously, abjectly ignorant of. These idiots are just intolerable.

Not all opinions have value.

brianb

 

[poppy]

Unfortunantly it is the sign of the times. Nothing this stupid is being proposed around here, but there has been an increase in the use of things like tasers in the attempt to limit "deadly force".

Now there is an attack on the use of tasers because the death rate is increasing related to their use. Cops can't win, so we need to continue to support them how ever we can. poppy

 

[armoredman]

If I was LE in his jurisdiction, and this passed, I would quit. Instantly. And move.

 

[mp510]

What we learned from the Dick Cheney incident, was that even when a person is hit with a shot that should do little damage, is capable of causing serious injury, with the serious possibility of the incident becoming fatal.

It sounds like this senator is attempting to garner votes out of his constiuents, who have been aggrevated by infamous police shootings in the past.

 

[svtruth]

Amadou Dialo,

IIRC, was hit 20 times,
out of 40+ shots.

 

[V4Vendetta]

Something tells me that a certain senator needs to stop spending so much time watching the Cartoon Network and playing Xbox...

LEAVE THE XBOX OUT OF THIS!! We gamers have enough trouble with the politicians who want to ban all games that aren't like Pac-man. Make no mistake, I like pac-man but I also like Halo & Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

 

[waterhouse]

Current law gives cops a wide berth to use deadly force when a suspect presents a danger to another person's life.

Why is it that when they get a law right the first time they spend so much effort trying to change it, but when they get it wrong the first time they can never admit that and they just leave it on the books?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

LEAVE THE XBOX OUT OF THIS!! We gamers have enough trouble with the politicians who want to ban all games that aren't like Pac-man. Make no mistake, I like pac-man but I also like Halo & Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

Uh-oh...a gamer. Everybody just back away slowly and don't make eye contact. Their kind spooks easy.

As for the Senator...I am wondering if this might be racially motivated.

 

[Havegunjoe]

Patterson is obviously a product of too much TV and Hollywood.

I've had people ask this question in my classe from time to time. Once they understand the stess involved and the way our bodies react to a life threatening situation, how our 5 senses are affected, they come to realize how impossible this would be even for an excellent marksman under normal conditions. They understand why we say aim for center of mass. This idiot hasn't got a clue.

 

[Nitrogen]

This guy needs to take a course from LFI or something. I think it would give him an entirely new perspective on his "shoot to wound" idea.

This is actually a GREAT idea.

I'm what you call an optomist. I have a hard time believing people are evil. I think 90% of what's percieved as evil is just ignorance. This guy probably gets an earful and figures, "HEY! THE POLICE SHOULD SHOOT TO HURT AND NOT TO KILL!"

That's a great idea, if you're ignorant (as most people are) about how defense with a firearm actually works. I think it'd be a great idea to offer some education. It would tell me a lot about the character of the fellow wether or not he accepts it.

I'll leave it up to further discussion as to wether someone that's ignorant in that way should be in public office or not.