NYC getting sued for collateral damage

[316SS]

Governments generally have immunity from lawsuits in the course of their duties as long as they don't KNOWINGLY break the law or should have known they were endangering people/property.

A reasonable person would KNOW that firing 16 shots at a person surrounded by innocents might endanger said. More to the point, though, is the fact that the claim of the plaintiff is one of supervisory rather than personal liability. I reckon it won't be a stretch to convince a jury that a 56% hit rate on innocents is a supervisory "epic fail" of training.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume the central question for the lawsuit is going to be whether the officers were acting outside the bounds of NYPD's policies on use of force, with liability resting thoroughly on them, or whether they acted in accordance with the department's policies and training. If a jury can be convinced of the latter, NYPD is and NYC are going to be writing a big check.

 

[316SS]

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume the central question for the lawsuit is going to be whether the officers were acting outside the bounds of NYPD's policies on use of force, with liability resting thoroughly on them, or whether they acted in accordance with the department's policies and training.

"It's a clear issue of supervisory liability in the form of improper training, improper attention, possibly, improper hiring," said attorney Amy Marion.

I'm not a lawyer either, but the statement of the victim's lawyer above indicates that this case will not hinge around personal liability of the officers.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

A reasonable person would KNOW that firing 16 shots at a person surrounded by innocents might endanger said. More to the point, though, is the fact that the claim of the plaintiff is one of supervisory rather than personal liability. I reckon it won't be a stretch to convince a jury that a 56% hit rate on innocents is a supervisory "epic fail" of training.

No scenario is perfect.



What would you have done?
.

 

[bainter1212]

Sounds like a 12 lb trigger pull is a much worse idea than training properly. Even the dumbest grunt can get safety beaten into his thick skull, with the right training program.
In my personal experience, I have run into police officers who are obviously very knowledgeable about firearms in general, and some who were very much the opposite.
Had an officer who wanted to check my Rem 700 to see if it was loaded. He didn't know how to work a bolt action
I've been muzzle swept a time or two as well.
OTOH, the last one I encountered seemed to handle the weapon very naturally, like firearms safety and operation was second nature to him.
Seems to vary widely based on a variety of factors.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I'm not a lawyer either, but the statement of the victim's lawyer above indicates that this case will not hinge around personal liability of the officers.

That's what the plaintiff's lawyers are arguing -- whether they can convince a jury that is the case will be a big issue in the case, rather like I noted originally. One presumes NYPD's response will either be to argue that the officers were supervised in a manner entirely consistent with best practices in law enforcement and trained to enact an appropriate plan for escalation and use of force . . . but they screwed up as individuals, or to argue that spraying gunfire into a crowded street was a justifiable act based on their departmental policies and procedures and the totality of the circumstances.

Personally, I think most bureaucracies can be relied on to not do the stand up thing when personnel are in the lurch, so that's one vote for trying to throw the two officers under the bus. Secondly pushing it as individual error when push came to shove despite thorough control measures and appropriate training and policies is going to be an easier sell to a jury than a can't-make-an-omelette-without-breaking-some-eggs argument. While the latter might sometimes be absolutely true (not saying this is one of those cases), juries don't seem to like the notion that sometimes bad things happen and it's not anyone's fault.

 

[joeschmoe]

Before it even gets to a jury you have to get permission to sue a municipality because the law assumes they are immune from most suits. First you must convince a court that they violated policy or law to even get permission to bring the case to a jury. You don't just get to spin the wheel with a jury every time their is an incident.

IMO, it's pretty easy to say the cops over reacted. Which they do a lot, but that doesn't automatically mean you can sue the city.

 

[316SS]

No scenario is perfect. What would you have done?

I sure hope I never have to find out. I hope I would try to balance the hazard presented by the gunman against the danger of collateral damage, rather like the armed citizen at the Oregon mall shooting who withheld fire for fear of hitting bystanders. It's easy to armchair quarterback, but in NYC the police were arguably more dangerous to the bystanders than the man with a gun.

 

[316SS]

juries don't seem to like the notion that sometimes bad things happen and it's not anyone's fault.

More like juries don't like to think that they and their fellow citizens are considered expendable by an organization whose ostensible raison d'etre is "to protect and serve."

 

[Akita1]

that could be because ccw are defending themselves and confrontations start at arms length vs cops which arrive at the scene and start shooting from a distance.

just saying that stat is probably meaningless without controlling for distance

Agreed. Do you think it's also possible that we (CCWs) shoot more than LEOs? An anecdotal question to be sure, but I shoot because I like/want to versus a profession. I have a few LEO friends (both city PD and sheriff's deputies) and they don't shoot nearly as much as I do and their qualification tests are at significant intervals. Yes, it depends on what type of LEO, but for the purposes here (and likely the subject NYPD responders) let's assume the traditional patrol officer (yes, I know many LEOs are trained in stressful conditions, etc. but in a department the size of NYPD…).

Can some of our LEO brethren here weigh in on this and enlighten us please?

 

[medalguy]

Ever shoot at a LEO range? I used to, and I was absolutely stunned at the number of holes in the overhead baffles right in front of the firing positions. Most cops I know, and I do know a few, are not very good shots, most practice maybe once or twice right before they qualify, and some don't even do that. I'd say most go to a range maybe 3-4 times a year. Lots of guys I know who have CHL permits may go to a range once or twice a month, by comparison.

I definitely think LEOs are over-rated as to their proficiency with handguns.

 

[Ramone]

HOLD ON A MINNIT!

Everything else aside, the 8 people injured were not hit by stray rounds- they were injured by flying chips from the concrete planters that were catching the rounds- Not 'stray rounds', not ricochets.

The press has consistently gotten this wrong- my info is from an NYPD officer who was on scene immediately following the shooting.

Which is not saying that 16 rounds is or isn't excessive, or that NYPD are or are not great shots...

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I sure hope I never have to find out. I hope I would try to balance the hazard presented by the gunman against the danger of collateral damage, rather like the armed citizen at the Oregon mall shooting who withheld fire for fear of hitting bystanders. It's easy to armchair quarterback, but in NYC the police were arguably more dangerous to the bystanders than the man with a gun.

It's easy to say the police were more dangerous that day, but if they hadn't shot and let the suspect shoot and he hit innocent bystanders and worse,even killed them, then it would be easy to say the bad guy was more dangerous that day.
.

 

[Akita1]

Ever shoot at a LEO range? I used to, and I was absolutely stunned at the number of holes in the overhead baffles right in front of the firing positions. Most cops I know, and I do know a few, are not very good shots, most practice maybe once or twice right before they qualify, and some don't even do that. I'd say most go to a range maybe 3-4 times a year. Lots of guys I know who have CHL permits may go to a range once or twice a month, by comparison.

I definitely think LEOs are over-rated as to their proficiency with handguns.

That's why I'm asking; I go once a week and still need a ton of improvement, IMHO.

 

[316SS]

Everything else aside, the 8 people injured were not hit by stray rounds- they were injured by flying chips from the concrete planters that were catching the rounds- Not 'stray rounds', not ricochets.

Well that's a completely different situation. Forget I said anything.

 

[Drail]

As a former NRA instructor who has trained private citizens and LEOs I can assure you that very few LEOs are "highly trained". The ones who are have taken it upon themselves to seek training and paid for it themselves. Training costs money and most city administrators do not believe that anything more than minimum training is necessary or worth the cost.

 

[tarakian]

The press actually did cover this and state that none of the bystanders were hit by actual bullets. As for overshooting, if a known killer raised his gun at you, how many rounds would you fire? Would you shoot once and then check to see if he was incapacitated? Or would you fire until you were damn sure? I certainly think the NYPD are ill equipped and ongoing training (or lack thereof) is a joke, but anyone who thinks they would react any differently to an immediate threat from a known shooter is kidding themselves.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

HOLD ON A MINNIT!

Everything else aside, the 8 people injured were not hit by stray rounds- they were injured by flying chips from the concrete planters that were catching the rounds- Not 'stray rounds', not ricochets.

The press has consistently gotten this wrong- my info is from an NYPD officer who was on scene immediately following the shooting.

Which is not saying that 16 rounds is or isn't excessive, or that NYPD are or are not great shots...

Well your source would be at odds with the police commissioner. It would appear that the media got is right and that your source got it wrong or the police commissioner would have played down the injuries like your source. However, it doesn't matter that your source is or isn't. Shots were fired by the police that resulted in injuries to targets they did NOT intend to injure.

At least three bystanders were struck by direct gunfire.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting

Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.

 

[JRH6856]

Before it even gets to a jury you have to get permission to sue a municipality because the law assumes they are immune from most suits. First you must convince a court that they violated policy or law to even get permission to bring the case to a jury. You don't just get to spin the wheel with a jury every time their is an incident.

When there is a plane crash, how many times does a NTSB ruling of "pilot error" let the manufacture, the airline, the airport, or ATC off the hook? Getting to sue the deep pockets is by no means automatic.

 

[strugatsky]

When the cops were thought that they were shooting at Dorner, it is obvious that they didn't care at all about killing bystanders. In fact, they didn't even care to make sure that they were shooting at Dorner, with two victims being women and the third being a white male. From the pictures, one can see that they were shooting fully auto (of course, those were not "assault" rifles, they were "patrol" rifles!) and aiming for head/torso, vs the vehicle tires or the like. Judging from the facts, the cops were/are the most dangerous criminals, completely out of control.

 

[Drail]

"completely out of control" You got that right. One only needs to look at California to find examples of this.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

When the cops were thought that they were shooting at Dorner, it is obvious that they didn't care at all about killing bystanders. In fact, they didn't even care to make sure that they were shooting at Dorner, with two victims being women and the third being a white male. From the pictures, one can see that they were shooting fully auto (of course, those were not "assault" rifles, they were "patrol" rifles!) and aiming for head/torso, vs the vehicle tires or the like. Judging from the facts, the cops were/are the most dangerous criminals, completely out of control.

Not so sure they were fully automatic.



Many departments only allow patrol officers to use semi-auto and only SWAT to have full auto. Many departments also don't even allow SWAT to have full auto.
.

 

[HorseSoldier]

+1.

Not that you need auto to riddle a vehicle with bullets.

 

[DSling]

Sounds like a 12 lb trigger pull is a much worse idea than training properly. Even the dumbest grunt can get safety beaten into his thick skull, with the right training program.
In my personal experience, I have run into police officers who are obviously very knowledgeable about firearms in general, and some who were very much the opposite.
Had an officer who wanted to check my Rem 700 to see if it was loaded. He didn't know how to work a bolt action
I've been muzzle swept a time or two as well.
OTOH, the last one I encountered seemed to handle the weapon very naturally, like firearms safety and operation was second nature to him.
Seems to vary widely based on a variety of factors.

I was reading and had to pause here for a moment. I take offense about the grunt statement. Yes safety is drilled into us but the intelligence level of them was incorrectly stated.

Justifying my means with their ends.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

NYC firearms qualification

For those interested in the NYPD's firearms qualification requirements.

From pages 65-66 of PDF version of the 2008 Rand report, Evaluation of the
New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge
Review Process:

Refresher Firearm Training and Requalification
The semiannual firearm requalification consists of three parts:

• Lecture: A two-part lecture to remind officers of current safety and tactical issues. The first lecture consists of 38 overhead slides that review drawing the firearm, fundamentals of shooting, accidental discharges, firearm maintenance, and the basics of using OC spray. The second lecture covers departmentwide firearm-discharge reports, use of force, reflexive shooting, patrol tactics, dogs, and firearm safety.
• Practice: An opportunity to fire 45 rounds of ammunition at stationary targets at 7-, 15-, and 25-yard distances. Practice is unscored on a tactical pistol course.
• Requalification: This included firing 50 rounds at stationary targets at 7-, 15-, and 25-yard distances. A minimum of 39 hits is required to qualify.

Quoting Morrison and Vila (1998, p. 510), the report adds this:

It is difficult to reconcile demonstrated police handgun accuracy with the commonly held notion that the police are competent with their handguns by way of their participation in mandated recruit and in-service training.​

So, basically, NYPD cops are firing 190 round per year, total, to maintain firearms qualification. Or roughly the equivalent of a weekly range visit, for some shooters.