NYC Police seem to shoot the guy w/ the gun

[Carl N. Brown]

We had a case here in Tennessee where the responding officers shot and killed a jewelry store owner who pursued armed robbers out of his store, and acted as though he could not hear the officers' repeated demands to put down his gun. (The robbers had fled by car.)*

Man with gun = criminal? In an article on a proposed gun laws, Knoxville police told the papers that maybe one in five criminals even owns a gun. So man without a gun is more likely to be a criminal.

Police--and any self defense carrier who might even think of intervening on behalf of a third party--should realize that in many situations, you may have man (or woman)-with-a-gun detaining a bad guy (or gal) unarmed or disarmed and dropping the gun is not a good option.

Reminds me of the stat of 30 mistaken shootings by civilians in self defense versus 300 by police annually. (Civilians in self-defense usually know who the bad guy is, cops usually are called into situations with next to no info--just vague report of fight or robbery in progress, domestic disturbance, man-with-gun, etc.)

ADDED: John R. MacArthur, New York-based author and publisher of Harper's Magazine, visited my hometown on business and checked into the local Marriott on the same weekend as a gunshow.

His op-ed inspired by that experience (John R. MacArthur, "My compromise in the gun debate", The Providence Journal, July 5, 2000, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63162862.html ) was reprinted locally as A Northerner's fear and loathing in Kingsport.

Among musings on guns and gun laws*, he also noted: "I live in one of the most violent cities in America -- New York -- where children carry guns and use them to redress frivolous slights, while the police are among the most trigger-happy in the nation."

The idea that NYPD is trigger happy, shoots first and then asks questions, is not solely the impression of us redneck hillbilly gunnuts.

-----------------
*Off topic of OP but very interesting: "I'm sure the legalization of assault rifles would upset a few liberals, but they well understand that most gun violence is wreaked by hidden pistols and pistols lying around on the table at home. And they know that maintaining the ban on assault rifles is mere window-dressing, just a dodge for politicians like President Clinton who want to play both sides of the fence." Always nice to know what those of the other side say to each other.

 

[lopaka]

All armchair quarterbacks listen to this guy!

Lemay, remember the Motorola shoot-don't shoot no win scenarios?

Read the responses to this thread, got angry, got over it, and decided to speak up. I'm glad my law enforcement years weren't in New York since the more people you have in a given area.... the more trouble, period. I've been in more than my share of violent incidents down here in south Florida, made it through them and have been "retired" now for more than 15 years (and in another line of work entirely - "retirement" isn't good for you...).

Now for a bit of reality.... nothing you see on television or the movies will ever prepare you for what happens on the street where you never know the whole story and can be confronted with a life or death, shoot-don't shoot situation when you least expect it or are prepared for it. My mantra whenever going to that kind of situation was "look out for the cops" and I meant it in every sense of the words, driving, running, climbing, etc. Every department trains to prevent fratricide (shooting at the good guys.... or being shot at by the good guys). In recent years the military has found that as they're better able to tell where the rounds came from and I.D. the munitions themselves pretty accurately that they're own fratricide rates are a lot higher than you'd guess. In short when you're scared to death, and at an extreme level of adrenaline, acting in a safe and prudent manner is much more difficult (and it isn't some game where you can re-set and try it again...).

For that reason sharp, well trained outfits have policies in place to reduce the chances of one cop shooting at another... In my outfit's case we actually required plainclothes types to put on a lightweight windbreaker with large "POLICE" markings if they were going to help out on an active weapons scene. As a watch commander I ordered plainclothes guys out of an area where we had an active shooter on more than one occasion. Even so you can still have "circular firing" or cross-fire incidents where one or more of the good guys wind up in the E.R. with wounds received that were intended for the same guy they were shooting at... Things become much, much more complicated when you have multiple agencies and jursidictions on the same scene. In those situations the chances of something very bad happening go way, way up. Yes, in my early years (hired at the end of 1973) I participated in chase scenes that looked like something from that movie the "Blues Brothers". And yes, I've been in situations where fire discipline, and every other basic procedure just went out the window and you ended up making your own decisions (for better or worse).

Down here in Florida we've had a history of bad guys trying to impersonate officers (particularly when robbing dopers) so a police uniform (or what passes for one on a drug raid) is no guarantee that you're actually seeing a real cop (and my own SRT did shoot several of these kind of guys and they were wearing armor, and police T-shirts, and had badges...).

Now for the portion of the previous replies that did get me fired up. The consequences for any officer that's involved in a shooting that is even the slightest bit controversial are very, very serious. Before any decision is made about whether the incident is going to prosecuted, the Department begins it's initial investigation of any shooting incident. Once the basics are determined (and before the officer involved is asked for a statement) a state attorney is briefed and that individual (after talking to their brass) will decide if this is possibly going to be prosecuted... If the State Attorney's office takes over all Department actions cease (for the time being) and the officer is read his rights and things move forward. In many cases this means that the SA after a thorough investigation goes to the Grand Jury with the case. That body will indict or "no bill" the incident. With an indictment the officer is treated like any other defendant by the system but everything surrounding it turns into a circus.... If there's no indictment the matter returns to the agency and then it's just an administrative matter. That means that the only thing on the line for the officer is his/her job (but with very serious consequences still to come). If any rules, regulations, policies were broken then discipline will result - all the way up to firing - but with one added feature. Now for the fun part, at that point the officer is ordered to give a full account of the incident. That statement will become a permanent part of the file and will be the basis of any interrogation by Internal Affairs if necessary (and I actually did that job for three years...). If the outfit determines that what happened violated basic procedures they can use that to decline to defend the officer in any subsequent civil case..... and that means real trouble for whoever is involved... In most cases the City will have to defend the officer since it's their money at stake (and that leads to all sorts of complcations and conflicts of interest...).

"No consequences for the officer" ? What a load of bad information. Yes, there are miscarriages of justice and yes there are incidents that cry out for change but the consequences for any officer involved in a shooting are as heavy as they get, the process from start to finish takes months (at times years) and can be very, very damaging to anyone involved. Police outfits do their best to find good people for the job, then the job and the world you operate in does its best to grind them down to the point of indifference (at best). Very, very few cops come through a shooting situation without serious psych problems afterwards. I was one of them, but was lucky enough to sort it all out in just a few years...

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

NYPD has occasionally used the "shoot and ask questions later" method simply because they have the power to do so. Don't get me wrong, they don't abuse that power all the time, but occasionally it happens, and the city powers then try to protect them as much as possible, because it IS a dangerous and difficult job, and sacrificing the occasionally unfortunate innocent citizen is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

LOL so now we aren't qualified to question the actions of the police??? A plain clothes cop was shot by a uniformed cop doesn't take an expert to see someone screwed up.

The thread title is "NYC Police seem to shoot the guy w/ the gun" which indicates the thread pertains to police shootings in NYC generally, not just this one incident.

Am I saying cops shouldn't have their actions questioned? No. I'm saying they should be questioned by someone qualified to be doing so. Very few civilians fit that basic criteria.

Read that quote for what it says. "Very few" not "none". Are lawyers and criminologists qualified? Probably. Are members of a civilian review panel in NYC qualified? Probably. Are judges qualified? More than probably. Inherently yes due to their job. Do all of these people need access to the complete facts of the case to make a true decision? Absolutely.

Are the general posters on a gun forum with no access to the facts beyond a news stroy qualified? Of course not.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Unfortunately, we have an overwhelming willingness of a large majority to erect, maintain, and defend the Blue Wall. So, since citizens can't trust leos to side with the constitution and the people of their municipalities, instead of people in the same costume as them, we are compelled to question their actions at every turn, if for no other reason that to let law enforcement officers stop and remember that we see them and what they're doing.
I may not have all the facts, but it's my right to demand and scrutinize them for action done while in the contract of the public trust.
Besides, no real judgements will be rendered here in the court of public opinion. So, it's no real harm to any officer for us to discuss this here .
It's our duty to be vigilant of anyone we swear into any public office. Especially so with those we trust with the capacity to use deadly force at their discretion.
"Shut your citizen mouth and stop asking questions" is not an acceptable response.

 

[fb17439]

FYI, this shooting did not occur in New York City. It happened in Long Island. Secondly, the off duty officer that tragically shot the off duty ATF agent wasn't active,retired or off duty NYPD. He was a retired Long Island lieutenant. The off duty NYPD officer at the scene fired and killed the robber of the pharmacy. The ridiculous claims that NYPD shoots first asks question later is spoken out of ignorance. If you shoot anyone as an NYPD officer you face more scrutiny and investigations that any other department. You can expect to ride the desk for 6+ months even in a perfect shooting. NYC is home to 30+ armed law enforcement agencies which could add to confusion in a stressful situation. The amount of friendly fire situations is extremely low, we just live in the media capital of the world, everything is blown up in the media. It's a fact that deadly force is used less by the NYPD than almost any police force in a major city.

 

[Safetychain]

When one reads the stats of gun deaths in New York, I am reminded of the thread back awhile where the authorities stated that they had a good weekend around some local celebration where only 6 deaths by gun occurred. Then the New York Times (?) reported there were 70+ firearm related deaths that same weekend. The numbers are cooked so often.

 

[357 Terms]

+1 on what wheelgunslinger said.

Very well put.

 

[TCB in TN]

2) You either are an LEO, or you're not an LEO. If you're not, you have no business chiming in on how an LEO should handle a potentially deadly situation (or just about any other); and if you are an LEO, you shouldn't be doing it here, anyway.

Actually as a citizen I certainly have the right to chime in on how those who are supposed to be enforcing the law behave/act. In fact if more citizens were to begin holding our government and it agents accountable we would live in a far better country today.

Are the general posters on a gun forum with no access to the facts beyond a news stroy qualified? Of course not.

We are just as qualified to comment as those who don't know and have no access to the facts yet always defend the LEO in question.

 

[Flopsweat]

2) You either are an LEO, or you're not an LEO. If you're not, you have no business chiming in on how an LEO should handle a potentially deadly situation (or just about any other); and if you are an LEO, you shouldn't be doing it here, anyway.

That is a very frightening attitude to hear coming from any LEO. Would you care to clarify or amend your statement?

 

[jerkface11]

That is a very frightening attitude to hear coming from any LEO. Would you care to clarify or amend your statement?

That's exactly the attitude you always hear in these threads though.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That's exactly the attitude you always hear in these threads though.

Only from a minority of posters though.

 

[hermannr]

To those that flat unquestionly defend LE. Please think about these, then tell us we, law abiding citizens, should have no concern about how LE actions are handled. (None of these are from NY, they are all from my part of the country.)

Ian Birk of Seattle: Not the first not the last, just the worst (IMHO) The drunk Native American woodcarver (Williams) was shot in the back! and Mr. Birk was never charged with MURDER! The Feds have told Seattle PD to clean up their act. http://www.seattleweekly.com/related/to/Ian+Birk/ (BTW: Mr. Birk is/was not the only problem child that Seattle has)

Brian Hirzel of Spokane shot and killed (murdered IMHO) Pastor Scott Creech (74 years old) in the parking lot of Creech's own business...We will never know exactly what happened, but like the wood carver to Ian Birk, Creech was not a deadly threat to Hirzel... Yet, Hirzel shot and killed Creech, on Creech's own property!

I will ask a hypothetical question here...you are Creech...you have had you business robbed before. It is past midnight and a strange unmarked car quietly pulls into your business parking lot...What do you do? http://spokanepoliceabuses.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/who-killed-pastor-creech/

I will tell you what happened. The wife called 911, while Pastor Creech went out to investigate this car, (an unmarked Spokane Sheriff's patrol car) with his revolver in a holster...the pistol was still in it's holster when they picked up his dead body.

And last, but not least. Otto Zehm/ Sgt Karl Thompson Spokane....this one bothers me the most. Otto Zehm, a gainfully employed Downs syndrom adult, was beat and then sufficated to death...his "weapon"??? a 1 liter bottle of soda pop, and he was doing nothing illegal, and had done nothing illegal... Spokane is the next PD to get a visit from the feds...they are also going to told to clean up their act. http://www.justice.gov/usao/wae/news/2011/2011_11_02_Thompson_Verdict.html

Why am I so upset about Sgt Thompson? and the Spokane PD? Spokane found that Thompson (who had at one time been considered for the post of COP of Spokane) "not violated policy in the death of Otto Zehm" yet, 5 1/5 YEARS later he is convicted in Federal court. Why did it take the Feds to clean this UP? Why did it take 5 1/2 years to bring this guy to justice? AND Why did the WHOLE Spokane PD salute Thompson AFTER!!!! he was convicted????

So, all you LE types, maybe you might think us citizens may just want to keep a bit of a monitor or your activities??? maybe??? After all, we are the ones that pay your salaries...maybe a bit of accountability would be in order.

Oh, one added thing to put this in perspective: WA allows for open carry of a weapon without a license, so to see a person, on his own property (like Creech) with a handgun in a holster is not unusual....BTW: Criminals hide their weapons, they don't carry them in a holster for all to see.

 

[LemmyCaution]

and sacrificing the occasionally unfortunate innocent citizen is the lesser of two evils.

Sure it is. As long as it's not you.

And you would never say such a thing, if you didn't have absolute confidence that it never will be you, or even someone like you.

 

[jerkface11]

NYPD has occasionally used the "shoot and ask questions later" method simply because they have the power to do so. Don't get me wrong, they don't abuse that power all the time, but occasionally it happens, and the city powers then try to protect them as much as possible, because it IS a dangerous and difficult job, and sacrificing the occasionally unfortunate innocent citizen is the lesser of two evils

Killing innocent people is the lesser of two evils? What's the greater one?

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

IMO, if used along the lines of, "This is what I perceive to be true about this situation, and this is how I would have handled it if I were involved," addressing these situations could be a good thing to do.

However, even that may be dangerous. There are very few situations, if any, that civilians should handle the same way LEOs should. The only thing left then, is to look at this situation and critique the decision made by the LEO. Even if he did make a serious mistake, it does nobody any good to reach that conclusion here, on THR.

My point is, this type of thread has just about no business being discussed here, as there is virtually no positive purpose for doing so.

The only thing for THR members in general to learn from this, is to be careful when using your weapon to stop crimes in progress, because you may be mistaken for a criminal. Whether it's right or wrong, it's not entirely uncommon for officers "shoot first, and ask questions second." Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant in this setting.

Nothing of further value can be gained from this thread. Opinions, on the other hand, will surely flourish.

Sorry Bobson but you are GRAVELY mistaken. The tax payers pay the LEO's salary. It is the tax payers that LEO's SHOULD answer to. "To protect and serve" is about the biggest load of horse crap I have ever seen advertised on the side of a car. LEO's protect nothing. By law, a LEO can do NOTHING until a crime has been committed or in the process of commission. Now that the "protect" is out of the way, this leaves "serve". By serve, is it your claim that they only serve LEO agencies? I would hope not. If you serve the public, then sir you are damn well answerable to that same public!

I live very close to a city that makes NYC seem like a vacation holiday spot in comparison. 55% of the police force in Chicago are as crooked as a rattle snakes trail. They serve the same crooked political crooks that are now finding their way to jail finally! One good thing about this place is that if a cop shoots a civilian with a gun, that civilian was a criminal since civilians can't carry here yet. The only ones carrying guns are literally the cops and crooks (one in the same for a bunch of them). Bad part is, this state won't let us defend ourselves when outside of our homes. YET it does have one of the best iron clad castle doctrine laws in the country.

Point is, do not sit there and try to tell ANY citizen that we have no business judging LEO's because some may not be LEO. I have trained MANY LEO's in both hand to hand and CQB weapons and I am here to tell you that, with MANY of them, I would not have trusted them at ALL to carry a weapon before I got to them. How they were considered "qualified" to carry and given the powers they had was beyond any and all reasoning. Some of these people had been on the force for multiple years as well! There are a LOT of members on this forum that are 10000000 times more qualified to carry and make judgment calls on situations than a LOT of LEO's that I have come across.

We are ALL entitled to our opinions. I for one fought, bled, and killed so that people such as you could voice opinions weather they are popular or not. So yes I tend to get a bit cranky when someone tries to say that we have no right to a voice when we see OBVIOUS mistakes by people that are empowered by tax payers to keep the peace.

 

[lemaymiami]

I've already posted once on this thread but have to speak up about civilian review (in whatever form it takes)... I welcome it and would not want to live in a world where police actions aren't reviewed, investigated, and the results made public for all to see. Whether the folks that run things are willing to act on what is found out -that's another matter entirely (and like the saying goes, "Above my pay grade").

I've been on both ends of the equation, as a shooting officer (more than 32 years ago now), an investigating officer, and as part of the administrative side of police work charged with reviewing and making recommendations (if the State's Attorney's office has declined to prosecute) about whether the shooting was kosher or not...

Every police shooting should be thoroughly reviewed and see the light of day period. If you live in an area where that doesn't occur then vote in a set of leaders that will make it happen.... One caution, though.... The vast majority of the time, all that any of us know about some controversy or other is what we get from the various news media.... Don't believe everything from that direction or assume it's "probably an accurate account". Nothing, repeat nothing I was ever involved in on the street was accurately reported. The reporters might as well have stayed in their offices and just made it up as they went along.....

 

[Wanderling]

There was an article somewhere last year about NYPD throwing one of their own into a mental institution (without any cause or warrant, and without ever letting the family know) for questioning the illegal / unethical department practices. IIRC the guy spent several weeks locked up and force fed psycho meds before he was found and released.

NYPD is not my ideal of police force. Sorry.