Police shoot off-duty NYPD officer holding gun

[Legionnaire]

I feel badly for all the officers involved. From the information shared thus far, it sounds like Toro did his thing "by the book." And I feel especially bad for him because of the trauma of discovering he shot a fellow officer.

Thinking about it, though, I disagree with the comments that seem to suggest that Toro should not have collapsed when he discovered this ... that he should feel no difference between shooting a "gremlin" versus a fellow officer "in the wrong." There's a big difference.

Imagine yourself coming upon and breaking up a violent assault by three men on a young woman. As you break it up, two of the perps get away; you tackle the third. You roll him over and discover ... it's your teenage son. What do you feel? The situation didn't change, but what do you experience? My sense is that a big part of it would be shock, disbelief, maybe a sense of betrayal ...

I imagine that Toro felt much the same. He could know he was absolutely right, and still feel the shock of the discovery. Seems completely natural to me, and in no way an indication that he necessarily valued the life of a fellow officer more than the life of the guy on the ground he might have just saved, or that he had been mistaken in is actions.

I feel for the guy.

 

[jd25q]

Not relevant unless a cop confronts a violent perp in the cop's home. In my opinion, a police officer does not have the same rights in public while performing their duties that a free citizen has while being the victim of a crime in their own home. There is no comparison.

But you are admitting there are circumstances where it doesn't apply. I'm not going to argue arrest procedures. They have been refined over the years and are based on experience. Sounds like you've made up your mind and I know I have.

 

[NineseveN]

But you are admitting there are circumstances where it doesn't apply. I'm not going to argue arrest procedures. They have been refined over the years and are based on experience. Sounds like you've made up your mind and I know I have.

Actually I am not, I fully intend to destroy anyone in my home uninvited and I don't think many here will find anything wrong with that.

Again:
If you're going to tell me it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect in danger", we will disagree vehemently and argue until the cows come home. This, IMHO, is completely unacceptable and is highly indicative of the reasons why some of the more rational and unbiased of us still have an inherent lack of trust when dealing with unfamiliar officers of the law, no matter how much respect we have for the profession.

 

[Maxwell]

... that he should feel no difference between shooting a "gremlin" versus a fellow officer "in the wrong." There's a big difference.

Apparently he felt his job was to protect himself and us from the "gremlin".
Apparently he felt he performed his duty... until he found out who the gremlin was.
That makes it questionable.

If Im a postal worker and I just shot a fellow postal worker who was trying to rampage-massacre everyone in my office, Im supposed to feel guilty?
Maybe if it was someone I knew, but if one officer knew the other than the chances are it wouldnt have ended with 3 shots fired.
If a criminal throws on a blue uniform, are the police supposed to treat him differently?

At the least these kinds of shootings show a double standard.
If a civilian used their pistol in the way many police do (drawing on non threats, brandishing, pointing the weapon directly at bystanders, firing warning shots, shooting anyone they "think" is a threat before that threat has proven itself to be dangerous) they would find themselves in the clink before lunch.

Maybe its a bias in the system and not the officers fault, but that dosnt make it fair.

 

[1911 guy]

I'll throw my hat in the ring.

First off, I'll agree with Glenn Bartley that we don't know all the facts and can't make a final judgement on this. But, with what we have to work with, the shot officer was wrong. On many counts actually.

Carrying a weapon when intoxicated. Not had a few beers, but very drunk. Now we got a drunk with a gun in public.

Pursuing the situation when the threat left. The men who confronted him left, he chased them. So now it's a drunk with a gun in public chasing people.

Didn't respond when ordered to drop the gun. This would have been the right time to say "I'm a cop", as the uniformed cop is looking for a response. This reinforces the impression of being the BG.

Turned to face the uniformed cops with a drawn gun. What are the cops supposed to think when they respond to this call, don't know who's who and somebody points a gun at them?

Tragic all the way around. You've got a guy who may generally be a Genuine Nice Guy who had a bad day and decided to tie one on before going home. He then makes a series of bad choices that nearly cost him his life. Thankfully, he lived. I can only hope both officers can get the medical and psychological treatment they need to recover and move on with their lives.

 

[jd25q]

Actually I am not, I fully intend to destroy anyone in my home uninvited and I don't think many here will find anything wrong with that.

You need to rethink this response. A fellow deputy woke up about 5:00 am to the sound of someone in his house. Turned out to be a drunk high school kid. His buddy's let him out on the wrong street and he thought it was his house. He kicked the door in thinking his brother locked him out. Stupid? Absolutely, but in no way a deadly force situation. The vast majority of the "intruder" calls I've responded to have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Kids coming home from college in the middle of the night, etc. Even sleepwalking neighbors! Even if your state law allows it a bad shoot is a bad shoot. You'll likely just wind up the cause of bad case law.

As has been my point throughout these two threads, you cannot oversimplify these situations.

Even if many here agree with you, it's unlikely any of them will be on your jury.

 

[DRZinn]

He kicked the door in thinking his brother locked him out.

Stupid hurts. He kicks the door in, he's asking to be shot.

 

[NineseveN]

You need to rethink this response.

Nope, I'm quite alright thank you. I have 2 (Two) security doors, if someone kicks them in, sorry, not their day.

A fellow deputy woke up about 5:00 am to the sound of someone in his house. Turned out to be a drunk high school kid. His buddy's let him out on the wrong street and he thought it was his house. He kicked the door in thinking his brother locked him out. Stupid? Absolutely, but in no way a deadly force situation.

Physically breaking and entering is an aggressive action, in case you missed that. Apples to oranges. I specifically said "a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat" in regards to police officers covering a subject with their muzzle. I am not required to ascertain the intent of the offending party when in my home, only that a reasonable person would feel a threat is present given the circumstances at the time of the event. Breaking down a door at any hour is a credible threat, regardless of what hindsight and after-action facts tell us.

Look, I'm sure you can find all kinds of stories about "drunk high school kids", peoples own kids, cops responding to calls and I can find an equal amount of stories where the opposite is true and a real threat does exist, whatever, it matters not; come into my home uninvited and display aggressive action, I will shoot, period. I am under no obligation to engage in dialogue or negotiations with someone that has forcibly entered my home against my will at any hour of the day. In defending my own life and home, you will not be getting the benefit of the doubt, and I am not required to give it to you, morally or legally. Your conscience, situation and state may be different. YMMV.

The vast majority of the "intruder" calls I've responded to have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Kids coming home from college in the middle of the night, etc. Even sleepwalking neighbors!

I have no children, I have steel security doors, my neighbors should know better. Not relevant anyway.

Even if your state law allows it a bad shoot is a bad shoot. You'll likely just wind up the cause of bad case law.

Explain this.

As has been my point throughout these two threads, you cannot oversimplify these situations.

I'm not, I gave fully detailed and qualifying statements, it is you that have tried to oversimplify and overcomplicate it all at the same time depending on when it suits your position or attempted derailment of the topic at hand. Are you sure you're not an attorney?

You do not point a weapon at anyone or anything you are not willing to or have intent to destroy. You say this rule does not apply to Law Enforcement. My case is that a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat has no business being held at gunpoint by a police officer. You disagree, and instead of giving evidence as to why it is acceptable, you try to make a parallel between a police officer on duty performing their job and a citizen in their home during a breaking and entering, offering evidence unknown until after the fact as a compelling reason not to shoot someone who broke down your door at 5AM. There is no comparison to be made. You are grasping at straws because you have no argument for your case, only that you're "not going to argue arrest procedures. They have been refined over the years and are based on experience."

Even if many here agree with you, it's unlikely any of them will be on your jury.

Doesn't matter. Knowing my DA's office, it wouldn't even go to trial. If it did, I will take my chances. Are you saying the person in your story went to jail? Were they charged? With what? Do you have a link to a news story or documentation about it?



Again, Rule #2:
Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to or are willing to destroy.

Are you telling me that it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect" in danger?

A simple yes or no will suffice. Don't dodge the question or the issue, don't start making wild-eyed comparisons and hypotheticals between a police officer on duty and a citizen in the confines of their own home during the commission of a crime against them, apples to apples, answer, don't dodge.

 

[jd25q]

Are you telling me that it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect" in danger?

The basis of your question is false. My position is clear in that it is perfectly reasonable under some circumstances to cover someone at gunpoint without the intent to shoot them.

 

[NineseveN]

The basis of your question is false. My position is clear in that it is perfectly reasonable under some circumstances to cover someone at gunpoint without the intent to shoot them.

That was not the question. It covered intent and willingness. For instance, someone has a knife, but they are not attacking anyone, and seem calm, yet the threat of deadly force exists because they have means and opportunity. Covering them with your muzzle because you are willing to shoot them if they use the threat they have demonstrated to have within their means and power is not intending to shoot them, but it is meeting the level of force or threat with appropriate levels of force or threat.

Covering a subject (i.e our bookie in the other thread) with no indication of threat is not appropriate in most, if not all circumstances.


Demonstrate for us some stuations where no credible or reasonable threat exists yet a police officer should cover the subject with the muzzle of a firearm. But you and I have derailed this thread enough, care to take me up on that challenge in a new thread? I'll start it and we can get back to discussing the correct topic in this one.

 

[jd25q]

Since we've gone this far perhaps the moderator could start the thread with our prior off topic posts.

 

[NineseveN]

New Thread and poll. Sorry for the Hijack all.

 

[Legionnaire]

Maxwell, you said:

Apparently he felt he performed his duty... until he found out who the gremlin was.

That makes it an "either/or" situation. My point is that it might very well be "both/and." By use of analogy, I was trying to demonstrate that one can both (1) feel you've done your duty, AND (2) be shocked, dismayed, sorrowful for what that duty required you to do. Seems to me the poor guy discovered the lose-lose nature of the situation after he was deep into it. That's a shock. I believe he can feel that shock and still know he did the right thing. The right thing can be painful sometimes! I don't see that the article implies what you seem to be implying, that the officer thinks/feels/believes: "Had I known he was a fellow officer, I wouldn't have shot him." I just am presenting the possibility that he thinks/feels/believes: "It sucks having to shoot a fellow officer!"

I still feel for the guy!