They’re not excuses. They are SOP nationwide.
Magiver, you want to show me anyplace outside of a James Bond movie where a sniper does anything other than kill his target? You also have nothing to back up your “wooden bullets” idiocy. Read up-thread about the woman in Boston who was killed by a rubber bullet.
You keep saying “excuses.” You obviously know nothing about firearms, police procedure, the use of deadly force, or anything else that is being discussed here. According to reports, the sergeant was trying to talk him down. The surrounding officers likely didn’t have their weapons drawn, because that would freak out the nutcase. When said nutcase turned his back on the negotiator and charged the officers with a deadly weapon, the correct response was EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.
I’ll answer you since you post short and to the point. The only parameter in this situation that allows for any kind of measured response is the TIME involved. 4 police officers (with guns) served as backup to the negotiator. They are responsible to themselves as well as the negotiator so they should have positioned themselves at a reasonably safe distance. The only way they could react to an attack on the negotiator would be to have their guns already drawn.
There’s a clip that’s been widely circulated where police sniper shot a handgun out of a man’s hand as the guy was sitting in a chair. I agree that it’s rare for such a thing to be feasible, but I wanted to point out that in some circumstances it’s the right response.
I have absolutely no problem with the actions of the officers in this case, at least as far as I am aware of them.
One point that critics seem to be ignoring is that if multiple cops are all shooting at hard-to-hit targets like legs and arms, the bullets that miss are going to hit something behind the target. In this case, that sounds like it’d be the negotiator. Another argument for center mass.
I’ve seen that clip. Yes, they shot the gun out of the man’s hand, but it wasn’t just that he was sitting. He was also lethargic and dopey. Also, IIRC, he was pointing the gun at himself, not at officers, and to top it all off, this was in broad daylight, not at 4:30 AM. No violent motion toward the cops or anyone else. Hell, not much motion at all. This guy was crashing.
Am I allowed to call a prejudiced opinion fucking bigoted in IMHO? I felt my phrasing restricted the vitriol to the comment and not to the person, as I understood the rules this was acceptable. Could you briefly clarify your policy on this for my future reference? Thanks.
This:
was directed at the comment?
Regardless, we prefer that vitriol and flaming be sequestered in the Pit, not spread willy-nilly throughout the board, and have quite often mentioned to posters that they should cool it in this forum. Are you clarified now?
Well the difference between “you’re a fucking bigot” and “you’re a fucking bigot when you say something like that” was what I felt was the important one. Nonetheless, point taken. Apologies.
I amend my comment to:
And no one is going to call bullshit on this bit of jock-bashing? Suppose the kid was black. Then you’d want to suggest he was loaded up on crack. If he was Arab it clearly must have been part of a jihad. It’s still a bigoted statement when you stereotype, regardless if your prejudice doesn’t happen to be based on skin color, religion or orientation.
It’s called the Tueller drill. The rule of thumb is that, starting from a stop, an assailant armed with a knife can cover 21 feet in 2 seconds. That is about the average time for a police officer to draw and get off his first shot. Therefore, a subject with a knife is considered an imminent deadly threat within that distance. If they are already running, the distance is obviously further.
Also, another statistic that I have heard is that the proportion of officers who get stabbed that die is the same as those who get shot with a handgun. I can’t find a cite for that right now though.
Please give me a cite if you have one, but I have never heard anyone say that Diallo was “belligerent.” On the contrary, everything I ever read on the subject says he continued walking away from the officers. The lawyers for the cops seem to admit as much in this article
In another article, I found a PBA spokesman saying, “I think it will likely develop that Mr. Diallo had a language barrier which prevented him from understanding and complying wiht the officers’ orders and made him continue to act in an aggressive manner toward the police officers,” but he offered nothing to support the idea that Diallo had acted aggressively, and as I say I have not heard it elsewhere.
I don’t know how much English Diallo spoke. Since the cops were not in uniform, I have no idea if he knew they were cops. Reaching for ID, even if there was a communication problem, is an entirely sensible thing to do there. The cops clearly leaped to the wrong conclusion, and I do think they’re to blame for that.
I’m not involved enough to feel the need to look for a cite, and after reading your cite, I’ll concede that I likely had equated the reported “suspicious” behavior with “belligerent.”
Certainly that autopsy report, added to the “earwitness” reports, is pretty damning.
Nope I’m not going to correct you. If I ever had to shoot it would be center mass. Hopefully I never will. I have been shooting for many years and I am not willing to bet my life on my ability to shoot someone in the leg or arm at a distance. Say they did shoot the guy in the leg what happens if he still has the weapon? Keep shooting his legs until he drops it? Let him bleed out?
I agree with catsix 100%. If you have the time to carefully take aim and shoot the perp in the leg or arm, you have no business shooting him in the first place. There are only two cases. Either deadly force is justified, in which case you aim for the center of mass and put the perp on the ground and call for the ambulance, or it’s not, in which case you don’t fire your weapon at all.
Trying to shoot someone in the leg indicates that the shooter didn’t think lethal force was justified. But shooting someone in the leg IS deadly force, you can die or be permanently maimed from being shot in the leg, this isn’t Hollywood where getting shot in the leg is just a flesh wound. Since shooting someone in the leg is deadly force, anyone trying to shoot someone in the leg when deadly force isn’t justified should be up on criminal charges. And since shooting someone in the leg is much less effective than shooting someone in the center of mass, anyone trying to shoot the perp in the leg when deadly force IS justified should be fired for risking the lives of bystanders.
There’s a one stage decision tree here. Justified–>shoot. Not justified–>don’t shoot. Simple, clear, easy to teach.
Adding in a more complicated decision tree means more people will die. How many cops are going to aim for the perp’s leg and accidentally hit the perp’s chest or head? How many cops are going to aim for the perp’s leg and hit the leg, and the perp bleeds out before help arives? How many cops are going to aim for the leg but the perp hobbles over with his knife and kills them anyway? How many cops are going to aim for the leg and miss, and get killed? How many cops are going to aim for the leg and miss and hit something behind the perp? How many cops are going to claim they were aiming for a non-lethal leg shot, when they actually wanted the perp dead?
If deadly force is not justified, discharging your weapon is completely off limits. If deadly force is justified, anything less than deadly force is stupid.
I live in NY, and did when this murder occurred. Yeah. Murder. The sick joke around the city after it happened?
" How many bullets does it take the cops to kill a black man waving an unlicensed leather wallet? Oh… 41 oughta do it."
That’s because they fired 41 shots at him. Some cops stopped to RELOAD and continue firing. cite :rolleyes:
Indeed, New York’s Finest protected us all from yet another dangerous black man armed with his wallet. We are but so very grateful. 
Evidently, a lot of people view it as a duty of the police to be punched, blungeoned, run over and stabbed and are outraged when the police decide they rather not be.
Personally, if I were chasing someone with a knife and they turn and point a gun at me, I would stop.
No, trying to shoot someone in the leg indicates you are trying to shoot them in the leg. If you have time to think, which they did, then options become available. What do you think they did for 35 minutes? Seriously? They apparently stood around waiting for….what? After all the police training they had to take dealing with these situations they managed to do nothing until they were in harms way and then shot they’re way out of it.
I’ve seen the police in my city surround a house with guns drawn. They take up defensive positions behind cars or tree’s or what ever works. They have tasers, shotguns, batons, riot gear and whatever else the department can bring to bear. That’s the luxury of time in a situation like this. The issue here is time and the ability to plan. Standing close enough to get stabbed in 2 seconds is not a plan, its’ an accident waiting to happen.
I guess it’s a good thing that it happened to a college student and not some grade-school kid.
EVERY TIME the police shoot an armed suspect, we have this debate. People, sometimes you have to do what you have to do. The kid was a threat to himself and others. Do you think the cops LIKE having to shoot someone? I’ll bet not.