Right. Well, here is their mission statement.
“To serve the people of Nassau County and to provide safety and improved quality of life in our communities through excellence in policing.”
Seems pretty similar to me.
If you don’t think they should be willing to put their life on the line to provide safety, then where do you draw the line? Is there some point where a cop says, “that’s too dangerous. You’re on your own mr. civilian.” Because I don’t think there is. I think by whatever means necessary is not only reasonable but expected given the nature of their position.
Cops put their lives on the line daily. It happens all over this country all the time. At the same time, what you are suggesting is that the guy that doesn’t fall on the grenade is somehow to be criticised for not having done so. My suggestion is that you, personally you, go provide the example for everyone else that you so cavalierly suggest.
Hijack: I’ve heard a lot of people refer to the Hollywoodization of the way people speak, and I’m always a little offended. Hey, I’m from Los Angeles! That’s the way we call things in the old country. I didn’t get this from no teevee machine!
Anyway, quibbling over what a particular PD’s motto is aside, I would imagine that their mission *would *actually be to protect and serve, regardless of whether that’s written on the sides of their cars. I hope.
The only thing I am criticizing is the fact that he shot the girl. If he would have shot 8 times, and only hit the criminal, then he would be worthy of praise.
I don’t know why your bringing me into this personally, as I have no desire to be a police officer. However, since my taxes pay his salary, and that girl was a fellow citizen, I think it’s quite fair to criticize the officers actions. Again, I’m sure he did his best, and I do have sympathy for the guy, but in this case, it’s simply not good enough. The girl is dead and the rescue mission failed. Perhaps, he should have chose a different course of action.
This. Obviously all the details aren’t out yet (and won’t be until the full investigation of the incident is completed), but from the story posted it appears that the cop opened fire because he believed he was about to be shot himself. I think it’s reasonable to ask whether the events leading up to the moment when the police officer encountered the armed criminal could have and should have been handled differently (and no doubt that’s what the investigators are trying to do right now). But I think it’s ridiculous to think that a police officer has an obligation to passively allow himself to be murdered.
There is no guarantee of a good outcome in a hostage situation, no matter what particular course of action is taken. Why do I have the feeling that if the cops had immediately pulled back and waited for the SWAT team to arrive and in the interim the criminal had killed one or two of his three hostages to show he meant business, the very same people who are currently criticizing this cop for acting would be then be criticizing the cops for not acting (“All they did was sit on their fat asses and stuff their face with donuts instead of going in and actually rescuing those people!”)?
I’m not judging whether the actions of the police were correct in this particular case - we don’t have enough details to do so. But I AM noting that all to often we put the cops in a no-win situation, where they will be judged harshly no matter what they do by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
I’m not saying that. I don’t think he should let himself get killed because that would not accomplish anything. I’m saying he needs to rescue the civilian by any means necessary. If that means he sacrifices himself, but ensures the safety of the civilian, then so be it. That’s the job they signed up for.
Yes, I can accept that it may have been a futile situation from the start. There is certainly a lot of grey area here. I did not say I didn’t have sympathy for the officer. I’m sure he did his best.
Only in your mind. When asked for some cite for the proposition that this is the job they signed up for, you contend that this text means they have agreed to sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of a civilian:
To serve the people of Nassau County and to provide safety and improved quality of life in our communities through excellence in policing.
Of course, nothing in that sentence comes close to suggesting that sort of sacrifice is necessary or contemplated. You made that shit up, and are trumpeting it as fact.
To those who ask why the cop shot eight times: What if he had shot the criminal seven times, and then the criminal shot and killed the hostage? One bullet is usually enough to mortally wound, but it is usually not enough to instantly kill. The best outcome for everyone involved in this situation involved the hostage-taker dying as quickly as possible, and that means he needs to get multiple bullets in him. Yes, this carries with it a risk to the hostage. This is trivially true, since every conceivable course of action carried with it a risk to the hostage.
It is, of course, possible that the police officer acted incorrectly here. Based on the information currently available, however, I see no evidence that he made an incorrect decision. His decision had a tragic outcome, of course, but sometimes that happens even with correct decisions.
Well, then where does the officer draw the line? Is there a certain point where it’s ok for the officer to say, “that’s too dangerous” even when there’s a chance of rescuing the civilian?
When you say the officer shouldn’t have shot when facing a criminal who is about to shoot and kill him, you are indeed saying he’s obligated to commit suicide. At that instant, what is left for him to do but either die or try to defend himself (hopefully without injuring the hostage in the process)?
Sorry, but real life isn’t an action hero movie. There is no way to 100% insure the safety of the civilians in this situation. In a hostage situation, ultimately the hostage taker is the one in charge.
(Why is everyone forgetting that two of the three hostages WERE saved?)
Have you ever tried to make a head shot on a moving target with a handgun? Hell, have you ever shot ANY target with ANY gun? It’s nowhere near as easy as the movies make it look.
Doesn’t the eight shots suggest that the cop didn’t empty his gun? I don’t know squat about guns, but wouldn’t that be an unusually low capacity? I hope that’s the case, anyway. If would be hard to describe the cop as undisciplined or reckless if there is a wrongful death suit brought by the family or some other proceeding down the road.
I know of no police department in the United States that requires otherwise.
Do you? Apart from adolescent TV-inspired fantasy, do you know of any police department whose General Orders mandate the result you describe?
The only instance in real life in which an officer is mandated to deliberately sacrifice his own life for another’s – that I can think of – are the Secret Service’s various protection details.
Nobody is Hollywood good with a firearm, any time you shoot towards multiple people, anyone downrange can get hit. If shooting was the wrong decision, the fact that the guy got lucky with his 8 shots shouldn’t get him off the hook. If shooting was the right decision, the fact that he got unlucky with one of his shots shouldn’t get him in hot water.
Demand good decision making and competence with their firearm. Don’t reward luck and criticize imperfection.
That is a good point. Like I said, it may have been a futile situation from the start. Perhaps, he should have taken better cover. He did know it was a hostage situation. Maybe he should have given himself an exit so that he could flee.