After they tazed him they asked him to show some I.D.
Originally Posted by Vieux Normand
What really sucks is the people that get hit by their bad aim end up having a lifetime of pain and problems, yet the fucking worthless asshole cops get to keep their jobs and **** up all over again. What confuses me is why other cops defend them, it makes them all look bad.
There's a pretty strong sense of solidarity among LEOs, in NYC and elsewhere. But there are also limits. When one of them starts behaving badly enough, the rest are not so stupid as to jeopardize their own jobs.
Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam
One more rant then I'll shut up.
Originally Posted by CapnMunchh
A lot of folks in the city need work, and a lot of them get jobs as cops. So, the signal to noise ratio of NYC cops drops as the population increases.
Some NY cops know their beat, are friendly, careful, and when necessary tough enforcers of the law.
Some got placed there that morning, clearly don't like people talking to them, and have no clue what is one block in any direction. You can usually ID these cops by asking them for directions, especially to the nearest public telephone.
Apparently the perp pretended to pull a gun and fire at the cops. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/ny...ystanders.html
Originally Posted by ermghoti
The whole affair looks a lot more like the perp's fault when you consider that. All of this actually looks like a suicide attempt.
Ok fine, but that still doesn't address my statement about the fact that NY cops can't hit the broad side of a fucking barn when they shoot. If the perp in fact had a gun those cops would still have hit the bystanders.
Originally Posted by Hertzyscowicz
I know being a cop can frequently require quick decision making but these guys are clowns. They chose poorly.
There are lots of mature, responsible cops out there. There are incompetent morons like this too. Then on the other end of the spectrum you've got a totally different problem. There are also lots of cops out there post 9-11 who actually are well trained and well equipped but now think they're tactical ninja SEALs and are completely confused about their purpose as police officers. This is much scarier than the Barney Fife types.
Trying to find charges to offset your liability is usually a no-go.
When it comes to the mentally ill we (here where I am) have had a few proceedure issues/changes over the years. At first we never laid any charges on a mentally ill person unless they hurt a third party or damaged property other than their own.
What happend then was after a stand off of hours and a transport to the hospital the person was released by the medicos and went home and started another problem.
What we then decided to do was to charge the person with an appropriate penal law offense because court mandated medical evaluation at least kept the person off the street for a while and any plea to the charge could included mandated psych treatment.
Looking for charges long after an incident with the PR impression that you are trying to avoid liability of injury to a third party is a questionable decision IMO. The fact of the matter is that trying to shoot a real...rapidly moving person with a handgun is probably going to result in misses. Many of the "I took a class at Gunsite" range-expert internet critics would probably fare no better under the same conditions. But the PD would be better off running reporters through simunitions exercises to illustrate their point than they would be trying to blame a mentally ill person for the police hitting bystanders.
Although...it appears the DA is the party pushing the charges. But who knows the politics involved.
Last edited by tgace; 1/18/2014 12:37pm at .
It's fair to say that he made a gesture that the PO's interpreted as brandishing a gun, but we'll probably never know if he pretended to draw a gun, or was reaching for something else or nothing at all, and the officers misinterpreted his actions.
Originally Posted by Hertzyscowicz
It is really hard to judge a shooting like this because so much depends on the subjective interpretations of the officers, which must be split second. Their lives may depend on the correct call. Absent some definitive eyewitness accounts from disinterested parties, the best way to call it is to look at the officer's records -- whether they have been involved in previous incidents involving excessive force.
Shooting a moving target under stress is very hard. I took a couple of courses at gunsite too, shoot regularly at the range, and I'm not at all confident that I could do it., to say the least. Yet the public generally believes that it is easy to do, probably from watching movies or tv. I once presented a police shooting case to a grand jury in which the jurors wanted to know why the officer didn't just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand.
Originally Posted by tgace
Just to give an idea of the public's perception of police work, I also once presented a rape case in which the jurors wanted to know if the officers had dusted the victim's breasts for prints, but that's another story.
The suggestion to use simunitions to illustrate the point is a good one. And, in cases like this with much publicity, politics is always seriously involved.
Last edited by CapnMunchh; 1/18/2014 1:35pm at .