Damn, and that's the most professional police force in the world? Didn't even try do stop the crowd. Some civs were dangerously close to vehicles, and no one gave a shit. 

 

Have you ever been to New York City?  The pedestrians are oftentimes the most oblivious, idiotic people you'll ever encounter.  They will dart into traffic into the path of oncoming vehicles, they'll completely disregard all signals, they will stare at their cellphones as they wander out into the roadway, and jaywalking is considered a way of life.  You simply cannot stop the crowds on such a short notice; it is nearly impossible. 

 

I don't think regular NYPD officers *have* Tasers; I'm pretty sure they're restricted to ESU and sergeants. Regular NYC cops have a pistol, baton, maybe pepper spray (not sure between baton/pepper spray), and that's it - the rank and file doesn't have shotguns or rifles in their car, and aren't issued Tasers.

 

To my knowledge you are correct.  Things have gotten better over the years though; I read that in the 1970s and 1980s they didn't even have partitions separating the front and back seats of an RMP!

 

1. If you read David Simon's "Homide" you'll learn that even justified use of force often means bad police job. NYPD has some poor training (according to it's officers) and maybe that's why they didn't handle it well (eg. look at the background, usage of weapon would cause a danger to bystanders if he'd attack officers there, also IMO they shouldn't put in him so many bullets...)

 

2. There's strong attitude "we vs. them". After that event I read opinions of MOS and they was like "thanks God there's noone hurt, good job with that bastard guys!".

 

3. About the amount of cops: when there is a 10-13 trasmitted everybody goes. Literally. There's no such thing like too many cops because shit may hit the fan in any minute, especially in NYC with fuckload of people everywhere. (read Walker's "Fort Apache", very interesting descriptions from battlegrounds of Bronx) The problem is how to manage such blue crowd...

 

They resolved the situation but I wouldn't call it outstanding job. I can understand that they want to protect innocent people that the perp might meet with and provoked a situation when it would be justified to shoot him. We don't know what was the status of an ESU request. They could or could not respond in reasonable time.

 

1) A bigger problem to bystanders would be the individual with the knife lunging at the crowd IMO.  Stopping the threat is stopping the threat, plain and simple.

 

2) The same could be said about the general public.  A large, vocal majority of citizens in NYC are completely anti-cop; the media circuses seem to only focus upon negative incidents that the NYPD is involved in as well. It is difficult for officers to not treat things as an "us vs. them" scenario when the people complaining about it turn around and do the exact same thing.  As the saying goes; it takes two to tango.

 

3) Managing anything when large numbers and complete chaos are involved isn't exactly straightforward. I can say that I'm glad that the NYPD has the capability to flood any area with officers at any given moment; it certainly makes a citizen such as myself feel a bit better about walking in moderate/high-crime areas.

 

There will always be alternative outcomes to events; changes in actions that could have been made in order to receive a more favorable ending. What's done is done, and the fact that no bystanders were injured/killed is good enough in my book.

 

[Also, isn't this incident nearly two years old now?]

Edited May 12, 201412 yr by FCV96

I used to live in NYC. If something happens in a populated or busy area in NYC I can guarantee that within 30 seconds of your call at least 5 cops will respond. The regular patrol officers have a gun and either a baton or pepper spray. The tasers are only for ESU I believe. Ive seen a street shut down for things lesser than this. On note of there response to civilians they had officers keeping them a decent distance back from the main line of officers and the perp. They also had a couple cars on the sides of the street so that other police vehicles could get through without hitting a civilian. I wouldn't say this was an outstanding job, but they did good.

I'm sure you're right, FCV96. It's necessary to know the reality of the place because it determines how the situation and evaluation looks like. I wanted to avoid being completely non-objective and say that the job was performed perfectly (thought about what'd happen to that guy in LA) and completely understand your point of view. In general I'm for shooting at bastards but I'm working on myself to become more humane 

I'm sure you're right, FCV96. It's necessary to know the reality of the place because it determines how the situation and evaluation looks like. I wanted to avoid being completely non-objective and say that the job was performed perfectly (thought about what'd happen to that guy in LA) and completely understand your point of view. In general I'm for shooting at bastards but I'm working on myself to become more humane 

 

Works for me! xD

I probably would've tased the shizzz-nit out of him, Or tased his nuts!

a) As mentioned previously in this thread, rank-and-file NYPD officers don't carry Tasers.

b) Part of the reason why is the risk that they'll treat them like you apparently would have.

I probably would've tased the shizzz-nit out of him, Or tased his nuts!

LMAO. You made my night. Thank you!

For the people claiming officers should have used tasers I hear this argument over and over and over from people. There is a major disconnect between how police officers are trained to deal with situations and how the public perceives law enforcement actions.

 

First and foremost you would NOT attempt to taser someone with a knife. What if the man lunges at you and your taser misses or is ineffective? What is the man lunges at someone else and your taser misses or is ineffective? Now you have society questioning WHY the officer didn't shoot the man before he stabbed people. When faced with potentially lethal force you RESPOND with lethal force. There is no firing warning shots, or asking really nicely. You either drop the knife or you get shot plain and simple. Normal people of reason understand this.

 

Secondly, the general rule is most people can cover 10-20 ft in a matter of seconds. Considering the standard amount of time a police officer should be able to draw his weapon and fire is about 2.5 seconds or less. Even if you do fire in time there are only 3 ways a person can be disabled. Hydraulic failure (loss of blood causing heart to stop and organs to stop functioning etc - which usually takes a bit), CNS or central nervous system hit ie: shot to the head or spine, or the psychological impact of being shot. Assuming you miss the head or spine the person can easily shrug off the bullets and stab you or anyone else.

 

Hopefully this raises some awareness when watching videos like this. Feel free to quote when responding to the next guy asking why an officer didn't just shoot the guy in the leg or try to use a taser.

 

 

Well said, Renaissance.

You don't taze someone with a knife... smh.

 

EDIT: Also noticed this video is really old

Edited May 13, 201412 yr by HOLLISTUPID

From what I understand, you can tase someone with a knife, provided you have backup officers with firearms. Tasers aren't just for single-officer use; you can have multiple officers providing a range of force options.

cp702 is right. Cops in my area train that when backup is available when some one has a melee weapon, there will be about a 50/50 ratio of cops aiming handguns and cops aiming less than lethal options like beanbag shotguns or tasers.

 

Additionally, due to the NYPD's atrocious trigger weights (12 lbs to pull the trigger compared to 5.5 lbs on a standard glock), it makes shots more jerkier and more likely to miss, which is a big contributing factor whenever the NYPD shoots bystanders or other cops while shooting at a suspect. A taser when deployed in conjunction with officers using lethals would have been the perfect scenario for this incident, though not likely because of the expense and negative press giving more NYPD cops tasers would have.

For the people claiming officers should have used tasers I hear this argument over and over and over from people. There is a major disconnect between how police officers are trained to deal with situations and how the public perceives law enforcement actions.

 

First and foremost you would NOT attempt to taser someone with a knife. What if the man lunges at you and your taser misses or is ineffective? What is the man lunges at someone else and your taser misses or is ineffective? Now you have society questioning WHY the officer didn't shoot the man before he stabbed people. When faced with potentially lethal force you RESPOND with lethal force. There is no firing warning shots, or asking really nicely. You either drop the knife or you get shot plain and simple. Normal people of reason understand this.

 

Secondly, the general rule is most people can cover 10-20 ft in a matter of seconds. Considering the standard amount of time a police officer should be able to draw his weapon and fire is about 2.5 seconds or less. Even if you do fire in time there are only 3 ways a person can be disabled. Hydraulic failure (loss of blood causing heart to stop and organs to stop functioning etc - which usually takes a bit), CNS or central nervous system hit ie: shot to the head or spine, or the psychological impact of being shot. Assuming you miss the head or spine the person can easily shrug off the bullets and stab you or anyone else.

 

Hopefully this raises some awareness when watching videos like this. Feel free to quote when responding to the next guy asking why an officer didn't just shoot the guy in the leg or try to use a taser.

 

Even though I stopped reading after the first word, I have to also say, Nice said!

 

Why are we bringing this up in the 1st place when this incident took place almost 2 year's ago ? what's the point ?

You right, there's alot of officers , but there's also tons of people trying to get close much possible of situation to record or see.  you have a guy probably intoxicated jumping and ready to kill someone. we didnt see what happened but he probably tried something dangerous and cops shoot him down. He did this in new york town center not by hazard...he as so much attention... taz him and go to jail. he would probably redo the same thing when release... im pretty sure cops took it not as  criminal with lethal weapon, but more as terrorism act... that's what i feel...

Why are we bringing this up in the 1st place when this incident took place almost 2 year's ago ? what's the point ?

Well, the point isn't necessarily when the incident happened. The purpose of this thread is to judge how the officers responded. If they should have used more force, less force. If there were too many officers responding, too little. If they shouldn't have shot at him, or if it was necessary. The age doesn't matter, how the cops responded does. That's the point of bringing this up.

 

OT: I agree with what all stated above :P

Gotta love all the bystanders yelling "shoot him!!" then dropping everything and running when shots are actually fired, it makes me kinda sad when that many people actually want to see someone get shot.

 

On the part of the officers I think that they should have done a better job of trying to contain the guy as opposed to just letting him waltz down times square, however doing that would be easier said than done due to the fact that this guy is clearly unstable.

 

There should have been less cops trailing him and more concerned with keeping the crowd contained to the sidewalk at the very least to keep them out of traffic and potential fire, but this is another case of easier said than done due to people being hell-bent on seeing some crazy dude get shot.

 

Lastly from what I saw they could have held off on shooting the guy until some less-lethal options arrived, can't say much on that since the vid didn't really show too much right before shots fired. It seemed to me like he was content with just taking a lovely stroll down times square.

 

All in all I give them 6 out of 10 donuts for good effort and actually taking the guy down.

i am not sure about this , I just feel that US cops are not well trained imo , do they give warning to the suspect 2 or three time before shooting . in my country , it is considered lawfully right if you have give them warning first . the officer can choose whether to taser or gun them

Well the UK coppers would of prob got firearms or a trained taser officer. But I suppose if they shot him in the leg or arms then that would of been ok I suppose.

Edited May 15, 201412 yr by banditsvcops

I understand that there are major differences between police work in the US and - for example - in Austria. But over here, that would be the worst outcome you could imagine. Especially in Vienna, standard police officers would have called backup (WEGA or COBRA). They wear heavy armor and are trained in close combat situations, seo they would have approached him and disarmed him without a shot fired. If you join the police, you know that you'll probably put yourself in danger's way and you have to handle the situation as well as you're trained to. If you're not trained to unarm a suspect with a knife, you call backup, you call the guys who are trained to handle that without the use of lethal force. About 2 shots are fired by the police in the whole of Austria in a year.

I really don't like judging police work, but I think it is sad to see that, because of bad training perhaps, someone had to die who definitely wouldn't have died here.