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.

 

A shot in the legs or arms can be just as deadly as anywhere else in the body, for it's likely to clip an artery. They would have to precisely know where to shoot and on top of that, be a crack shot.

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. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I ve been to NYC. You want to tell me what if half of cops in cruisers and on foot, who were just following that crazy moron, turned back and made a line, the crowd would break thru them only to see the show? Disobeying a lawful order of a police officer is an arrestable offence, if I remember it right. If an officer is assigned to such crowded place he should be taught some basics of crowd-control. What if there's a bomb or a man with a gun? Cops will fail to contain people and simply state that "We can do nothing with those awful civilians"?

Yeah, I ve been to NYC. You want to tell me what if half of cops in cruisers and on foot, who were just following that crazy moron, turned back and made a line, the crowd would break thru them only to see the show? Disobeying a lawful order of a police officer is an arrestable offence, if I remember it right. If an officer is assigned to such crowded place he should be taught some basics of crowd-control. What if there's a bomb or a man with a gun? Cops will fail to contain people and simply state that "We can do nothing with those awful civilians"?

 

You got to remember there were people also up front and on the sides, plus the suspect was constantly on the move which would've made it a lot more diffuclt.

 

From the looks of it they really should've gotten more units on the scene and try to box him in or something. Guess circumstances just didn't allow that to happen for whatever the reason.

Edited May 15, 201412 yr by Olanov

You got to remember there were people also up front and on the sides, plus the suspect was constantly on the move which would've made it a lot more diffuclt.

 

From the looks of it they really should've gotten more units on the scene and try to box him in or something. Guess circumstances just didn't allow that to happen for whatever the reason.

I do understand that.. .Anyway, it's so easy to criticize sitting in front of the pc the decisions that cops have to make in urgent situations. I only commented cause I saw (and slightly took part) in a similar situation in Russia, and even our cops set up a perimeter rather quick. I was somehow disappointed that mighty NYPD didnt :(

Oh well. Least that's another bad guy off the streets for good, shame it wasn't a gang banger though.

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.

No it wouldn't. If they had, they would deserve to be brought up on criminal charges, such as reckless endangerment, felony assault, and possibly felony murder. First off, they'd miss - police shoot center-of-mass because your center of mass presents a large target, and because it doesn't jerk around a lot (it moves smoothly). Every missed shot poses a lethal threat to bystanders - they miss even shooting center-of-mass, but they'd miss a *lot* more shooting the extremities. Second, the fact that they're shooting arms and legs means they think lethal force isn't needed (else they'd be shooting to kill, not to wound), and yet they're still using it (the situation *can* be different when police snipers are involved in a situation where there's a clear perimeter, the situation is more under control, and there's lots of communication - there, it *might* be justified if lethal force is justified and other officers are standing by to shoot center-of-mass if need be).

The reason for the massive police response: given the area is a central point for shoppers, tourists etc and by virtue of that is likely to be very busy the police response needs to include crime scene management and traffic control considerations. With only a handful of cops it would be very difficult to control the incident itself, the foot and vehicular traffic, keep the crime scene from being contaminated and to prevent anyone else from becoming involved. Don't forget people are very prone to play to the camera as well. The police response is very typical of a delicate incident occurring in a populous area.  

 

Without knowing the full set of circumstances surrounding the incident and leading up to the shooting it is not possible to review the police decision to shoot.

 

In general though, I would prefer to see the individual brought under control through other means e.g. taser.  I'm sure the NYPD had a very good reason for opting to employ lethal means.

 Second, the fact that they're shooting arms and legs means they think lethal force isn't needed (else they'd be shooting to kill, not to wound), and yet they're still using it (the situation *can* be different when police snipers are involved in a situation where there's a clear perimeter, the situation is more under control, and there's lots of communication - there, it *might* be justified if lethal force is justified and other officers are standing by to shoot center-of-mass if need be).

So do I understand it right that in UK if a cop takes a gun, he always shoots to kill?

So do I understand it right that in UK if a cop takes a gun, he always shoots to kill?

I'm not in the UK, so I can't answer that. Police don't quite shoot to *kill*; they shoot to *stop*, but make no attempt whatsoever to stop in a less-than-fatal way. If the suspect stops being a threat, they stop shooting, but at least in the US, they never, ever, EVER should shoot in the arm or leg - it's an excellent way to kill innocent bystanders while missing the suspect entirely, and if you *do* hit someone in the arm or leg, it can still easily be fatal. Shooting in the leg or arm is Hollywood crap, where the heroes never miss, there is such a thing as "only a flesh wound", overpenetration isn't an issue, and police chiefs are fine with cops blatantly violating the rights of suspects as long as "damn it, they get the job done".

I'm not in the UK, so I can't answer that. Police don't quite shoot to *kill*; they shoot to *stop*, but make no attempt whatsoever to stop in a less-than-fatal way. If the suspect stops being a threat, they stop shooting, but at least in the US, they never, ever, EVER should shoot in the arm or leg - it's an excellent way to kill innocent bystanders while missing the suspect entirely, and if you *do* hit someone in the arm or leg, it can still easily be fatal. Shooting in the leg or arm is Hollywood crap, where the heroes never miss, there is such a thing as "only a flesh wound", overpenetration isn't an issue, and police chiefs are fine with cops blatantly violating the rights of suspects as long as "damn it, they get the job done".

More like "damn it, he can't suit us for injustice from the grave"... Do you know by chance, if officers receive martial arts training? For me sometime it looks like U.S. police overuses weapons in situation which could be solved over way. 

Lets remember that the NYPD is the same LE Agency that hit 9 bystanders after a 15 second long barrage of gunfire against one man.  This all happening in front of one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city, the Empire State Building.  The NYPD need so serious, serious oversight and training in my opinion.

Lets remember that the NYPD is the same LE Agency that hit 9 bystanders after a 15 second long barrage of gunfire against one man.  This all happening in front of one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city, the Empire State Building.  The NYPD need so serious, serious oversight and training in my opinion.

 

One must fully understand the context of the circumstance to grasp why that occurred, however.  If memory serves, two officers approached an individual that previously shot a coworker to death, and he turned with a gun in his hand facing them [i'm not sure if he shot first or not]. Both officers backpedaled, and opened fire.  This, coupled with extreme stress associated with being possibly seconds away from your own death, how densely Manhattan is populated, and how heavy the NYPD's trigger-pull on their firearms is, shows that it is not necessarily only training that comes into play.

 

Take the surveillance footage from that incident. Because of how open the area was it would have been EXTREMELY difficult to avoid the injury of bystanders. He forced their hand by pulling his gun.

 

More like "damn it, he can't suit us for injustice from the grave"... Do you know by chance, if officers receive martial arts training? For me sometime it looks like U.S. police overuses weapons in situation which could be solved over way.

No, really, more like "if you aren't justified in using force without regard to keeping him alive, a firearm is not an appropriate weapon to use". The notion that there is some less-lethal way to shoot someone is entirely divorced from reality; if you *are* shooting someone, the only valid reason is that you had a reasonable belief that killing them was necessary to save the life of someone else. Also, generally it's considered a *bad* thing to shoot all the bystanders, because you *will* miss someones arms and legs (they move extremely quickly; center mass is a larger target and moves more smoothly), and even if you hit them, it's easy for the shot to go *through* the person and hit something else. Also, hitting them is not necessarily any less fatal than a center mass shot, but is MUCH worse at *stopping* someone. This isn't unique to police - if you try to shoot someone and choose your target based on anything other than "what will stop this person as fast as possible", you're committing a presumptively unjustified assault with a deadly weapon.

US police receive defensive tactics training, and use that in preference to using weapons. However, this person had a knife, and there is no martial art that reliably beats a knife.

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.

In general, Tasers are almost never universally issued in a big department - they require special training, and that takes time and money.

 

I'm in Southern California. I've never seen a cop who isn't equipped with a taser.

 

I think they made the right decision, because from how that guy looked, he could have very well been on drugs, and I've seen people on drugs get tased with no effect numerous times. Video didnt catch much though. Was he going to throw it? was he running at officers with it? running at an innocent person with it? If thats the case no time for a taser.

I'm in Southern California. I've never seen a cop who isn't equipped with a taser.

Then it might be a regional thing, not as much of a big department/small department thing.

I'm pretty sure that it is a departmental choice. The New York State Police, for example, carry tasers to my knowledge.  Perhaps the NYPD doesn't have the resources necessary to train all officers in proper taser use, or rather does not want the possible lawsuit-fest that comes with equipping ever officer with a taser in a sue-happy city.

Edited May 20, 201411 yr by FCV96

I'm pretty sure that it is a departmental choice. The New York State Police, for example, carry tasers to my knowledge.  Perhaps the NYPD doesn't have the resources necessary to train all officers in proper taser use, or rather does not want the possible lawsuit-fest possible with equipping ever officer with a taser in a sue-happy city.

 

New York State Troopers also generally patrol alone, without a partner. NYPD virtually has a cop on every street corner.

Southern California agencies tend to be a lot more wealthy or have more funds to allocate towards the purchase of an expensive item like the taser. 

Additionally, often times in socal incidents occur in less densely populated areas than New York making the taser a more logical response to a threat as the public may not be in immediate danger. 

I have read and stayed up to date with this thread, but have avoided responding as I feel forming an opinion regarding the situation is naive considering we cannot see a single bit leading to the actual shooting. This makes an accusation against the officers ridiculous.

However, I will throw in my socal knowledge as I do know the region well :P 

It's the same respond in Canada. 

 

To find and rescue 1 guy they used Montréal police (boat) north side, Longueuil Police (boat) south side, Quebec Province police (Bell412 helicopter), Canadian Army (c130 thermal view). and they found him.

 

If you can save lives , no really matter how many peoples involved...

 

 

Edited May 26, 201411 yr by MindnessTango