NYPD Chief on Larry King

[Rob Pincus]

Howard Safir, Commissioner of NYPD, was on Larry King live tonight, discussing the recent police shooting in NY, and I think he did a great job of acknowledging the mistake that was made, while explaining how and why it could have happened.

Others were also on the show, making their own points and I think that they did a great job of showing that they have no conception of what could have happened that night and are using this incident as a political focal point, either to advnace their own agendas or to get a few minutes fo camera time.

One thing that did not come up with the commissioner was the idea which was one of the main issues early in this situation. There was initially a suggestion made that the federal Gov't should have investigated this shooting, in fact, one of the first reports I heard about this incident was centered around the fact that the Feds wanted to move in immediately and indict the officers, with no investigation and without the normal process being followed.
This lead quickly to discusssion of the Justice Department becoming active in "policing the police." Essentially turning the FBI into a de facto Internal Affairs for local LEAs across the country.
That would be riduclous, IMHO,and one more step in the wrong direction towards an even more invasive federal gov't.

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited April 01, 1999).]

 

[Rich Lucibella]

I'd like to apologize to those on the "Diallo" thread for locking it before all *intelligent* discourse was exhausted. Your continued comments are welcome here. For those of you who received an nasty-gram from me, please think twice before posting.
Rich

 

[James K]

There will always be groups which will use any police errors for political purposes. Part of the purpose of good police training (not "kill 'em all" military training) is to prevent that from happening by preventing incidents, or controlling them before they get out of hand. (In general, use only that force required to stop a dangeous threat.)
A lot of special unit training spends too much time on weapons (hey, folks, blazing away with an MP5 is a ball if you aren't paying for the ammo) and not enough on respecting rights. I still think the cops were poorly trained and were wrong.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Jim,

Do you have info I don't on the training that these officers recieved? They were using the standard issue 9mm pistol for NYPD and I don't think nay of them were SWAT, SRT or otherwise trained.

Unless you have some info I have not seen, there is no reason to assume that these officers have had more aggressive firearms training than any other NYPD officer.

There has been some rhetoric about this issue, but I have not seen any facts about SCU training, if there even is any special training for the unit.

 

[James K]

They were not ordinary street cops who happened to be in a group. The papers called them a "special street crimes unit" or something like that. I don't know whether they trained with anything other than pistols, but in many depts, any "special" unit gets some kind of exotic weapons training - that's the reason lots of cops join those units.

 

[Keith Lerwick]

It is really tough to say what actually did happen that night. It was an unfortunate thing that occurred, but we can't say we wouldn't have done the same thing in those officer's shoes. If anything, we should feel sorry for them because their family is going through hell right now. Whether you think they did right or not, we should pray for them because these still human beings with families. Besides, the press paints pictures that are not always true images of reality.


Keith

 

[Rob Pincus]

WEll, I know what the SCU is:

It is a unit formed on a model that arose in a mid-western city (I think in MO or IL) to combat gang ridden high crime areas.

The nucleus of the unit composes of (in NY) several hundred officers of varying experience who do not wear uniforms, and work in small groups of 2-4. They, as a matter of policy, have the authority to stop and interview and/or search anyone who, in their opinion, is acting suspicous or fits a "profile." The only special training for SCU that I am familar with is in identifying signs that a person is carrying a concealed weapon. Portions of their "handbook" circulated around the Gun culture last year, things like subconciously touching a weapon under a jacket or bending over in a n awkward way to keep a jacket from "riding up" were some of the tell-tale signs.

I often, derisively, refferred to this unit as having "jedi mind powers" since they were able to guess who had weapons. The numbers I heard for one year were approximately 20,000 stops and over 4000 guns confiscated.. not too shabby.. but a tragic violation of the 4th amendment, as far as I was concerned.

I have not liked the idea of the SCU, which gets rid of the idea of "Probable Cause"... even as an LEO I think their policy is way out of line.

So, that is what the SCU is, and, honestly they have been very successful in confiscating illegally carried weapons. There has, at the same time, been a drastic reduction in violent crime in NY. Perhaps these things are related. The anti's will tell you less guns = less crime.. I say Fewer Criminals with guns and an oppressive police presence = less crime, duh.
EDIT**********
Please see my post below for a further explanation of the previous paragraph...
*********************


Again, I know of NO special tactics of weapons training that the SCU members recieve.. thogh you are right that people officers sought out this assignment, due to its high profile, liberal PC rules and "status" in the dept. I have asked around the LE community and no one I've talked to is familar with any special weapons training for SCU.

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited April 02, 1999).]

 

[longhair]

Rob, let me get this straight! you're against
the fact that these units skirt around the search & seizure laws, but like the results that it brings. I don't think you can have it both ways. It's good that crime is down, but the process seems like it's mighty close to being unconstitutional. Being able to search someone just for fitting a profile doesn't seem to me to fall under a REASONABLE cause for search & seizure. I'm sure it works good. Line up all the people in the community search them, and you're sure to find something illegal on some of them. Just to look at me, i fit a whole bunch of their profiles,
but alas, they would be wrong. I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights protected us from that kind of thing. Maybe I misinterpreted what I've read and heard. Now don't get me wrong! I'm all for getting guns out of the hands of criminals, but there must be away of doing it without doing things like you hear the KGB, Gestapo, etc,
did(do?). If they are allowed do it one, they can do it to all. It's just like guns, first they outlaw these, because they look military. Then they outlaw those, because they hold too much ammo. On & on they go, slowly, inch by inch, guns, freedom, privacy,
etc......... ok, I'm done.

------------------
fiat justitia

[This message has been edited by longhair (edited April 01, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by longhair (edited April 01, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by longhair (edited April 01, 1999).]

 

[Keith Lerwick]

Longhair brings up a good point. Rob, public opinion like yours does help promote politicians to implement laws that are very restrictive in nature. I am not attacking you, but there is some logic to what LONGHAIR is saying. I am a firm believer in getting illegal guns off the street, but there is a right way and a wrong way for everything.

Keith

 

[Rob Pincus]

Sorry, I re-read my post and see what you guys saw..

I did not mean that "Oppressive Police Presence" should be a viable way to achieve lower crime.. AT ALL... ISmply that it was how I would explain the reduced crime in NYC.
I was offering that as the alternative to the "less guns" explanation that the Anti's would have us believe.

The thing is that be defining it as what it is, I think people we be appauled by it.. they will say:
"yeah, less crime.. but I DON'T WANT "oppressive Police presence" in my neighborhood"... then the next step is:

"How else can I reduce Crime?"

Answer:

Several other parts of the country have had significantly reduced crime through shall-issue CCW laws... Ergo:

"More Legally Carried Guns = Less Crime"

That is the train of thought I am trying to encourage.

 

[Keith Lerwick]

Well in that case, I can see where you are coming from and it makes sense. Understand when I first read your post I thought" How did guy come up with that?" Well it is all crearer now.

Keith

 

[longhair]

thanks for clearing me up on that Rob. was i really having a hard time believing that was you. now that you 'splained, i understand where you're comming from, and i hope you're right!!

------------------
fiat justitia