Report from Street Crimes Unit Banquet

[Rob Pincus]

The use of deadly force can be be justified under circumstances other than "fear for life," but that is the justification being used here. That standard, in every case I am familiar with, has been "Did the officer have REASON TO BE in fear for his life?"

DC,
This is not a political position, this is common sense. If I choose to not "aquiesce" under some authoritarian gun-grabbing campaign that may come in the future and I die defending my right to own a firearm. that is one thing. It is quite another if I get shot by acting stupidly during a taffic stop or while being approached by officers on teh street. Diallo was not making a political stand, he was acting like a criminal, running from and disobeying officers who just wanted to ask him a few questions.

IMHO, Everyone needs to get off the political soapboxes on this one. Everything does not relate to our rights as gun owners and free americans. Sometimes McDonald's puts the double cheeseburger on the menu just because they have lots of burgers to sell, not because the gov't wants to fatten us up. Sometimes people in the media give a honest opinion, not recite the line that their Brainwashing bosses tell instill them with.
Every once in a while a Helicopter might just happen to fly over your house without taking pictures for the UN troops that are being hidden at the National Park.

If anyone wants to drop this conversation, thats fine with me. If you guys can't pull back and look at this objectively, and I am not going to look at it with a political agenda, we will not be able to come to terms on this.

------------------
-Essayons

 

[Jim March]

Rob, if they're pro-CCW that's a great start, and better than I'd hoped for.

So is there any chance of getting them to make a unified, written statement as a group, an "open letter to the Chief" regarding mostly non-discriminatory CCW?

In CA I'm fighting on two fronts:

1) My Sheriff is 100% UNtrustworthy, I'm asking a court to strip him of discretion *completely*.

2) With my PD Chief I'm taking a far "gentler" tone; this guy has agreed to end the obviously illegal aspects of the permit process, so I dropped my suit. I'm trying to show him that he can issue on a fair basis and reserve his discretion for those times when a guy with a clean record and otherwise qualified "just doesn't smell right". In other words, if he shows himself to be mostly respectable on the issue and every once in a while he just gets "bad vibes" based on his years of experience, fine, I *hope* he denies a permit in that case.

Follow? If RPD's Chief can show that fairness and discretion can coexist he can pioneer a system whereby the brass does NOT get discretion ripped away totally by the courts or legislature.

See also a personal letter I wrote him that's NOT linked on my website:
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/duncan2.doc

or for the Rich Text Format version:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/duncan2.rtf

Note how it's NOT "combative" in tone.

I think this sort of argument and "tone" can be used in New York, and I think your new-found buddies are the perfect crowd to try it.

It's worth tryin, anyhow, 'cuz it's a LOT easier than a lawsuit.

Jim March

 

[Virgil Cain]

Here is a great question. What other type of non-lethal force did the officers disposal? I ask that because the proper procedure is not drawing a gun and blasting a-way at someone. I just feel like more could have been done to preserve the life of that man.

Virgil

 

[Rob Pincus]

Virgil,

Are you seriously telling me that drawing a gun and firing is not what your department's policy response is to a suspect who is drawing a gun?

I am not aware of any other appropriate means of defense against a suspect with a gun at distances beyond contact.

If you are suggesting that this guy should've been peper sprayed or something, I guess you just don't understand what the situation was.


Jim,

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that te SCU should write a letter to the chief that states: "We think people should be able to legal carry guns in NYC.".. While I doubt that any of the individual offciers would have a problem with that, I fail to see how it helps them. The people in tyhe neighborhoods they work do not want to carry guns legally, they want to persecute their protectors.

I think it would help to look at this situation in context. These were not a few armed CCW holders walking down the street in Smalltown, Midwest USA. They are not some federal special police who are going door to door forcably taking guns from owners because of paperwork discrepencies. These were police officers doing their job, who were forced by circumstances to kill a man. They didn;t want to kill him. They had no intention of doing anything but identifying and searching the individual as part of a search for an armed Serial Rapist.. A rapist who is still on the street today, quite possibly because of the leash that has been put around SCU's neck.

 

[Jim March]

Rob, in reply to:
"Are you suggesting that the SCU should write a letter to the chief that states: "We think people should be able to legal carry guns in NYC?""

I'm suggesting the SCU write a letter to the Chief asking that ordinary law-abiding citizens be able to get a CCW permit with reasonable background check and training standards based on the toughest shall-issue states such as AZ/TX/UT/OK. I think the SCU can convince the Chief that if he's seen as supporting legal self defense via proper channels, NYPD in general won't be viewed as "the cops that disarm ordinary citizens". By showing that he trusts the citizenry, the Chief and the department as a whole is more likely to get trustworthy behavior out of people, and there will be thousands of people in the city who feel a strong enough bond with the department that they'll be willing to speak up and be witnesses to crimes without fear of reprisals because they're as well-armed as the thugs. And the thugs will suddenly have a whole new worry: CCW Roulette.

I think the SCU is uniquely qualified to get that sort of message across, and I'm suggesting they do so with a uniform, organized voice that does NOT insult or otherwise deride the Chief. It should be as respectful as the letter I wrote Chief Duncan, linked above.

If they don't, and remain a unit devoted at least in part to stripping otherwise law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves, then their job and duties are fundamentally immoral. And yes, I say that even though that's not the lion's share of their job and they do good work in catching real crooks.

Jim March

 

[GLV]

Rob, the one thing I can agree with you about is your decision to go to the dinner.

I just refuse to buy the " I did not get enough training " excuse. I wonder how many hours these officers spent doing 'what ifs'. How much time they spent discussing various situations. How much off duty time spent working on their abilities.

I also hope the flashlight question gets an answer at some point. I would like to see the scene, in order to get a better idea what the officers saw, or could not see, and to get a feel for the distances involved.

Perhaps because of my military background, I believe that if you need training, you find a way to get it. Its called initiative.

In the last couple of weeks, I have learned a little about the defense team, and believe the officers will clear the criminal court. The civil court will be another matter. However, the big problem is simple, none of their lives, nor the lives of their loved ones will ever be the same. GLV

 

[Virgil Cain]

NO NO NO YOu have got me all wrong. The policy is surely to shoot IF there is a gun being drawn. I think we can agree on that. NO, I really don't think peperspray would be a viable option. I just feel like maybe they handle things wrong from the get-go. With that many Cops there, and LEO back me up on this, there could have been a more sensible end to this whole thing. I do agree that the guy should have been shot provided that he was pulling a gun. I just feel like it was handled wrong in the fact that the guys were not in a better posotion to talk or handle the suspect if they all fired from a central position as the paper and every thing said so. When dealing with a suspect like that, I feel that when multiple officers are present it is extremely important to talk and move in the direction of the suspect Just outside of knife range, and just close enough for a sound shot. That not only protects you and the public, but also the suspect in case a good guy. Also the multiple officers moving in a flanking position also eliminates the chances of a person firing because the feeling of over powerment. Knowing that this is not exactly text book work, the fact is that more often than not these cases have a happy ending when everyone goes in level headed and a common goal. TO SERVE AND PROTECT That is what we are here for. I agree more training is needed, but not in the area of handguns ect. in the area of public relations and communications, language, and more importantly dealing with a people in a diverse environment like NY.
I work in a good sized city and let me tell you it is tough as it can be dealing with different groups because not everyone responds to the same things and the view of the police also differs.

VIRG

 

[ursus]

First of all to all of you that are not LEO's: Do you have any idea of what is taught in police academy curriculum? In the lethal force portion ( I can only speak for what I have been taught at my schools), you are taught what is called a force continum. This is a guide to what force to use in situations, eg, pepper spray for combative individual not posing a deadly threat to officer. But in this continum, which is based on the officer's perception of danger, he can go up the chain from say verbal commands to hands on to pepper spray or baton or to gun.
Depending on situation, officer could go from verbal command right to gun if situation warrants it. Let I remind you that LEO's have sometimes milliseconds to react to things where courts and lawyer and admin and public has days, weeks, years to examine a situation that they were never even present for. Now getting back to threat assessment, I think those of you that are familiar with knives and martial arts can see what a threat knives or edged weapons are. The subject that acts is always faster than the subject that reacts, simple human physiology. If any of you have an opportunity to buy or rent the video, SURVIVING EDGED WEAPONS, view it. It can give you an insight to what LEO's face on a daily basis. There is some actual footage and some of the still photos are very graphic. We cannot know what those officers perceived in that Diallo incident. So I guess what I am saying is don't judge a man until you have walked in his shoes.

 

[Byron Quick]

Ursus,

I have had to make shoot/don't shoot decisions seven times in my former job in repossessions and collections. Without the possibility of backup. I know what it is like to be in a "low income urban area" at night performing very unpopular duties.

I trust Rob and I trust Spectre on this list.
If we were together at night and Rob shouted,
"He's got a gun!" and began to shoot, I would probably shoot also. I know I would if Spectre shouted that. (I don't know Rob quite as well) If we screwed it up and there was no gun we would definitely be tried. If a jury of our sovereign peers did not agree that a reasonable person in the same situation would have been in fear of his life, we would be found guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter. Barring extreme mitigating circumstances, it is likely we would face prison upon sentencing.

My question once again is: By what rationale do LEO's expect preferential treatment before the bar of justice when they make a mistake that would result in the private citizen going to prison?

I am not critical of the officers' actions, except perhaps for the individual who yelled,"He's got a gun!" or words to that effect. I believe he wishes with all his heart and soul he had not done so. I believe in the same situation that I would have acted as the other officers did once I heard that ill-fated warning. But all that, while true, does not address my question.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Virgil,

I understand what you are saying now, but I don't think you clearly understand what happened. They were not interviewing this suspect, they were apraoching him, coming up the steps to the porch he was on, when he ran, then turned back at them, making the move into his jacket.

GLV,

You are confusing two unrelated statements from my opening post. The Trianing issue had nothing at all to do with justifying the shooting. I never even talked to the shooters about training. It was in talking to other officers (to satisfy my curiosity, mostly) about what "extra" training they get for SCU, thatI found a distinct desire for advanced training. That was in no way offered as an "excuse."

ursus,

AMEN!

Spartacus,

My argument is that Officers are put into positions that You, Spectre and I are not likely to be legitimately put into while be-nopping around Atlanta one night. It is because of those situations that they must be judged from a different perspective. Not a different level of accountability or any "special Treatment" under the law.. but I think you should legitimately look at the situation differently for an LEO doing his job. Example:

One woman shoots a man in order to steal his car.

Another woman shoots a man because he is raping her.

Are you going to judge both women the same? Are they both "murderers"? They are both equal under the law, but the circumstances of the shootings demand that they be treated differently.

An LEO doing his job should be treated the equal of a CCW holder walking around town.

 

[ursus]

Spartacus:
I hope that I did not imply by my reponse that LEO's should have special treatment, just that everyone must realize that an officer has the right to protect himself, his partner(s)and others from perceived harm just like everyone else. He is just under a larger microscope,(media who are like sharks looking for a meal, admin who haven't been on the street in years or not at all and they are trying to duck litigation to the dept and politicos, and lastly some of the general public who have no idea what its like to be in a situation like that), unfortunatley he gets analyzed, criticized and not justified before he can have a chance to have the episode played out. PS, don't get me started about the Rodney King incident.

 

[ursus]

My response to that PS would not be what you would think.

 

[boing]

Well, this should be a pretty unpopular statement:

I believe LEOs should be held to a more stringent standard of when lethal force is justified, to the point of being put into greater danger than would be necessary for a citizen to shoot.

Why? Exactly because LEOs have to be confrontational, while citizens have to run away, if possible.

I understand what Rob is saying about not looking at police officers in LE situations, and just plugging in the average CCW holder, and saying "These are identical". He's right, it doesn't quite work that way. The rules are different.

But as the rules allow, in fact require, LEOs to 'go around and point their guns at people', there comes with that a greater responsibilty to endure the risks involved.

NOTE: this notion has been knocking around in my head for awhile, and is still in the 'fetal development' stage. Be gentle with it, please.

-boing

 

[Trevor]

LEOs already are held to a higher standard. In most jurisdictions (from what I've read and seen), an officer involved in a shooting has to endure an investigation and a ruling by the district attorney whether lethal force was used legitimately, an internal review by his deparment that determines whether he will still have a career, a likely civil suit from the dead guy's survivors, and, finally, the political scrutiny of an angry citizenry, which, in many communities, comes in the form of a citizen oversight committee for police affairs.

Also, now there is a fifth level of liability when the FBI investigates the incident for possible violation of civil rights under the color of authority. Thus, every police shooting has the potential of becoming a federal case.

In contrast, the CCW holder, the shopkeeper, or the homeowner who use lethal force face the district attorney and the civil suit alone. If I read Rob correctly, it is the likelihood of abusing people who are carrying out their sworn duty that irks him since LEOs are obliged to go out of their way to police the streets. A thankless task? You bet.

[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited April 25, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited April 25, 1999).]

 

[ursus]

Mr. Boing:

Where are you getting your info from? Are you basing it on TV shows like COPS, NYPD, etc. COPS is basically a ride along made for TV. Yes, there are at times so very interesting incidences that go on, but this is still a tiny, mininscule glimpse of the real goings on. According to you LEO's are "confrontational" when dealing with the public. This is true to a certain extent, but is only done when situation dictates it. For example when dealing with an uncooperative spouse during a domestic, or a subject caught doing something illegal. LEO's don't have "rules" that allow them to indescriminately point weapons around. They follow same basic gun safety "rules". Let us look at your other issues. First, LEO's, CCW's , citizens operate by laws, ordinances, etc because they form the basic guides along with values and moral compass of people to live in our society. BAD GUYS DO NOT FOLLOW RULES or laws or basic guides of life. They choose for what ever reason not to follow these basic things.

Let us look at how bad guys don't follow the "rules". BG's ambush LEO's, the most recent was in AZ or CA, I can't remember. I believe that there was an armed citizen there to give the LEO a hand. Score one for the good guys. BG's totally disregard "rules" when it comes to obtaining, carrying, using weapons. I am going to bring up the issue of the choice to do the job. Many people gravitate to LE for numerous reasons. Some for good reasons, some for not. Don't paint LEO's with a broad brush for the actions of a few.

I had a very good friend of mine shot and killed in CA in 95. He was in line buying groceries when two subjects produced handguns and began pistol whipping the clerk for more money from the drawer. He was off duty, in civilian clothes when this took place. He identified himself and drew an off duty weapon, when a third subject came up from behind him and shot him. The subjects began to flee, but my friend was able to recover enough to get up and get rounds off and wound the subjects. He was able to crawl to phone and call in the incident and give a description of the fourth subject waiting in a get away car. He died while he was on the phone. The subjects were stopped shortly after the incident. But as it always turns out, personal responsibility for one's actions were over looked because of the ages of 2 of the subjects. Let us take another, Mumia Abu-Jamal. He was found to have shot and killed a NYC officer in 1981. Through appeal and delay this person is being martyred by Hollywood and MTV and others. Who remembers the officer's family and friends?

Why do some feel it necessary to defend those who so blatantly disregard society and it's "rules". Let's face it, there have been tragic mistakes made in the past and unfortunately there will be more made in the future. That is what happens when you have the "human factor". Until you can eliminate that, we just have to try to abide by the "rules".

 

[boing]

I'm not going by any information, certainly not TV, which I don't watch. And I am definitely not defending the actions of those who don't abide by the rules of society! They are Bad Guys.

Nor do I believe that LEOs wantonly display their weapons with disregard for laws, regulations, or common sense (despite a recent experience with a local cop who deserves to be in federal prison for a long time. He's emotionally unbalanced, at least, and a gross aberration among police officers.)

My point is that the rules, as followed, lead LEOs to exert deadly force potential (pointing their guns at people) on a regular basis, on people who may or may not be dangerous. Since it happens more often, in a broader range of circumstances, there is a greater chance, under those rules, of a tragic mistake. Which leads me to believe in a greater responsibilty of restraint.

Bear with me. I'm trying work this out.

-boing

 

[ursus]

Mr Boing:

I apologize for perhaps coming on a little too strong. But if you read the other threads about this you will see what we are talking about. I agree that there has to be restraint when it is dictated. There are literally hundreds of LEO's that are faced with a shoot no shoot situation every day. Thank God that the majority of those are resolved. There are and have been those LEO's that would have justified in using lethal force and chose not to, they were able to use an alternative. But until we can have the technology of a "RoboCop", we must continue to support LE.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Boing,
As Trevor Pointed out, I think LEOs are held to a higher standard. Not only in the aftermath, but also (thankfully) inthe preparation for confrontation. Most Police Training includes a good deal of time in "Shoot - No Shoot" drills and discussion. CCW holders worry much more about when to present the weapon, where as LEOs, as you pointed out, have a tendancy to have their weapon presented much more often... which means the lethal force decision must be made even quicker in their case. It may not seem like much, but the extra time it takes to draw over simply fire a gun is about 500% for a QUICK shooter.

I would not say that the extra scrutiny on LEOs does not Irk me, in fact, I think it is appropriate to keep "abuses of power" from happening, what bothers me is the "second guessing" and attacking that goes on after the fact. Not only by uninformed citizens, but by politicos with agendas that have nothing to do with truly protecting neighborhoods, kids or people.

 

[GLV]

Rob, many of us that offer critique and are critical of LEO actions are well trained in both the legal side of use of force, as well as the tactical side.

The so called war on drugs has lead to an increase of police powers, that is difficult for many to accept. Example: unconstitutional search and seizure, illegal stops, dui roadblocks that turn into license and registration checks, etc, etc.

Last, Rob, are you sure you are not a politician? You avoid, or fail to answer many questions that are put to you, and when you do answer, well it sometimes sounds a little like political gobbolegook. GLV

 

[boing]

No argument here about the intense scrutiny for LE shootings, and the need for it. Even though it's all second guessing, really. Like GLV, I'd like to see the scene, too: Who was where, distances, lighting, etc, and even then, none of us can know what we would really do at that moment: not the investigators, not the DA, no one. So, I've tried to avoid getting into another rehash of "What Went Wrong in the Diallo Shooting", with only partial success.

All of that is the 'after the fact' mess, which could be argued uselessly forever. It's the 'before the fact' training that I'm really getting at, I suppose. I think the training should reflect the need for greater restraint.

Having said that, I still think the instigating officer in the Diallo case was wrong. But if his actions were consistent with his training, perhaps it is the training which he recieved (when to shoot) that needs greater scrutiny.

Rob, you said LEOs "have a tendency to have their weapon presented much more often... which means the lethal force decision must be made even quicker in their case." I don't follow this. It seems to me that having your weapon trained on someone would give you more time to make the decision.

ursus, No apologies necessary. I didn't exactly expect meek replies.

-boing