Redstate

I see that State Sen. Paterson is a believer in the Guns Are Magical Talismans That Make You Invincible school of mysticism.

The reality - which I merely restate for those Democrats (and other classes of people that are generally clueless about firearms) that may have wandered in - is that when the gun is out, the time for thinking has officially passed.  If the training has been good, the odds are that drawing the gun will be a proper response to the situation; the worse the training, the worse the odds.

Teaching cops to "play" with guns - instead of treating them as the deadly tools that they are - is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad training.

The NY State Legislature is in the process of trying to pass a child protection bill and come down strong on the predators and scum who hurt, rape and kill our children, of course the Democrats are the ones fighting the passage of that bill ..

And now this putz comes along and submits a bill to PROTECT the criminals FROM Law Enforement ??

It's a joke and the real danger to this country are the Democrats who support criminals and terrorists ..

Michael

This sounds like something from the Lone Ranger or Roy Rogers,both the old TV and radio programs.  "Why you shot the gun out of my hands", or, it's only a flesh wound Tonto".  What happens if you aim for the leg and the miscreant bullet finds it's way to a vital part, what do you prove and how do you prove it?  Best thing to do is to bring all the cops into the station house for games of checkers and whist and let the underprivileged worry about where the bullet goes.  Is there any insanity the modern liberal is incapable of?

Blindless is a handicap that makes it impossible to see things.  It does not effect brain function as far as cognitive reasoning ability is concerned.

Thus, the Senator is indeed a fool.  

"My dad was NYPD and always told us the cops were told to shoot for the middle, that way you have a chance of hitting something and stopping the guy."

You're exactly right.  Especially on the "chance of hitting something," because if an officer shoots for a limb, there's a greater chance that the shot will miss and continue its travel to points (and potentially persons) unknown.

I'm a Navy guy, and as an armed watchstander on my last ship, I got periodic briefings from the ship's JAG on "the use of deadly force."  Not "harmful force" or "injurious force."  Deadly.  I think that word is the right one because it puts the act of drawing and possibly firing a weapon in the proper perspective.  If you start to treat a firearm as something less than deadly, you risk lowering the threshold for using it, whether that's the intent or not.

Or, as a wise man once said, there are "known unknowns."  Paterson knows full well what his physical blind spot is, so in that sense he has a leg up on those of us who struggle to understand what it is we do not know.  But he obviously doesn't have the wisdom to ask someone with two good eyes why it is that you can't shoot someone in the hand.

Now this is funny. A blind guy writing a law that deal with the visual world. Why do those blind people need those canes? Outlaw them before they poke some Yorkie's eye out, I say.

My dear old Dad taught my brother and me to never, ever point a weapon at another living thing unless you are prepared to kill it. Deadly force indeed.

The Senator is from the 'it takes a village' school of idiocy.

I am an avid recreational shooter, and I've also done a lot of consulting for our local police department. A few years ago (before an injury forced me to back off) I was shooting 5,000 (mainly .45, but some 9mm and a little .22) rounds a month.

First, by and large cops are not good shots. There are some that are, but most don't shoot anywhere near enough to maintain peak capabilities.

Second, shooting at targets and shooting at people are dramatically different things. The psychological effects of mortal fear are considerable. Your body shuts down all sorts of extraneous input to the brain. That's the tunnel vision that people talk about.

The idea that a person in that state of mind is capable of precision marksmanship is insane. As has been said earlier, the standard for LEO and military training  is to "double tap" (two shots in rapid succession) to the "center of body mass".    Military training adds one shot to the head to that, but that is a pure shoot to kill strategy that is not appropriate for law enforcement. Even in military situations, I wonder how often the third shot is on target.

Rather than force officers into impossible feats of marksmanship, the better solution is to migrate toward non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. Examples are bean bags in shotguns, as well as Tasers. I've seen demonstrations of both. I have a hard time thinking someone could take one of those bean bags at close range and still keep fighting. They have real knock down power. I am less impressed with Tasers. They are vulnerable to thick clothing. I also worry that officers are more likely to deploy a "non-firearm" casually. Even less-lethal weapons should only be used when a firearm would also be justified.

Jeff

Is the use of Deadly Force.  Period.

The use of Harmful Force (aka, the minimum force neccessary) has come under fire by Liberals nationwide with regard to the use of Pepper Sprays and Tazers and Billy Clubs.

You do the math.

bean bag.

Haven't you seen the video of the Seattle incident where the psychotic with the samurai sword took a half-dozen or so bean bag rounds, and a fire hose, and still had to be subdued with a ladder?

Have a ride-along legislator or civilian cop-watch person with every team of officers.  In the event of a potentially lethal situation, toss the ride-along at the perp.  While the perp is debating with the ride-along, other officers can successfully execute non-lethal maneuvers to disarm the perp.

Next problem??

Classic.

Police budgets are tight enough without the added burden that law enforcement must now teach trick shooting to accademy rookies.

This is truely the definition of ignorance.  Add to so many insane cases lately, like the case of a rapist/murderer not being put to death as ordered by the court because, it might hurt.  What is going on?

the military does some of that now by having JAGs in the target approval process. Why should they have all the fun.

My dad was NYPD and always told us the cops were told to shoot for the middle, that way you have a chance of hitting something and stopping the guy.

As the article says, this legislation was a response to the shooting of Amadou Diallo. There's a difference between "shooting for the middle" and shooting at an unarmed man 41 times.

we could equip cops with "six shooters" and teach them to twirl the weapon over, under, around , etc., all the while mystifying the bad guy and distracting them so that the ride-along (see above) can debate the question of the meaning of life with them. No one ever need be shot again. No one ever need be harmed again and we can all go back to 'feeling their pain.' Utopia at last.

My view is that less lethal weapons should only be used when there is plenty of backup. In the odd case where the suspect is not responsive to the less lethal, then the backup is still there with conventional firearms.

Jeff

or arithmetically, but I really don't see what difference it made as we can be reasonably certain that Diallo was dead long before #41 hit him.

Are you contending that he was overly killed or killed too much?

I think the issue with non-lethal weapons was the phrase "close range", meaning that a law enforcement officer would have to be in the effective kill zone of a suspect's weapon to get a round off.  It is much better, IMO, that an officer be able to handle an armed suspect from stand off range, with the ability to hit the bad guy and minimize the officer's exposure to lethal weapons.

Diallo's shooting was obviously a bad mistake, but the mistake was firing a gun at him, period.

By the way, the really shameful thing in that case was prosecuting all four cops.  By the time the two in back entered the vestibule, their partners were shooting already and one of them was down (he slipped, as it turned out later).  Those cops had no other rational decision but to assume their partners were shooting for a good reason and join in.

For the record, Diallo was hit by only 19 bullets.

I'm sure the first few bullets were sufficient to "immobilize" him. The only reason to fire the rest were to make sure he was dead.

the cop can always go to patrol car and unlock the can of silly string.

I am unclear as to why you would shoot at anyone and not wish to kill him and why you would stop shooting until you were certain he was dead.

From just a practical standpoint, dead men don't sue.

Even if this was a response to the Diallo event this legistlation can only make a bad situation worse, without really addressing the original situation.

Since we are talking numbers, how many bystanders will have to be shot as cops aim for the arms to get the legislators to realize it may not be such a great idea?

This is the exact comment my grandfather (former customs agent) made to us when I was young. He emphasized that dead men don't sue or lie about you in court.

...is that even "deadly" force is often not enough to stop a crazed gunman.  Any police officer will tell you that they have seen--in person or in video footage--a suspect shot but so consumed by adrenaline that they continue to attack the police long after they are clinically dead.  If ten bullets in the chest aren't enough, one or two in the arm certainly aren't.

The police don't fire at fleeing suspects, nor do they shoot at anything that doesn't constitute an immediate danger to the public.  If the police can stop a suspect by causing minor bodily harm, shooting is not warranted.  Only when the choice becomes the suspect's life vs. the officer's life will shots be fired.

Continuing to attack?  Long after they are clinically dead?  I'm not sure if this reminds me more of Night of the Living Dead or Monty Python.

So he has no clue what aiming and shooting a firearm is like.

Will NY let the deaf set noise ordinances?

taken care of.

A simple amendment to the proposed law making it illegal to shoot a bystander while attempting to wound a perp should take care of the situation.

From the Wikipedia article:

On April 18, 2000, Diallo's mother, Kadiatou, and his stepfather, Sankarella Diallo (the last name being common in West Africa), filed an $81,000,000 (USD) lawsuit against the City of New York and the officers, charging gross negligence, wrongful death, racial profiling, and other violations of Diallo's civil rights. In March, 2004, they accepted a $3,000,000 (USD) settlement.

if it had gone to trial it would have been a different story.

Again, I'm really failing to see your objection at the quantity of ammunition expended here and what it has to do with anything.

"under normal circumstances be considered clinically dead." Adrenaline is an amazing thing.

an innocent man might still be alive.

or one or more cops might be dead.

Better judged by twelve than carried by six.

Well I guess it was a step in the right direction.

Two firemen at either end of a 20-ft ladder pinned the psycho-ninja to the wall in the middle of it.

is paved with "mighta", "coulda", "shoulda". In the real world however ...

If it's illegal, it can't happen!

The person who taught me how to shoot -- my dad -- cautioned me to never point a gun at a man, unless you planned to kill him.

Terse and chilling advice. Also correct.  

has adopted the "Stevie Wonder, Safe Driving Rules" handbook.

Cops are taught to KEEP FIRING until the gun is empty.  That increases the "bullet count" but also increases the cops chances of coming home to his family.  Basically, Diallo was dead the minute the first round was fired, and the rest  are only fuel for rabble rousers - they didn't make him any deader.

The question should never have been "how many rounds fired", but why the first shot was fired.  Unfortunately, "tragic misunderstanding leads to innocent man's death" isn't as headline-worthy as "black man shot 41 times by police!"

Ever see the 1994 Peugeot commercial with Ray Charles driving in the salt flats?

"First of all, this man has obviously never fired a gun - not that I have either, but I at least respect the fact that it's extremely difficult to hit a moving target in the arm or leg. My dad was NYPD and always told us the cops were told to shoot for the middle, "

Center mass.  Always.  No exceptions.

From a practical standpoint, widows can sue - should the police hunt down and shoot-to-kill the widow as well? The use of deadly force is not to prevent the police (or citizen) from being sued.

The use of deadly force should be to stop a felon from a dangerous action. If the deadly force kills the felon as it is stopping him, that is acceptable.  

I would agree that sometimes there is a fine line in defensive shootings, where the shooter(s) may not know that felon has been stopped (perhaps it is dark); however, if the use of deadly force continues after the shooter(s) are aware that the felon has been stopped (a weapon has been dropped for instance) the shooting goes from justified to probable murder charges.

And for the record, I think shooting for limbs when using deadly force is a dumb idea. Shooting a  living target and not hitting innocents under the pressures involved in a defensive shooting is difficult enough as it is.

...videos I've seen, that and the kid hurling the scissors into his roommates arm!

Since the enlightened liberals who rule the NYS Legislature have made it nearly impossible for anyone not in law enforcement to be armed in NYC, it escapes me how the cops would need to shoot anyone...if they outlaw evil handguns, gun crimes will end...right?

So true! I cant believe I didnt think of it. And, as any liberal will be quick to tell you, it works in England.

Or shoot to kill a felon.  This type person has already shown that they do not respect the law or other people's right to live.  To attempt to "wing" a person would endanger others with possible ricochet.  This guy is simply a grandstander, pandering to his base.

I'll be changing my login name.  I am so pathetic to have not realized that...

recently updated its Use of Force policy and tried to put in a "shoot to disable" clause in its deadly force section, replacing "shoot to stop the action."  Thankfully it didn't fly, in fact I was there when the new policy was reviewed by the higher ups.  Outrage is a good discription.  However the private prison I work at does require us to "shoot to disable" in an effort to CYA the corporation.  As I am the instructor in our Use of  Force training I teach my officers that the best way to soot to disable, except at very close range, is to fire center mass.

the sound of the first shot - from any source, generally including an automotive backfire - will immediately induce everybody with a gun to open fire.

crystal meth or angel dust will beat you to death with his own severed arm.  

A good bit of the reason to use a large caliber pistol - 45 or 40 cal - is to knock the target down.  Once down, they tend to get up less frequently.

Guns are made to kill.

I don't personally use them, but I'm grateful for the people who live in my neighborhood who do so that people will be just a little bit nervous of coming to town.

I would think that it would be borderline to tell personal gun owners to do this defending their own homes.

Telling police this is just stupid.

Another point that could be made here is that the legs are not a particularly safe place to get shot. There's a big artery there that, if ruptured, can cause you to bleed out pretty rapidly.

the cops try to shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand.

Anyone ever see the episode of "The Simpsons" when Homer gets a handgun? He tries to get the basketball off the roof for Lisa by shooting it off.

Then he wants to help her get the cat down.

Maybe

Cops shouldn't carry guns at all! No, really, when they find a bad guy doing bad things they could yell harsh words at them or invite them to a city council meeting were they can all hold hands and share their feelings about right and wrong and how the establishment hasn't given them opportunity's or made them criminals...

just maybe.........

Taught me the two most important things I EVER learned about firearms:

1.) Never take another man's word that a weapon is unloaded.

2.) Never point a firearm at someone unless you are willing to kill them.

This "shoot to wound" garbage can only come from a man who has never had to defend himself, or another, from harm.

It also depends on what you think a long time is. 5-10 seconds of return fire in a fire fight is a long time.

However, I would doubt you would see a clinically dead person returning fire after a minute or two. Things just don't work that well once the heart stops and breathing ceases.

. . .in post-shooting reports if this law is passed:

[after noting that the suspect was shot directly between the eyes and in the heart--three times each]

"Ooops.  Missed."

As Joseph Wambaugh once noted, any police officer with a high school education can effortlessly bypass the most arcane rules set down by men in robes with law degrees--and the same is doubly true as far as dimwitted legislators go.

I'm not a cop, but if I have to fire my gun, I am supposed to shoot to stop the threat beyond all certainty.

Shoot to wound? That's ridiculous.

I'm sure a policeman could expand on this, but the only time a cop uses his weapon is when deadly force is authorized.  Otherwise they don't shoot.  Cops I know talk about how they use force proportional to the situation.  This idiot thinks cops draw their weapon every time they get out of the patrol car.

...and it's a trade nobody wants to make, but here's the advice I've received from police officers:

If you get to the point where you're shooting, you're to the point where you're out to kill the other guy, otherwise the gun should never come out and you should be using pepper spray or some other form of non-lethal force, or running away.  Never shoot someone with the intention of them surviving.

Shooting to wound increases your chance of missing, in a situation where by definition (presumably, else you wouldn't resort to deadly force) you're in mortal danger already. The idea that under these circumstances one must take on this additional risk is inconsistent with the very idea underlying Senator Petersen's directive: that life is sacred.

It is specifically because life is sacred that we as citizens are authorized to use deadly force to protect our own lives.  This may seem a paradox, but consider: if you're already in mortal danger, you have a choice to make, and nobody thinks well in that situation.

Given that a well-placed single round from a .sig357 carries something like an 86% stop rating, (and I am 100% committed to living, as I expect every cop out there is) I reserve the right to tap the other guy twice, three times, as many as it takes, precisely because my life is sacred too.  I certainly hope I never get to that point, as I don't like nightmares any more than the next guy and people who kill others almost invariably trade one problem (someone trying to kill them) for another: guilt, post-traumatic stress, etc.

The last thing the police need is armchair quarterbacks telling them to shoot the gun out of the other guy's hand, western-style. We don't pay cops enough to stick them in a suicide pact.

why not just make them illegal?

heh

This would have strong support in California, and now that they've had it suggested to them, the folks in charge of San Francisco will probably adopt the policy.

San Francisco cop sees man attacking woman. Cop yells, softly of course, "Stop. Police. Hands up or I will speak to you harshly. If you continue to disobey me I will speak to your mother."

it seems to be particularly inappropriate.  I believe he would have died had he been shot 19 times in almost any part of the body.  Or maybe Patterson figures they would have missed more than 22 times had they aimed at arms or legs.

How about a law that requires street vendors to speak English well enough to avoid being shot by the police?  Makes as much sense in the way of a response to the shooting.

"Oh, excuse me.  I didn't realize that is your mother."

It puts some context behind the second amendment, too.

right now in Flagstaff.  A retired school teacher is being prosecuted for shooting to death a man who was charging at him threatening to do him harm.  The victim's dogs had already charged at the defendant.  The incident occured at the foot of a popular hiking trail.

The trial has been going on for about two years now, and they are currently arguing about whether the defense can enter into evidence the victim's erratic behavior a few days before the attack.  I think they already may have decided "no."

The opinion of many of us is that the prosecutor was off base to charge the teacher in the first place.  There were no witnesses, and the shooter called the police himself.  When he's eventually acquitted, he'll be broke from his legal expenses.  But he'll be alive.

are there any more problems that need solving.

The comment #49 above by LoveThatConstitution links to an article about crime in England.  Your note reminds me that British coppers at one time did not carry firearms, at least that's the legend.  At that time, the populace was not restricted by prohibitive gun laws.  Violent crime in England was low.

Now the roles are reversed.  The coppers are armed and the populace is unarmed, and crime is skyrocketing.

Maybe the armed citizenry protects the police, rather than the other way 'round.

it sounds like the guy in New Jersey who shot an intruder who entered through his son's bedroom window (luckily the son was sleeping with the parents), and he is the one in trouble.

That sounds even worse.  I may have a few of my facts slightly off, but it's pretty accurate.

Sad.

People here are trying to restrict our ability to protect ourselves.

In England, they've taken away their right to protect themselves.

Diallo's shooting was a stupid and tragic mistake, but it was a mistake.

The appropriate place for justice to be served was the Civil Courts, not the Criminal Courts.