Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Come on, Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon said that's what he did

Leave it to the New York Assembly to make things worse....

I wonder if those idiots think we're a combo of John Wayne, Mel Gibson and Jackie Chan...it's nice to think about and criticize what a cop did...while your sitting on your ass and enjoying yourself and not scared as hell you ain't gonna live.

If it passes, hopefully the governor can see how stupid this is....pun not intended.



PoliceOne Senior Editor Doug Wyllie
So-called 'no-kill' bill surfaces in NY

Ill-advised piece of legislation was drafted in the aftermath of the death of Sean Bell outside a Queens, New York strip club in November 2006

Lawmakers in New York are again contemplating the notion of “shoot-to-wound” legislation and cops in that state are understandably furious. The so-called ‘minimum force’ bill was drafted in the aftermath the death of Sean Bell outside a Queens, New York strip club on November 25, 2006. Similar legislation has been previously presented, and defeated, but the fact that it’s come around again indicates a particularly slow learning curve among law makers about what law enforcers actually do.

According to a newspaper report by Murray Weiss of the New York Post, the bill would “amend the state penal codes’ ‘justification’ clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else's is in imminent danger.”

Weiss writes that the bill proposed bill “would force officers to use their weapons ‘with the intent to stop, rather than kill’ a suspect” and would mandate that cops ‘shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg’ as opposed to the present practice of aiming center-mass until the threat is stopped.

Here’s just one problem with this ill-advised piece of legislation: cops already shoot to stop — not kill — the threat.

Sure, there’s the one-in-a-million instance — usually when a hostile suspect is holding a hostage at gunpoint with imminent danger of death to said hostage — in which an immediate de-animation shot is required. But there are many, many more instances in which an officer — or multiple officers — have put rounds on a dangerous suspect, stopped them from being a threat, and then instantaneously rendered life-saving aid.

PoliceOne has obtained the advance draft of an upcoming position paper from our partners at Force Science Research Center, which counters — with ease and aplomb — the sideways thinking in this type of legislation. Check out that important paper here.

“When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it’s very often ‘Why didn’t they just shoot him in the leg?’” Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, told Force Science News in a 2006 interview centered on Paterson’s proposed legislation. “When civilians judge police shooting deaths–on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community–this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.

“In reality, this thinking is a result of ‘training by Hollywood,’ in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director’s dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers.”

Vice President Joe Biden apparently agrees, according to the FSRC report. “When Michael Paladino, president of New York’s Detectives Endowment Association, showed him the bill he reportedly scoffed and suggested that it be called the ‘John Wayne Bill’ because of the unrealistic, movie-like sharpshooting skills it demands of officers,” reads the Force Science paper.

PoliceOne Firearms Columnist Ron Avery is quoted in the Force Science Research document as saying that shooting to wound “reflects a misapplication of police equipment. Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose.”

Avery says further that if you “deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you’re using the wrong tool for that job. Also, if you shoot them in the arm or leg and you destroy muscle tissue, shatter bone or destroy nerve function you have maimed that person for life. Now attorneys can play the argument of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and pursue punitive damages for destroying the capacity of your ‘victim’ to earn wages and so on. You don’t try to just wound people with a gun. Period.”

This legislation — and other such nonsense like it — was almost certainly drafted by a group of people who have never in their lives operated a firearm, much less done so in the life-or-death context that police officers face every day they pin on the badge. Avery has an idea on how we can help those folks get an idea. “Put them in a cage with a lion,” Avery suggests. “Then let’s see if they shoot to wound.”


About the author

Doug Wyllie is editor of PoliceOne, responsible for setting the editorial direction of the website and managing the planned editorial features by our roster of expert writers. In addition to his editorial and managerial responsibilities, Doug has authored more than 150 articles and tactical tips on a wide range of topics and trends that affect the law enforcement community. On a daily basis, Doug is in close personal contact with some of the top subject-matter experts in law enforcement, regularly tapping into the world-class knowledge of officers and trainers from around the United States, and working to help spread that information and insight to the hundreds of thousands of officers who visit PoliceOne every month. Even in his “spare” time, Doug is active in his support for the law enforcement community, contributing his time and talents toward police-related charitable events as well as participating in force-on-force training, search-and-rescue training, and other scenario-based training designed to prepare cops for the fight they face every day on the street.


Many of you have seen the video of how fast a man with a knife can get to an officer before he draws and fires his weapon....I wonder if these idiots in Assembly Land have every had someone come at them with a weapon....if this actually gets to the committee and floor, I hope they get shown that video so they get some idea of reality put in their skulls.

Hopefully it never comes to the floor...

PS: They are doing a Lethal Weapon 5...

2 comments:

  1. I can't believe that this is being considered again! Common sense tells this civilian, that there are time when lethal force is an absolute must. Leave it to the libs! On a personal note, as the future wife of the officer who runs this blog, I'd rather have him come home to me, than not. Knowing that if he has to take a life in his, or a citizens defense, would affect him for the rest of his life, I shall err on the selfish side of things. Better a thug than Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recall the discussion a senior officer had with me when we were at approaching a disturbance at a house...word came down that the man of the house had a knife.

    The other office said "I got a boy to go home to and I'm going home..."

    My response, "I'd hate to blow him away in front of his family...I'd get over it"

    ReplyDelete