NYPD video shows moments before cops fatally shoot bipolar man

originally posted by: caf1550

Yeah the kid had a air soft gun that looked exactly like a real firearm, no little orange tip on the end of it to denote that it is a air soft replica firearm.

And guns are legal in America, and the kid was on a park bench not doing a criminal act. The kid was killed because the cop was told it looks like he had a weapon and then he saw the air soft within a second of getting out of his car he killed him without the kid doing anything at all criminally. You do also know that air soft are actually popular with kids too, right? And you do know that EVERYONE basically carries their phone in their hand, right?

You ever wonder if the cop actually stopped 50 feet away and opened his door and told the kid to get on the ground what would have been the outcome? Would that have been too high of a risk for the cop to do?

It’s split seconds between life and death, split seconds. If it’s a bad shooting I would be the first to extol the officer like I did when the officer in Minnesota I believe it was shot and killed Justine Damond. But if it is a good justified shooting then I will do everything I can and use my expertise to help protect the officer and try to bring knowledge about.

STOP with the split second, the vast majority of these cases are not the split second event. Cops make every situation a split second event even though it is not. It is in your training, go into the room and within a split second pick out the perps and eliminate them without hitting anyone else.

Ever hear of the 21 foot rule, probably not, look it up. What it says is that a person with a knife in there pocket or waist band can draw that knife and be on top of a officer before that officer has the ability to draw and fire his service weapon in defense. Split second decision making.

Yes I'm aware, as I said I'm not a cop but hey my 35 years in war zones kind of give me some credit don't you think...lol

Draw the weapon, be ready... don't need to be a quick draw... In the military we point our guns a lot...

Also it’s not the officer job to create distance and observe, it’s to close the distance and react to the situation to stop the actions of the suspect and to protect the innocent public from harm.

Stop what actions? What actions did the kid do all alone on a picnic table within a second or even the 30 mins prior? What actions did this guy do outside of doing crazy things that for the whole time of his craziness didn't physically hurt anyone and didn't fire his shower head...

if they is potential that the suspect can hurt kill or maim an innocent person or officer then it is the officers job to stop that from happening.

True, how quick should you go to deadly force to do that...this has been my point all along, and what is this "potential" thing again...seems you are saying well the person has not actually done anything yet but I see potential, and so I will shoot him.

I think "potential" is used way too much just as "I felt threaten" to justify a shooting of a person who has yet to actually do real actionable violence/crime.

I know, I know you all will continue on saying the law is on your side and justifies your actions, and you all only got a split second, and "potential" is credible reason to use lethal force... It's not like you might understand my point, and I understand...that is the way society is today.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

As one who does carry, I can say we are 99.9% reactive, so no a person who carries would not have shot the guy because he was acting weird and pointing a finger, stick, shower head, phone, or even an air soft really doesn't matter. If you carry you need to be reactive and not triggered as a cop may be.

Actually, in many, if not most states, the guidelines that allow for the use of deadly force generally says something synonymous with the person needed to believe that their life was in danger or that their personal safety was in severely in jeopardy because of the actions of the other individual.

If a CCDW holder was carrying and saw this guy waiving his fake gun around and he was coming toward them or even just pointing it in their general direction, they would have been justified in shooting this man. Furthermore, many states allow for the use of deadly force in the protection of others, so if I had been on that street and had seen him point that object at, say, the man walking with his son, I would also have been justified in using deadly force in the protection of that other individual.

Of course, that all depends on state laws, and I'm sure that NY has some very restrictive laws (I haven't looked), but to claim that 'no person who carries would have shot the guy' is blatant opinion and certainly not consistent with reality nor with what the laws of many states allow.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Police were absolutely in the right. Would you rather that they wait until someone gets shot before responding with deadly force, or do the appropriate thing in this instance and neutralize a perceived threat who is pointing something that most New Yorkers, ignorant to what real guns actually are, assume is a real firearm.

I guess assumption is a good reason for lethal force too in NY.

I'm a fan of guns, shoot regularly and have shot many different weapons in my time--this absolutely appears to be a firearm, he is handling it and using it in a way that he wants people to think that it's a firearm, and police cannot wait until someone gets shot or killed before responding with deadly force in a situation like this.

The assumption here is that some guy doing crazy non-violent things for a long period of time all of a sudden needs to be eliminated. BTW I can see the shower head quite well...lol "police can not wait" kind of opens up the whole shoot first ask questions later... I don't think that is American way... You are innocent until proven guilty and assumptions is not a part of this.

So you road rage me because I did something really stupid, yelling your head off at me, I guess the assumption is I can now blow you away since you are showing some sign of aggression and who knows what you have in your car..

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: Xtrozero

Lemme see if i get this right..

You actually watched the video clips in your source and you are blaiming the police?

Don't jump on the don't ever blame the Police bandwagon....just don't ok...spare us.

I'm not on that bandwagon at all.
When Police are responsible they should be held accountable.
When they brutalize someone they should suffer a more severe penalty then the average person because their responsibilities are at a higher level than the average person.

Not the case on this one though...
In this case the person that was running around acting like he was about to shoot someone is responsible.

Or like I asked, you watched the video and are blaming the police ?

originally posted by: opethPA
Not the case on this one though...
In this case the person that was running around acting like he was about to shoot someone is responsible.

Or like I asked, you watched the video and are blaming the police ?

I had the radio on while showering this morning and heard about the circumstances and thought to myself, 'How can a shower head look like a gun?', and then I saw the video.

If the guy were in Texas he would have been shot long before the cops ever showed up.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Actually, in many, if not most states, the guidelines that allow for the use of deadly force generally says something synonymous with the person needed to believe that their life was in danger or that their personal safety was in severely in jeopardy because of the actions of the other individual.

If a CCDW holder was carrying and saw this guy waiving his fake gun around and he was coming toward them or even just pointing it in their general direction, they would have been justified in shooting this man. Furthermore, many states allow for the use of deadly force in the protection of others, so if I had been on that street and had seen him point that object at, say, the man walking with his son, I would also have been justified in using deadly force in the protection of that other individual.

God luck with all that if you shot the guy for being somewhat crazy, but never actually attacked anyone and ended up having a shower head as his weapon...

Cops should be trained to deal with crazy people, you are not, so in your case I would say you are more justifiable though you would go to jail and the trained cop would not.

a reply to: Xtrozero
Your arguments are simply ridiculous.

Let me repeat that which you chose to ignore: Your subjective parameters that you place on LEOs and what they should/could have done in a situation like this really demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the topic.

You can fabricate scenarios all that you want to, but to equate a split-second decision to use lethal force to a simple assumption is beyond juvenile in its deduction.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Cops should be trained to deal with crazy people, you are not, so in your case I would say you are more justifiable though you would go to jail and the trained cop would not.

So, tell me, then, in all of your extreme wisdom, how were these officers to have known that he was bipolar or crazy? And even if they knew that he was crazy, are you implying that crazy people never shoot at police or other people when confronted by police?

Mental disorders do not put people in some arbitrary class of protected citizens when they're doing threatening things on public streets using people for whatever crazy purpose that they want.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

God luck with all that if you shot the guy for being somewhat crazy, but never actually attacked anyone and ended up having a shower head as his weapon...

Also, you don't need luck when you know the law, that's why it pays to know the law.

Even if the luck comes from God.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

You can fabricate scenarios all that you want to, but to equate a split-second decision to use lethal force to a simple assumption is beyond juvenile in its deduction.

My point is EVERY scenario is not split second decision, though that is what cops make them all out to be. For a good while the guy was acting crazy and did not assault anyone, but now it becomes a split second decision to use lethal force, where was that information that the guy all of a sudden was going to commit assault of some kind? Oh I get it, the guy acted like he might so lets shoot him though he never did up to the point of getting shot...lol

Mental disorders do not put people in some arbitrary class of protected citizens when they're doing threatening things on public streets using people for whatever crazy purpose that they want.

Seems today everything is threatening doesn't it? Along your lines...just because someone acts crazy and you feel threaten by it doesn't justify lethal force.

The kid who most likely broke windows and ran to end up getting shot 6 times in the back because he was holding his phone, like everyone does. What did he do that was so threatening with his back to the police to not even have the chance to flinch much less follow orders.

We are missing the whole follow orders...get on the ground etc stuff

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Even if the luck comes from God.

Unless you live in Texas you will need something... And even in Texas you better put your TV in his arms after you shoot him...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

You can fabricate scenarios all that you want to, but to equate a split-second decision to use lethal force to a simple assumption is beyond juvenile in its deduction.

My point is EVERY scenario is not split second decision, though that is what cops make them all out to be. For a good while the guy was acting crazy and did not assault anyone, but now it becomes a split second decision to use lethal force, where was that information that the guy all of a sudden was going to commit assault of some kind? Oh I get it, the guy acted like he might so lets shoot him though he never did up to the point of getting shot...lol

The kid who most likely broke windows and ran to end up getting shot 6 times in the back because he was holding his phone, like everyone does. What did he do that was so threatening with his back to the police to not even have the chance to flinch much less follow orders.

Kid?????

You mean the one that was in Prison? Nice Try. He was such a good guy.

originally posted by: pavil

Kid?????

You mean the one that was in Prison? Nice Try. He was such a good guy.

Who are you talking about? The only kid I mention in all my posts is the one that was shot because he had an air soft and was hanging out on a bench all by himself.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

My point is EVERY scenario is not split second decision, though that is what cops make them all out to be.

No, actually they don't make "EVERY scenario" out to be a split-second decision. The reality is, though, that most of the time, they are.

For a good while the guy was acting crazy and did not assault anyone, but now it becomes a split second decision to use lethal force, where was that information that the guy all of a sudden was going to commit assault of some kind? Oh I get it, the guy acted like he might so lets shoot him though he never did up to the point of getting shot...lol

Laugh all that you want and try to make me out to be the irrational ignorant one, but I suggest that you read the actual law of New York that discusses acceptable scenarios where deadly force is justified.

I'll help you out by point you here, although I'm both uncertain that you will read it and/or understand it properly, judging by your propensity to laugh off informed comments.

Seems today everything is threatening doesn't it? Along your lines...just because someone acts crazy and you feel threaten by it doesn't justify lethal force.

Again, read the link, then stop lying to me and yourself. Or keep on with the ignorant line of commenting--that's up to you. All that I can do is try and point you to the right direction to inform yourself.

If willful ignorance and ill-informed opinions are your preference, there's nothing that I can do further by discussing this with you. I have little patience for people who blatantly ignore physical- and deadly-force laws, which are easily researched online, in lieu of opinion.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

If willful ignorance and ill-informed opinions are your preference, there's nothing that I can do further by discussing this with you. I have little patience for people who blatantly ignore physical- and deadly-force laws, which are easily researched online, in lieu of opinion.

Damn dude, by the law I can do a lot of things, doesn't make it right. A little observation of this guy, with guns drawn mind you, would have ended with a different outcome. In many ways the law allows them to do extreme measures legally when everyone else says WTF.

And the WTF is not because people do not know the law.