New York police shoot knife-wielding man dead near Times Square

NYC is a police State plain and simple.

A marijuana violation should not turn into a lethal encounter.

So he resisted you are telling me the best answer is his death?

If 15-20 police cannot disarm and subdue a person with a knife I think they need to find alternative employment.

What's the worst one cop gets a few stitches while the others beat him into submission. So this guy is dead because some cops didn't like needles? All for pot...nice one NYC. Lets just hope this doesn't happen when they start making salt and soda arrests as well.

It amazes me the police in NYC have greater right to self protection than average citizens. The citizens outside their home in NY have a duty to retreat in the face of a threat. The guy wasn't a threat to the general public the police made him a threat to themselves. Wait him out he gets tired and you subdue him.

In the States that allow a citizen to shoot to kill if threatened in a public place I will accept the police acting the same but if they are going to take away an untrained citizens right to defense while granting themselves latitude I can't dig it.

reply to post by Golf66

It amazes me the police in NYC have greater right to self protection than average citizens. The citizens outside their home in NY have a duty to retreat in the face of a threat. The guy wasn't a threat to the general public the police made him a threat to themselves. Wait him out he gets tired and you subdue him.

All emergency services workers have a greater right to self protection than those they are entrusted to protect, this includes police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and EMTS. They begin their shift saying they will make it home safe to their families at the end of it. Citizens have an obvious duty to retreat because they are not professional trained to mitigate a situation like this. We don't know that this person wasn't a threat to the general public. Police officers are trained to eliminate threats, not wait him out till he gets tired. They aren't trained to shoot people in the hand, or in the leg, they shoot the head and chest-center mass...eliminate the threat.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
They aren't trained to shoot people in the hand, or in the leg, they shoot the head and chest-center mass...eliminate the threat.

I understand that's protocol.

Not sure I understand why. I mean I understand eliminating the threat. If he had a gun, you shoot center mass. If someone has a knife you need to take away their mobility to eliminate threat as the knife is only lethal in close proximity. So why not train for for both situations.

*yawn*

Just another pothead with a death wish.

Sure have been seeing a lot of those lately, huh?

www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Someone on drugs or mentally ill may not be stopped with a peripheral shot. Head, chest-center mass...eliminate the threat. A study produced by the FBI evaluating shot placement versus caliber revealed that a person can remain a threat for up to 15 seconds with useful consciousness despite a direct shot to the heart. I will try to find the source for you. Eliminate the threat. Pure and simple.

reply to post by magma

Maybe this guy was supposed to have a gun but somehow when his triiger code was sent he forgot his training and picked up the knife instead

Or maybe....he was just a nutter with a knife.......you do know there are some right nutters out there don't you?

There was a lot of cops... A LOT -which is a bit strange

And if a cop is not able to shoot someone in the legs from that kind of close range.... they should not be allowed a gun in the first place! A shot or two to the knees/legs and I don't care who you are or what you are on - you will be on the floor screaming for help.

After centuries of gun weapon technology, people still have no respect how precious ones life is. Why can't a bunch of cops taser the suspect and let him speak in court?

Too convenient to take someone's life away. I just wish police and soldiers use specially-designed tranquilizer pellets. Sure they can design, it's not impossible.

Originally posted by FlyingSorcerer
There was a lot of cops... A LOT -which is a bit strange

Well I was once written a ticket for drinking in public by 8 cops that just happened to be grouped together hanging out in the street.

I actually took that to court and won I didn't have alcohol in the bottle.

And if a cop is not able to shoot someone in the legs from that kind of close range.... they should not be allowed a gun in the first place!

That's my opinion. Legs are a big mass also.

A shot or two to the knees/legs and I don't care who you are or what you are on - you will be on the floor screaming for help.

Also my stance. Mental illness or drugs isn't going to overcome sufficient damage to the legs.

reply to post by Cosmic911

A study produced by the FBI evaluating shot placement versus caliber revealed that a person can remain a threat for up to 15 seconds with useful consciousness despite a direct shot to the heart. I will try to find the source for you.

Alright thanks! I'd be interested in reading that.

reply to post by Golf66

Good point. Where is the "equal protection" under the Constitution for citizens to use force to protect themselves vs the right of police (the state) to use deadly force when merely threatened (this goes for killing dogs as well as people)?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Perhaps but with most taser videos I have seen the subdued person loses all motor functions and falls to the ground writhing uncontrollably.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Unfortunately that is not their policy. They are trained to shoot to kill rather than shoot to wound. Why? If you shot to wound and they died anyway or you missed and hit a bystander then you open the police dept to a law suit. Sad tho as death is permanent.

Originally posted by Cosmic911All emergency services workers have a greater right to self protection than those they are entrusted to protect, this includes police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and EMTS.

Hardly, I think you have mistake the word “right” for the word “authority”. No one in America has more “rights” than another under the law regardless of his/her profession. Also, call me crazy but if an EMT, firefighter or paramedic were to gun down a knife wielding suspect without first retreating in NY State they too would be in violation of the law as they are not commissioned law enforcement officers.

Originally posted by Cosmic911 They begin their shift saying they will make it home safe to their families at the end of it. Citizens have an obvious duty to retreat because they are not professional trained to mitigate a situation like this.

I think it is the exact opposite – while a citizen might well have the right to carry a weapon for self defense and be well trained (as a matter of fact in NYC training is required for CCW permit) in its use he/she is forbidden from using it by NY law outside the home for self defense without first trying to find an avenue of retreat regardless of the threat to themselves or others.

Conversely, the average civilian doesn’t have access to the training law enforcement officers have in the methods of verbal de-escalation, reading people’s body language and assessing their intent. Further, the average citizen certainly doesn’t have training in disarming a foe wielding a knife or using debilitating holds etc. Even if a citizen could find someone to teach them these techniques they would not have the experience a law enforcement officer gains over their daily use in the exercise of his duties.

Originally posted by Cosmic911We don't know that this person wasn't a threat to the general public.

Actually, we do – we have logic and the ability to reason. He had a weapon, a “machete like knife” according to the report. Unless, it magically appeared along with the police he had this in his possession for some time prior to the arrival and confrontation by the police for the heinous crime of getting high. However, during all that time (presumably a while as he was homeless I think and without a place to store such a weapon other than on his person. He didn’t brandish, threaten or use the knife on a citizen. The “knife” didn’t come out until the police confronted the man therefore using simple cause – effect we can ascertain the cause for its use and therefore the target of the wielders ire was the…police. While no one’s state of aggression is 100% predictable we can from these facts conclude that the suspect’s aggression was toward the police themselves rather than the general public.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Police officers are trained to eliminate threats, not wait him out till he gets tired.

Actually, this is also not true. They are trained to respond to any threat using the least amount of force possible responding with verbal de-escalation and negotiation (there is a whole field of police work on negotiating with hostile subjects) unless they or the public are in immediate danger. Unless the “machete like knife” was some magic missile type implement that can cover great distances and return quickly to the hands of the wielder no one who backed out of arms length was in immediate threat of death or serious injury. So I think in this case what you have is a bunch of overreaction on the part of the police who failed to call upon any of the lesser means at their disposal before they resorted to overwhelming and excessive force.

Originally posted by Cosmic911They aren't trained to shoot people in the hand, or in the leg, they shoot the head and chest-center mass...eliminate the threat.

With this I agree – if after you have used all other means available you must shoot – shoot to kill. Certainly had the suspect a gun I would be on your side. However, it was a “knife” a melee weapon which requires proximity to use. Further, had you or I shot someone with a knife even if the person had backed us into a corner in NYC we’d likely be charged with improper use of force because we could most likely have used a less lethal (improvised melee implement, chair shovel cane, whatever) to achieve parity of force without lethal result.

The problem is the police know they can claim the man was a danger and most people won’t even question it. I mean why de-escallate and neutralize, that takes time and a cop might (gasp) even get cut when you can just shoot him up when you have him out numbered 20:1 and be at the doughnut stand for coffee by lunchtime. I mean who expects the police to expend time and effort to protect life – even the life of a criminal when they can shoot people with realitive impunity

Originally posted by studio500
Incredible!!!!!

There was no other way to take this man into custody other than via termination of life.

I have in my time arrested and subdued almost 60 such offenders without so much as a Taser or a Casco baton.

Boy life has become so cheap and so disposable in some countries it's scary.

edit on 11-8-2012 by studio500 because: (no reason given)

Sure you have.

I love how everyone is wondering why there were so many cops near TIMES SQUARE.

Really?! I think it's pretty obvious.

Anyway,I don't get some of you. The police reacted how they should have.Some of you go way out of your way to attack the police.They're damned if they do and damned if they don't on this site. What if this man would have stabbed 5 people,how would you feel then? I know exactly how you'd all feel,you'd still be criticizing the police,which is easy to do from your comfy computer chairs.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Golf66

 

Good point. Where is the "equal protection" under the Constitution for citizens to use force to protect themselves vs the right of police (the state) to use deadly force when merely threatened (this goes for killing dogs as well as people)?

Indeed a dog bite is really no big deal (rarely fatal to an adult) - alll dogs bark and posture few actually bite but why wait and see which it is when you can shoot first and no one will ask questions later. Just say “it was aggressive” and you won’t even have to get a penicillin shot – I hear they are very painful.

Bottom line is we as citizens should expect our police to shoot only as a last resort not out of expediency or fear of possible injury short of loss of life.

However, for some reason it has become proceedure to kill dogs and people to avaid injury even if it is unlikely the injury will be life threatening. Lethal force should only be a response to lethal threat not an injurious threat.

Lethal force should only be a response to lethal threat not an injurious threat.

reply to post by Golf66


Nice summation of the point. I am in agreement with you

And to further that understanding I still stick to my belief that training can include shooting target areas appropriate to the situation i.e disabling mobility if target has a close-ranged weapon. I see no reason a human is incapable of that training considering more elite agencies train special forces operatives etc. It's possible. And when human life is on the line it's of utmost consideration at least.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Well tasers which I don't even believe in their use of, how they use them, do require close range, and a true crazed individual with a big knife, if he was in shape or really fast, could hurt someone bad.

but..

he's not gonna get past being tasered.....

but who really knows what happened..

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by magma
Headline should read

Cops shoot and kill mentally ill knife wielding man without following correct procedure

Obviously the cops are under a new brief of zero tolerance

Maybe this guy was supposed to have a gun but somehow when his triiger code was sent he forgot his training and picked up the knife instead

Dead men tell no stories

Well, down here we wouldn't have waited for the cops to shoot this guy.

I often wondered why so many people are on death row in texas. Thanks for your
Enlightement

I just want to know why they don't fire warning shots or in the moments leading up to having to feel fear for their lives why not incapacitate him with a shot to the thigh or arm unless we are all simply combatants?