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

I've read some post but not all....I'm sure someone has pointed out or asked about the taser? Was the guy tasered along w/ being maced? I can only see use of a deadly weapon if he lunged toward an innocent by- standard. What I did see was this guy walking...fast walking...away from the cops.

In any event...cops are trained on so many levels how to deal w/ 1 man...1 knife...20 cops? Martial artist after all will teach 1 man many many ways to take away 1 knife from 1 man....and then teach that man a lesson....


Right? lol. I'm in Nooooo way on the side of the perp...but then...I don't know his side. I am on the side of....looks like the cops did it again!!!! What the heyHay!!!!

reply to post by Elexio


As a police officer we are trained to engage the largest part of the target that is avaliable so in this case it would be center mass on the torso. We don't aim at the head unless that is the only target visable.

If a officer draws his/her weapon they are doing it to stop a presented threat, they are trying to preserve the life of innocent bystanders if there are any and also their own life.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by goldcoin

 

They could have shot him in the legs , then disarm him.

mho

edit on 12-8-2012 by mideast because: (no reason given)

Ok, so you volunteer to be the innocent bystander that is behind the suspect when the cop starts trying to shoot at the legs instead of the center of mass on a moving target?

Jesus, you can lead a horse to water.....

I said that regarding this picture.

reply to post by mideast


Look at all those people behind him. All the buildings with people inside them behind those people. There are people layered on top of people layered on top of people. If you miss, you are going to hit someone else. Maybe a child, maybe just some homeless guy....but in all cases if you miss you will hit someone who has plans for later that day.

Look at his legs. They are open as he walks, and they are the most active part of his body. Constantly in motion. And, as i mentioned, they are apart. So they aren't a singular target, but rather two spindly, wobbly, moving targets that are flexing and twisting as he uses them.

Now, look at his torso. A singular mass of flesh, and you know that if you shoot torso the game is over. All those vitals being struck with the impact velocity of a police round (what, a .9mm? A .40? If it is a .40, it is devastating beyond belief. A 9mm is just devastating).

No, you don't try for the trick shot. You put the suspect down and end the day. If you have drewn your weapon it is life and death. In life and death there is no room for a trick shot.

reply to post by Golf66

Please don't confuse my position, I am saying that de-escalation and mitigation are the first choice but if it is determined that lethal force - a firearm is justified shooting center mass is the only acceptable answer.

That's exactly what I had said. I wasn't confusing your position

I had agreed to all those points. I suggested shooting leg was an option for non-lethal threat, but that wasn't what I was agreeing with.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Law Enforcement cannot cannot cannot cannot use lethal force to intentionally "wound" or give a "warning shot". This concept is NOT based on law enforcement policies or state laws. It comes as a direct result of Supreme Court rulings over the years.

If you are in a situation where you feel comfortable trying to wound an individual / give a warning shot to, then there is absolutely no reasons to use your duty weapon for that. Discharging your weapon at an individual is done with the sole intent of stopping the threat.

Let me give you a small court example of how wounding / warning shot would play out.

Defense Attorney - Officer Smith what was the reason you made contact with my client?
Officer - We had received reports of an individual acting strangley who was also possibly armed with a knife. The description given to the responding units matched the defendant.

Defense - When you made contact was my client armed?
Officer - Initially no however as we apprached we observed the individual pull a large knife out,. brandishing it in a manner that was dangerous to the public as well as the officers.

Defense - What did you do?
Officer - I drew my duty weapon and targeted the individual while giving loud clear verbal commands for him to drop the knife.

Defense - Did he?
Officer - No. He became more threatening and began to move away from the officers on scene, walking down the center of the road with civilians all around. Over the next 7 blocks he continued to refuse to comply with all commands to drop the weapon and to stop moving. Due to the number of civilians around within reach of the individual, the defendants odd behavior and his refusal to acknowledge and comply with officer commands, I decided that if the person did not comply with the next set of commands that he presented an imminent threat to everyone present, civilians and law enforcement alike.

At this poiunt you just explained to the court your justification for using your duty weapon to stop the individual. You gave details as to what you observed, his actions, the fact he is armed, the fact he refused all commands to stop. You explain the suspect demostrated a lack of concern for the people around his by refusing to comply with officer commands.

Everything you stated articulates why deadly force was used.

Now... If you cite all the info above and then state you purposely wounded him / gave a warning shot the next question to you is -

Defense - But officer, you just got done telling the court that this person was an imminent threat to public and officer safety did you not? If my client was such a threat as you described, then what possible motive do you have for using deadly force to intentionally wound my client?

You cannot tell the court he was an imminent threat only to exercise an option that is to the contrary of your testimony. Either my client was such a threat to the public at large or he was not, so which is it?

If he is such a threat is using deadly force to "wound" a valid response? What if you missed him? What if you are able to wound him but not stop him?

You get the idea... The law does not allow for Police Officers to wound / give a warning shot. You must remeber that law enforcement does not shoot to kill a person, we shoot to stop the threat. Think it through and then ask yourself how would I testify in court to using deadly force to wound a threat? Because discharging a weapon at another person is a crime, the box deadly force falls into is very well defined by the courts. A gun is used for a deadly force encounter, meaning you use it to stop a threat.

Any time a person takes the life of another person, the law was broke, even for law enforcement. The investigation focuses on all of the issues and circumstances and comes to a conclusion -

* - The force used was excessive and innapropriate = homicide
or
* - The force used was proportional and appropriate given the evidence and facts = justifiable homicide.

A duty weapon is reserved for deadly force encounters. If you are going to point it at a person the end result is clear. Do you really want law enforcement to be able to have the option of wounding people in non lethal force encounters? Just because Officer Smith of the NYPD has the skills to take a person out with civilians all around does not mean Officer Jones of the Tippacanoe Indiana police department will have the exact same result.

Now you have officers discharing their duty weapons far more than what is needed, all because people think we should wound while they ignore the fact that the person we are dealing with should comply with verbal commands to stop.

The fault does not reside with the police department, it resides with the person who opted to act in a manner that made him a threat and compounded that by refusing to comply with lawful commands.

I encourage people to watch this video as it will explain some of the myths verse facts.




Its 17 minutes so here is a breakdown of each section and its time index.
00:47 - IDFIT - Inter Agency Deadly Force Investigation Team
02:14 - Myth #1 Time is on the side of the good guys right? They are prepared for this kind of thing right?
03:43 - Myth #2 Why didn't the Police talk to aggressor down?
05:14 - Myth #3 It was just a knife and the officer had a gun. Why didnt the officer just disarm the subject?
06:19 - Myth #4 Why weren't less lethal tools used?
07:13 - Myth #5 Why not shoot the knife / gun out of their hand? Why not shoot to wound the subject?
08:45 - Myth #6 Why were they shot in the back? Why were they shot so many times?
09:52 - Myth #7 A video of an event will tell the whole story.
11:30 - What happens after an officer involved shooting?

reply to post by tracehd1


Sadly in the real world it is extremely difficult to disarm a guy trying to use a knife on you. Martial arts aren't really much help in the matter. Almost any respectable martial artist will tell you to not mess with a guy holding a knife. THe realities of edge play is that everyone gets cut when a knife is introduced into a fight. the guy holding the knife the guy getting stabbed. Anyone around the knife as its swung around. Knives are more dangerous than just about any other weapon up close including guns. They do more damage too.

It is very unrealistic to intercept a knife in motion. Most martial artists will not be successful in attempting to disarm the knife wielding attacker. Most Martial Art legends wouldn't be successful either. Don't think Aikido or Jujitsu with help you against a guy with a knife. It's FUBAR time when a knife is introduced plain and simple. Even Richard Marcinko says (and he''s the founder of SEAL team 6) to not mess with a guy with a knife, cause you are going to get cut. period. end of story. Having studied some silat and kali (martial arts well known for their knife techniques) I can tell you that in the hands of a desperate person a knife is much more deadly than a handgun.

The cops were right to shoot the guy. Next thing you know he's running into a crowd of people in times square and just shanking left and right. he could easily take out a few dozen people. Especially after the mass stabbing that happened in china a week earlier. The realities of a crazy guy with a knife in a large crowd was probably at the very front of their mind.

As I said in another thread there was an same situation in the UK, but the police used riot shields to tackle the person as seen here, but they could have just tasered him ?

30 UK Police vs man with machete

reply to post by Unity_99


Times Square always has a considerably higher concentration of police officers due to the crowded conditions and many tourist attractions (and probably to create an illusion of higher level of safety to out of towners). It's not surprising that there would be many officers to come quickly to the scene in that area.