NY-Cops Furious over 'Don't Kill" Bill...

[JJC]

City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day -- requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.
The "minimum force" bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to 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.
The bill -- drafted in the wake of Sean Bell's controversial police shooting death -- would force officers to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/05/25/news/photos_stories/cropped/cop--300x300.jpg
Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.
"These are split-second, spontaneous events -- and officers have to make a full assessment in a fraction of a second," said an angry Michael Paladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association. "It is not realistic, and it exists only in cartoons.
"It's moronic and would create two sets of rules in the streets if there is a gunfight. This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm. I don't know of any criminal who doesn't shoot to kill. They are not bound by any restrictions."
"The legislators have their heads buried in the sand, and we would not be able to fully protect the public or ourselves."
In fact, NYPD officers and detectives hit their targets only 17 percent of the time because of the incredibly stressful circumstances surrounding a shooting.
Paladino, whose association represents 5,100 investigators, said he showed the bill last week to Vice President Joe Biden, who scoffed and suggested it be dubbed "The John Wayne (http://www.nypost.com/t/John_Wayne)Bill" because it demands sharp-shooting skills of the kind only seen in movies.
Sponsored by Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson (D-Bedford Stuyvesant) and Darryl Towns (http://www.nypost.com/t/Darryl_Towns)(D-East New York), the bill came up at the Assembly Codes Committee but was held for further consideration rather than killed or put to vote before the full Assembly.
They did not immediately comment.
Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, the Codes Committee chair from Fort Greene and Williamsburg, said that the bill is well-intentioned but that the language may need changing.
THE PROPOSAL
Section of Assembly Bill A02952
“A police officer or peace officer . . . uses such force with the intent to stop, rather than kill . . . and uses only the minimal amount of force necessary to effect such stop.”
THE CURRENT LAW
Section of state Penal Law S 35.15(2)(a)(ii)
“A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person . . . unless: he or she is . . . a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter’s direction.”


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI#ixzz0oxplvZKD

Next they will demand that our cops use 15 inch billy clubs and whistles to patrol our streets. Tasers to be used only in lethal force encounters. :roll:

[scrybe]

People are ****ing stupid.

[seraosha]

"Center Mass" always worked for me.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Ridiculous.

[Dragonscript]

While i think it is a good idea that the police should try to use as little force as possible, i'm not out there risking my ass day after day. Keep the law as it is, the police don't need anything to make their job harder.

[Evolv5]

I tried to find something constructive or argumentative to say, but in the end all that came out was:

What a load of bollocks.

[Niall]

Sounds a bit dangerous.. But hey it says they only hit their target 17 percent of the time so perhaps aiming somewhere which isn't the torso will help their aim?

[Skippy_Doolittle]

As an ex-military and now current LEO, I would not do well with this law. Having lost a Brother recently on the job due to gunshot (Provincial Constable Vu Pham), there is no way I would 'wing' a target shooting at me, or about to harm another. Centre of mass until the threat is down.

[NeoConPatriot]

When a LEO makes the decision to shoot it is because there is no other option but to completely neutralize the threat. Shooting someone in the leg or arm would indicate that there was another way to neutralise the threat and there was no need to shoot in the first place. There is no reason to shoot someone unless the only way to stop the threat is to kill the threat.

What I mean is that If a suspect is actively engaged in shooting other people, as in a robbery, you cannot just shoot him in the arm and expect the threat to go away. In the real world a determined man will switch to his off hand and continue shooting. The only way to stop him is to kill him.

Also, read some the stories by Massad Ayoob. Most LEO's go through their career never having to shoot anybody. The one time they do it's over in less than 10sec. Ayoob tells stories about cops who start pulling the trigger during the draw leaving a trail of bullets all the way to the suspect, cops who empty whole mags without hitting anything etc... I've never experienced anything like this myself but I would think that when when sh*t goes down there is not usually enough time to pick which limb you want to shoot the other guy in.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

I agree Neo - however LEO in today's world do draw their pistols ALOT more than the old timers needed too. I work in rural area and we get gangs up here armed for stealing vehicles, domestics with fire arms more than is ever reported in the papers. The potential is getting higher and higher each year.

[ltrowley]

Whereas I feel this law has 'good intentions' It is also well documented that certain perperptrators under the the influence of various drugs (meth being a prime example) may simple shrug off a wing shot, let alone adrenaline charged psychos.

[JCR]

Sorry but various german states have had such a law for ages and anarchy hasn't broken out sofar.
At least here in Hesse a private (licensed) firearm owner has more rights to use his gun than the cops have.

[LineDoggie]

Prime example of NYC Dems who think you can shoot a gun out of someones hand like the movies.
NYPD officers fires 200 rds per year min. To think they will suddenly become Carlos Hathcock with a Glock is the mark of an Imbecile.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

I agree Linedoggie - I got a hell of alot more range time in the forces than I do now... Police shooting is last option always. 3 seconds, 3 rounds, 3 meters used to be the standard, now Police are engaged in longer gun fights with heavier weapons (C8 CQB) and longer ranges than ever. Shooting to 'wound' is not a realistic option... oh yeah, and EVERY round MUST be accounted for out of the barrel.

[msnger]

exactly an officer I know always said " We can't shoot for shlt"

[Supplanter]

Is this the bill? I don't see anything about shooting a person in the arms or legs. All I see is that the bill would have officers use the "minimum force" but it doesn't say what the minimum force is, could be 1 bullet could be 10 suspect could be wounded or could be killed. To convict someone under this amendment theoretically you'd need to prove that they intended to kill the suspect, right?

A02952 Text:

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

2952

2009-2010 Regular Sessions

I N A S S E M B L Y

January 22, 2009
___________

Introduced by M. of A. ROBINSON -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. TOWNS
-- read once and referred to the Committee on Codes

AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to the use of deadly force by
police officers

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of
2 section 35.15 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 511 of the laws of
3 2004, is amended to read as follows:
4 (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
5 officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
6 section 35.30 OF THIS ARTICLE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH
7 FORCE WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, THE PERSON WHO HE OR
8 SHE REASONABLY BELIEVES IS USING UNLAWFUL FORCE, AND USES ONLY THE MINI-
9 MAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH STOP; or
10 S 2. Paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of section 35.30 of the penal law,
11 as amended by chapter 843 of the laws of 1980, is amended to read as
12 follows:
13 (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
14 arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is neces-
15 sary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person
16 from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use
17 of deadly physical force; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH FORCE
18 WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, A PERSON FROM ESCAPING OR
19 RESISTING ARREST, AND USES ONLY THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO
20 EFFECT SUCH STOP.
21 S 3. Section 125.15 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
22 S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
23 A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
24 1. He OR SHE recklessly causes the death of another person; or

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD01859-01-9
A. 2952 2

1 2. He OR SHE commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her
2 death, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision
3 three of section 125.05 OF THIS ARTICLE; or
4 3. He OR SHE intentionally causes or aids another person to commit
5 suicide[.]; OR
6 4. HE OR SHE IS A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER WHO KILLS A PERSON
7 BY USE OF A LOADED WEAPON, FOR A PURPOSE OTHERWISE JUSTIFIED BY LAW,
8 WITH THE INTENT TO KILL, RATHER THAN STOP, SUCH PERSON, AND BEYOND THE
9 MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO STOP THE PERSON.
10 Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.
11 S 4. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
12 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=%0D%0At&bn=A02952&Text=Y

[Skippy_Doolittle]

lol- some of us like to keep our practice up, but most if not all Police Services I know of do not encourage shooting outside the minimum standards.

[b0sco]

Prime example of NYC Dems who think you can shoot a gun out of someones hand like the movies.
NYPD officers fires 200 rds per year min. To think they will suddenly become Carlos Hathcock with a Glock is the mark of an Imbecile.

Quite a few German police officers don't get to shoot more than 24 rounds a year.

Yeah, it's shameful.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

Wow that is shameful - hard to keep your skill set up in stress with only 24 a year. We are a bit better, at least I can choose to go to the range if I want with my firearm, just not encouraged to do so :)

[deagle]

they should only have that if they can guarantee illegally armed suspects shoot to injure as well.

if legislators are really that serious, just arm officers with tasers instead of guns.

i think officers are already trained to use less-lethal force, and when deaths are the result, its b/c the officer had absolutely no other choice already.

aren't they trained to fire weapon if their life, or other lives are already at stake , a life-death situation. and you expect them to shoot to injure ?



i wonder if that works in mexico also.


and if legislators really believe this is the best way to protect citizens w/o consulting police leaders, then their obviously not qualified, and should be removed from elected position.

[NeoConPatriot]

4. He or she is a police officer or peace officer who kills a person
7 by use of a loaded weapon, for a purpose otherwise justified by law,
8 with the intent to kill, rather than stop, such person, and beyond the
9 minimal amount of force necessary to stop the person.

Another wonderful worded piece of legislation. So if you shoot someone in the chest instead of the arm I guess that proves that the LEO had "...intent to kill....". How can you shoot someone and not have the intent to kill them?? Bullets do not have a "Kill" "Do Not Kill" switch. That's why shooting is the last resort, when nothing else will stop the suspect, cause he's probably gonna die when you shoot him. People get shot in the head and live while others have been shot in the arm and died from the hydrostatic pressure wave when it got to their major organs or they just plain bled out. This was written by people with no grounding in reality.:-(

[seraosha]

"Gosh, I was aiming at his hand, but accidently blew out his heart...oops."

"I was shooting the 50CAL at his equipment, you know his LBE, but accidently evaporated him...oops"

;)

[nullterm]

If there was a practical alternative then by all means. But given that there isn't it's the dumbest law suggestion I've ever heard of.

Not only does it remove the final option for dealing with hostile and armed criminals in extremely dangerous situations, it also removes a huge deterrent. It makes the police look like a joke to any criminal or anyone considering it knowing that if things come to its worst that the cops aren't allowed to shoot you.

Also adds hesitation on the officers part in life threatening (to him and bystanders) situations.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

Also makes the Police hesitant to deal with a situation to save lives if they know the state will burn them after.

[Laconian]

The way the law is written, it flies in the face of the "objective reasonableness" standard the the SCOTUS has established/reinforced on numerous use of force cases. The court has already ruled, that if a level of force is justified then the manner in which the force is applied is inconsequential. It has also ruled that if force applied to gain compliance/stop a threat and an unintended consequence occurs (e.g.- swing the baton at a subjects thigh and it misses and blows his knee out) the officer is not liable - crimnally or civilly.

This is just plain bad law.

[Migs]

We'll have a lot of "well I tried to shoot him in the arm" and "oops my bad" moments

[nullterm]

We'll have a lot of "well I tried to shoot him in the arm" and "oops my bad" moments

Then some kind of official/public backlash over a cop cover up, then threatened with losing firearms all together to be replaced with non-lethals.

[Migs]

Then some kind of official/public backlash over a cop cover up, then threatened with losing firearms all together to be replaced with non-lethals.
We will become...........like Britain :cantbeli:
Edit: It never ceases to amaze me how one ****ing trial can influence so much.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Next they will demand that our cops use 15 inch billy clubs and whistles to patrol our streets. Tasers to be used only in lethal force encounters. :roll:



It works in the UK!p-)

[Mofreaka]

I don't know ****, but I feel like police officers need to be able to defend themselves due to their line of work. They obviously don't shoot as often as movies depict them doing, but when they do, it's for a good reason. If it was that easy to just shoot peoples arms and legs then we wouldn't have this problem. This isn't ****ing airsoft lol.

[custodes]

There are police being killed in the news almost everyday around here. Really almost everyday. It is already too dangerous a job. These polititians are the same asspained types that are trying to take the ammo clips out of troops' rifles, while they are out patrolling in Afghanistan. And we all remember how well that worked in Beirut.

Bad idea.

[Niall]

We will become...........like Britain :cantbeli:


No the threat of police being shot is a magnitude higher in USA so it would be impossible for you to become like Britain. Over here we just require an armed unit to point guns at really dangerous crims. Whereas in America every cop needs a gun in case some drug addict shoots them.


On a more serious note were there too many criminals getting killed that they implemented this?

[custodes]

There are accidents. There are lots of guns in NYC too. We have to trust that the majority of the police know their jobs and are good citizens. We shouldn't make it so hard for them to do their job and stay alive at the same time though.

[gaijinsamurai]

Anyone who supports this bill is a total idiot.

[SkyUS]

When facing a life and death situation, it's either him or me. **** him, I chose to live. Any reasonable person would do the same.

Stupid law.

"hey why did you have to shoot him in the chest, could you like shoot him in an arm or leg so his shotgun would drop to the floor? Yeha mann"

[custodes]

When facing a life and death situation, it's either him or me. **** him, I chose to live. Any reasonable person would do the same.

Stupid law.

"hey why did you have to shoot him in the chest, could you like shoot him in an arm or leg so his shotgun would drop to the floor? Yeha mann"

They shouldn't have to pick: Die or jail time. Hmm?

Other things to think about at that second,eh?

[SkyUS]

They shouldn't have to pick: Die or jail time. Hmm?

Other things to think about at that second,eh?

Sorry I wasn't clear.

My point exactly. A cop facing a life and death situation, sure as hell won't be pondering on this issue. He will shoot to incapacitate the threat as quickly and safely as possible.

[Navel Lint]

I could be wrong but I done think there is any department out there that trains its officer to kill. In situations that call for deadly force, you shoot to stop the threat. And you dont shoot arms and legs. I've said it before, I'll say it again. You are responsible for the final resting place of every round that leaves your gun.




Why Shooting to Wound Doesn’t Make Sense Scientifically, Legally or Tactically


In this issue:
I. WHY SHOOTING TO WOUND DOESN’T MAKE SENSE SCIENTIFICALLY, LEGALLY OR TACTICALLY
II. ADVANCED INSTRUCTOR SEMINAR OFFERS LATEST ON USE-OF-FORCE ISSUES
=======================================
I. WHY SHOOTING TO WOUND DOESN’T MAKE SENSE SCIENTIFICALLY, LEGALLY OR TACTICALLY
Do police officers really have to kill people when they shoot them? Couldn’t they be more humane and just aim for arms or legs?
As we reported in Transmission #39 [2/28/06], a New York state senator in pondering these questions decided there’s way too much needless death being inflicted by cops these days. So he introduced legislation that would require officers to try to shoot suspects’ limbs when using deadly force. Officers who employed any more than the minimum force necessary to stop a life-threatening offender would face felony manslaughter charges.

Hammered by livid law enforcement protests, Sen. David Paterson [D.-Harlem] withdrew his bill [see FSN Update 3/1/06], but the sentiment behind it seems to remain firmly embedded in many civilian psyches.
“When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it’s very often ‘Why didn’t they just shoot him in the leg?’” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. “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 serves 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.”
In this transmission, Force Science News offers a “position paper” on why shooting to wound is neither practical nor desirable as a performance standard. We hope this information proves useful to you in addressing any shoot-to-wound advocacy that may arise in your jurisdiction.
PRACTICAL ISSUES. Sen. Paterson said his proposed legislation was motivated by the fatal shooting in New York City of Amadou Diallo, who was struck by 19 bullets when officers mistakenly thought he was reaching for a weapon as they approached him for questioning. Paterson believed that shooting an arm or leg would tend to stop a suspect’s threatening actions, precluding the need to shoot to the head or chest, where death is more probable. By requiring only the least amount of force needed to control a suspect he apparently hoped to reduce the likelihood of “excessive” shots being fired.


The article is continued here
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/03/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

[nullterm]

One more thought, to play the PC card back in the other direction, I have some objection to the word "kill" as far as what the police officers are trained todo. The intent is to stop whatever deadly threat that exists to the officer or more importantly bystanders. The death of the subject is a extremely unfortunate product of the situation, and something I believe any officer who has had to lives with the rest of their lives. I'm sure most cops would be very happy to go through their long career without having to have drawn their weapon on another person.

I'm not a LEO, that's just my outsider $0.02.

[LineDoggie]

It works in the UK!p-)

Obviously......
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article232930.ece
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2097923/Medal-for-stabbed-hero-cop.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/09/23/two-held-as-cop-is-stabbed-98487-19834110/

[custodes]

Sorry I wasn't clear.

My point exactly. A cop facing a life and death situation, sure as hell won't be pondering on this issue. He will shoot to incapacitate the threat as quickly and safely as possible.

I know.It's all good. I was agreeing with you. Been hoping back and forth between threads. :-)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Think about. How ****ed up must a society be in which frontline LEO need to be armed to be able to do their job is?

Surely we need to look at what causes crime and tackle it, instead of reacting.

[custodes]

Think about. How ****ed up must a society be in which frontline LEO need to be armed to be able to do their job is?

Surely we need to look at what causes crime and tackle it, instead of reacting.

We do. Over and over again. I don't see any new fangled ways of dealing with it. Look all ya want. If ya see something good and new, not the same old rehash, clue us in.

[LineDoggie]

Yeah USA ****ed up society, explain this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/13/2515022.htm

[BLUE THOR]

Go all out and but telescopic sights on your pistols - it worked in Predator 2 didnt it!?!

Honestly, shoot the bastard centre of seen mass and say you aimed for the arm.
who's going to prove you wrong?

[orange]

Here in Sweden, LEOs are instructed and should always try to aim the limbs. They should also asses the impact each bullet makes between shots. This is what they are trained and instructed to do. And most LEO shootings here actually wings the perp. But, in the cases that have been were lethal force with a firearm has happened, the LEO has always been cleared since the investigators have found that the LEO had no other option but to shoot center mass even though he/she actually didn't follow the law on how to act.

But then again, most shootings were limbs have been shot the perp normally goes for the LEO with a knife. If met with a firearm, most officers would most likely fire center mass.

[brainplay]

Here in Sweden, LEOs are instructed and should always try to aim the limbs. They should also asses the impact each bullet makes between shots. This is what they are trained and instructed to do. And most LEO shootings here actually wings the perp. But, in the cases that have been were lethal force with a firearm has happened, the LEO has always been cleared since the investigators have found that the LEO had no other option but to shoot center mass even though he/she actually didn't follow the law on how to act.

But then again, most shootings were limbs have been shot the perp normally goes for the LEO with a knife. If met with a firearm, most officers would most likely fire center mass.

Can you provide any stats to prove this? So far, I've only been able to find 4 counts of appendage shots made by police sharpshooters in stand off situations and only 1 by a patrol officer. And the one by the patrol officer seems to have been on a target that was not moving.


This law even if passed will be rescinded shortly after the number of civil suits against the city start to pile up. Chances to seriously maim or even permanently disable someone due to a flopped leg or arm shot will have trial lawyers flocking there.

[orange]

Can you provide any stats to prove this? So far, I've only been able to find 4 counts of appendage shots made by police sharpshooters in stand off situations and only 1 by a patrol officer. And the one by the patrol officer seems to have been on a target that was not moving.

I'm actually going to have to admit that I was wrong here. I wrote what I thought was right but looked in to it more deeply now and found out that I was a bit wrong -

The Swedish law states that -"vid skottlossning mot person skall eftersträvas att endast för tillfället oskadliggöra honom", which translates roughly to -"when opening fire against a person the officer will sought to subdue him for the moment to eliminate the immediate threat". (This is not my finest hour of translating.).

What this actually means is that the use of firearms is allowed if the situation requires it BUT the officer should always try to momentarily incapacitate the perp, IE, subdue by shooting in the limbs.

There are two types of reasons for a LEO to open fire where one is to defend himself or another. "Nödvärn". In these cases, in which most shootings happens, the use of lethal force can be accepted.

The other reason is called "Laga Befogenhet" which basically means that one is allowed to use the force necessary, without killing, to arrest a perp that is NOT posing a real and immediate threat to you or another person. In these cases, which constitutes around 5-10% of all shootings, the use of lethal force would NOT be allowed.

LEOs in Sweden are infact trained to fire center mass most of the time but they are also highly encouraged to make minimum damage. This, as the link I provided and LEOs I know, states that most officers will almost always try to hit the limbs. They are also infact tought to always asses the damage between shots. What this actually means in the real world and not in the academy is somewhat beyond me.

Also, the provided link states that in the "county" of Skåne during the years 1985-2004, LEOs opened fire on 73 occasions. On these 73 occasions 8 perps were shot dead, 20 injured and the rest was warningshots, misses and accidental discharges. During the year 2004 in Skåne, 2000 LEOs were on duty, they were sent on a total of around 200 000 calls. On 3 of these calls shootings from LEOs occured. So, in conclusion, the problem might not be as big here in Sweden and laws cannot really be compared to The States...

Source (in Swedish): A final exam by a law student from the Legal Faculty in Lund. http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1556366&fileOId=1563965

[Skippy_Doolittle]

Most LEO's I know and work with, including those involved in Police related shootings shoot centre of mass, not for limbs. We are not sharpshooters nor are we shooting to 'wound' or 'maim'. We shoot to save the life of another who is about to be killed or because we ourselves are about to be killed. I do not want to speak for your LEO's, but any Police I know and have met from other countries say the same thing. Stop the threat, not wound him.

[Laconian]

The idea of shooting to wound is absurd for a number of reasons but here are two: First, deadly force by definition means that amount of force that can be expected to cause death or serious physical injury. Serious physical injury is further defined as any injury requiring surgery to correct. As such, shooting for a limb is the same level of force as shooting center of mass. and its the same as if I pulled out my navysealcombatdiveknife and stabbed you or jammed my government issue Skillcraft ball point pen into your eye socket. Legally it is the same level of force. And the Supreme court has said, once a level of force is justified the manner in which the force is applied is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has also said that it acknowledges that use of force incidents are quickly and ever changing events that CANNOT be judged using 20/20 hindsight. They must be viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable officer, considering all the facts (and any intuitions drawn from them) known by the officer at the time of the incident. So from a legal perspective, the law places an undue burden on LEOs and flies in the face of case law.

Second, the dynamics of gunfights and shooting incidents - most times- occur so quickly and rapidly that an officer will be unable to get a great sight alignment/sight picture on a limb on a moving/fighting subject at any range outside a contact shot, & even that is dicey. As such a center mass shot designed to stop a threat is the safest thing for for concerned, the LEO, the subject, and the general public (bystanders/innocents in the AO), because it has the highest potential for ending the incident quickly. This law once again shows a complete non-understanding of deadly force encounters by legislators that are pandering to some group and are completely ignorant of the situation their attempts are going to create. Use of force is no joke, it is the most serious thing a LEO can/will do. There is no nice way to shoot/hit somebody, this only puts more pressure on folks and will result in more injuries to cops and others.

[orange]

As a clarification - I do not agree with the proposal but was only trying to state how it is here, in Sweden. And, as I pointed out earlier - If a perp aims a weapon at a LEO and the LEO belives he is in danger, he is in his full rights to open fire on the perp and actually kill the perp as long as no other option with the use of lesser force is available.

[Warrigal]

"Center Mass" always worked for me.

I agree.......

[Laconian]

As a clarification - I do not agree with the proposal but was only trying to state how it is here, in Sweden. And, as I pointed out earlier - If a perp aims a weapon at a LEO and the LEO belives he is in danger, he is in his full rights to open fire on the perp and actually kill the perp as long as no other option with the use of lesser force is available.

If a subject poses an iminent threat of death or serious physical injury to a LEO or another person, then the use of deadly force is authorized. If a verbal warning is feasible and won't increase risk to the officer or other person, then one should be given, according to the Supreme Court. An attempt at lesser force is not required if these conditions are met.

[ting]

Think about. How ****ed up must a society be in which frontline LEO need to be armed to be able to do their job is?

Surely we need to look at what causes crime and tackle it, instead of reacting.

I completely agree. The world except for the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand is totally ****ed up.:lol:

[skipperbob]

This bill has no chance in passing. Just another attempt by lame politicians on both sides to say they did something by introducing a bill they know will not pass. Some have been known to even introduce a bill and then down the road vote against it so they can have it both ways! What scum.

[coltfan111]

Prime example of NYC Dems who think you can shoot a gun out of someones hand like the movies.
NYPD officers fires 200 rds per year min. To think they will suddenly become Carlos Hathcock with a Glock is the mark of an Imbecile.

:lol:.

Well it would be funny if wasn't going to put officers at much higher risk.

[Barry Swampburger]

In the time it takes to react, draw and aim your weapon, a knife wielding crazy can close the distance with you by 21 feet. Pretty scary when many confrontations are closer than that.

[vinny_121_ND]

As an ex-military and now current LEO, I would not do well with this law. Having lost a Brother recently on the job due to gunshot (Provincial Constable Vu Pham), there is no way I would 'wing' a target shooting at me, or about to harm another. Centre of mass until the threat is down.

Agreed. Whoever came up with this law probably sat at a desk and never patrolled the streets.

[Roaming East]

Id rather the cops learn how to shoot more. Especially the NYPD. these are the guys who will empty multiple mags into an unarmed perp and only hit him twice. If you gonna shoot, at least do it well.

[Navel Lint]

Its not always easy to hit a moving target, sometimes in the dark, when you are getting shot, or shot at.

[domokun]

Sounds like retarded law.

Somehow I'm quite certain that officers in most of countries usually apply least lethal force that will solve situation, with minimum possible harm to all parties involved, even to criminal. I'm pretty certain that most officers will do just "wounding" shot if that is possible, it just isn't enough in some cases. Kinda reminds me about what happened to shotguns and assault rifles of Finnish police about decade ago, couple criminals died after damage to major arteries with aimed shots to legs.... hippies cried havoc and MP5 replaced shotties and rifles. Couple years ago police was looking for something with more stopping power to replace MP5 as 9mm apparently isn't enough as criminals have started to wear body armors.

[Soldat_Américain]

Would have to increase the effective range of the taser pistol, they have the Mossberg one but I don't know it's range. The new X3 allows the user to engage multiple targets so I guess the state of New York might be purchasing the first million or so.

[Wake27]

People are ****ing stupid.

Legislators and politicians are ****ing stupid. Their heads' aren't burried in the sand, they're buried in their ass'.

[Laconian]

Would have to increase the effective range of the taser pistol, they have the Mossberg one but I don't know it's range. The new X3 allows the user to engage multiple targets so I guess the state of New York might be purchasing the first million or so.

The taser is an intermediate weapon. It is not designed to be used in deadly force situations, although it has a place in LE use of force, it is a system, that like all systems, has limitations.

[Soldat_Américain]

Well, if the legislation says that you have to shoot to wound you'd it would be better to another option than a firearm. A pistol or rifle is a deadly force option because I know that LEOs only start shooting if it is the only option.

[Laconian]

No, it's not a better option. Shooting, even to wound, is the use of deadly force. If you are at that level of control, the taser is an inadequate weapon. I don't give rat's a$$ what some lame-brained, flower-smelling, head-up-a$$, vote hungry politician says.

[vinny_121_ND]

No, it's not a better option. Shooting, even to wound, is the use of deadly force. If you are at that level of control, the taser is an inadequate weapon. I don't give rat's a$$ what some lame-brained, flower-smelling, head-up-a$$, vote hungry politician says.

True. If somebody is shot in the femoral artery in the leg, or brachial artery in the arm, the person won't live long.

[szr]

The bill is the creation of persons with no understanding nor desire to understand even the most fundamental aspects of the realities of law enforcement. The bill is a trophypiece that, even in its unratified state, its authors can point to come election time. The bill has no chance of becoming law in New York State.