police shoot bystanders, charge mentally ill man with assault

There is no possible credible prior training for dealing with the mentally disturbed under which the cops acted appropriately. Maybe they were badly trained, or maybe they ignored their training, but they certainly did not act appropriately. Being a cop is a tough job. Being a gunslinging vigilante who shoots first and asks questions later when people act a little kooky is not so tough a job. If police want to be treated with the respect deserved for holding a dangerous job then they can't go around shooting people at the first hint of being scared.

If your actions harm society you are responsible.

This mans action led to two others being hurt.

He is responsible.

Police using a gun in a crowd where a Taser will do the job are the ones harming society.

They were not over reacting.

They arrive on scene. They encounter a man who is hostile and threatening to kill himself. These officers also know that suicide by cop is a possibility. They don't know this guy is armed or not. He reaches into his pants and they shoot.

I don't like your post. I'm going to go murder some people over it, because I'm bad at responding to things.

Did your actions lead to those deaths?

It doesn't always work like that on the street.

Or do you just expect police to never fire their weapons at all because of a fear of what is behind the target.

You are wrong.

The police are not liable in this case unless you can show they were reckless in firing their weapons.

No court agrees with what you just wrote.

I was told by a police officer and I thought I read it online (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that most police officers are

allowed to use lethal (gunshot) force if someone with apparent hostile intent or is a danger comes within 8 yards of them (24 feet).

Because 24 feet is considered close enough that someone can lunge and take down a policeman and seize his weapon.

No. Because you cannot draw a connection between an opinion in cyberspace and killing someone by any reasonable standard.

And you are not a police officer. You have not been trained or given the responsibility of using lethal force.

Link?

The NYPD has an average of 80% of their shots missing.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is unacceptable if they're also being trained to presume mortal danger as their startign point.

Neither are you, nor anything in the chicken coop.

Discharging weapons on a busy street? Of course that's reckless, you nitwit.

Don't you own guns? I could swear you do.

If you do then you should know better then make a claim as stupid as you just did.

Of course they have to qualify on a regular basis. But shooting a non moving target is radically different then shooting at a moving human who maybe in the process of drawing his own weapon.

No.

However if I incite you to do something I might be in trouble. If for instance I told you to go kill yourself because you're a child molesting freak then a small possibility exists that I could face charges.

judging by this, neither should most cops.

Excuse me. But trained police officers are NOT trained "one shot/one kill" military grade snipers. Which is why most police officers are trained to fire in bursts of three shots.

For that matter, IIRC the majority of American police officers NEVER fire their gun in anger in their entire careers. So it isn't like they spend lots of time gaining experience firing their gun at actual people.

Do the cops have to wait for traffic to clear?

Maybe they should call a timeout and clear the area first.

Tell me.....

What should the police have done if he had had a gun and started shooting?

Do you think they still should make sure there is nothing behind their "target" and that if they shoot and miss are liable for what they hit?

Don't know what the police would've done but I know what the "public" would do. Be howling that the police "didn't do their job" by not taking the guy down immediately.

Seems to me as time goes on there is a bigger and bigger gulf between law enforcement and regular civilians.

Popular entertainment probably plays a role.

In television and the movies law enforcement is able to easily take down a criminal with one or two precise shots.

Alternatively, TV and movies routinely show shootouts where enough ordnance is thrown around to conquer a third world country and an innocent bystander almost never gets hurt much less killed.

Hell, you still have people ask all the time about "why police don't shoot the gun out of someone's hand".

I'm not suggesting they should be snipers... that'd require them to carry rifles. America is getting militarized enough inside it's own borders.
What I am saying is that the mindset that anyone displaying a diminshed mental capacity is presumed immediately as a deadly threat needs to be examined. That going to the gun as a first instinct when they miss 4 out of five shots minimum in a dynamic situation is the wrong training.

Zombie's responses in this thread alone underscore my point.

Have to say I'm mostly with Zombie on this. The officers might well have acted poorly, but the story as given doesn't necessarily say so. I'm far from an apologist for police, much less for anyone who'll first choose to try and solve a problem with a gun, but I don't see that the police created the problem here.

I can't necessarily fault them for shooting the guy if they actually thought he was going for a gun. It's the part where the police shot innocent bystanders because of both their incorrect assumption and their poor aim, then proceeded to pin the entirety of the blame (and punishment) on anyone but themselves.

Even the best trained, highly competent, motivated and professional police officer is going to make a mistake from time to time. (not necessarily in this case). It is a tragedy that a police officers mistake can cost someone their life. But I doubt anyone is as remorseful as a police officer who makes a deadly error. I've known of police officers who have taken their own lives after making a tragic error.

This might be my lack of understanding of the American court system, but I don't see that anyone has repudiated guilt on the officers' part so far. I only see people (and not the officers themselves) who said that the suicidal person is to be blamed. Does one exclude the other in your laws?

Yes I own guns, and there are gun ranges that include moving targets, if the NYPD conducted proper mandatory regular training of it's armed officers, the odds of civilian injury would have dropped drastically. If you can't assess the situation, keep your cool under pressure and hit a moving target you shouldn't be carrying a weapon.

I know of no training to shoot in three round bursts. I've never heard of that.

We are trained to shoot until the threat is over.

And I say we because I get the exact same training in firearms that police and other law enforcement agencies in Florida get.

This is true.

Read the story again. Here let me quote it since no one wants to actually read it:

"Broadnax was initially charged with menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest, but a grand jury chose to indict Broadnax for assault."

The police didn't charge the man with assault.

So, if I found a way to become 100% bulletproof, and went full-on supervillain, you would actually be rule bound to empty the whole clip, and throw the gun?

Moving targets on a gun range still do not move like a human do.

I wish the NYPD and all agencies including mine conducted real training where you're being shot at with sim rounds by real humans in addition to training on the range but the reality is that no one wants to pay for it. It's expensive. Even simple range training is expensive and is usually one of the things that gets cutback first.

Once we figured out you were 100% bulletproof the police would just run you over. Your a 100% bulletproof not 100% car proof.