Liberal, Anti-Cop bias

CBS "News" Story

NYPD officers shot and killed a 23 year old male in the early morning hours outside a strip club. Notice the headline: Unarmed Groom Killed By NYPD Bullets.

Deadly force policy dictates that the officer(s) involved in the incident must have a reasonable fear that his/her life or the lives of others are in immediate danger. There is no deadly force policy anywhere in the United States that limits officer's use of deadly force to only those situations where the bad guys have guns. Therefore, the headline describing the victim as "unarmed" is inflammatory, biased and irresponsible. Additionally, the description of the victim as a "groom" is a further attempt to elicit sympathy for the victim at the hands of the evil NPYD.

Officers are trained in the academy to keep shooting until the threat no longer exists. I carried a .40 Glock with 15 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. In addition, I had 2-15 round magazines on my belt for a total of 46 rounds. Glock 9MM's had an even larger capacity. My point is, the number of bullets fired at the suspect is irrelevant so long as the threat continues to exist. The fact that three officers saw the same threat and all fired numerous times indicates that a deadly force situation existed which required numerous rounds to be fired to stop the threat. If only one officer fired but two others, after viewing the same scenario, did not fire, I would be much more concerned. The cops involved don't check with each other prior to firing to determine who is going to shoot and how many rounds they are going to discharge. The media always focus on the number of rounds fired when in reality, the total number is meaningless. Each officer viewed the circumstances as a deadly force situation and each officer responded in the same manner which seems appropriate. If the media (or Al Sharpton) wrote the deadly force policy, the officers would need to communicate which of them would be the "designated shooter". Once determined, the officer would fire only once to determine the effectiveness of said shot. Upon reevaluation, if the threat still exists, 1 more shot can be fired and so on until the threat ceases to exist.... or the cop(s) are murdered; whichever comes first.

The victim in this case was behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. What the media and Al Sharpton fail to realize is that despite the movies and television, shooting at a moving target at night is difficult. And, unlike the movies, the bad guys don't get blown off their feet when struck. Especially from a 9MM. It is entirely possible that all three cops, upon reacting to the same threat fired numerous times at the victim and missed. Thus, the threat was still present which necessitated more rounds being fired.

"How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?" Sharpton asked. It's easy Al… if you knew anything about police policy and procedure you wouldn't have to ask such a reactionary and uninformed question; because a police officer fearing for his life or the life of others is trained to fire and keep firing until the threat stops. All three officers viewed the same threat and reacted similarly which tends to enforce the theory that their lives were in danger. Life would be wonderful if in a split second, I could identify the threat, decide that deadly force is necessary, communicate to my partners that I would be the one to shoot, take aim, fire once and stop the threat...

My take on deadly force is that the bad guy is placing me in a situation where I have to take such severe measures that he may die. The consequence if I fail is that I may die and my kids grow up without a Dad. If you place me in that situation, I will prevail by all means necessary. If that means shooting you 46 times, so be it. Don't place me in a situation where I am forced to shoot you and you won't have to worry about the number of rounds I expend. My department wouldn’t have given 46 rounds if it were imprudent for me to utilize them if necessary. If I ran out of bullets, I'd do whatever necessary to ensure that I go home at night.

There's an old police saying "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"...

CBS News can go to hell for their obviously slanted attempt at journalism. But from the network that brought Dan rather, what is one to expect? And Al Sharpton? Keep shooting off your mouth about matters for which you know nothing. You keep proving the fact that it's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt.