NY: Not easy to be a cop

[seamusTX]

Long story short: In New York City in 2008 a man was acting irrationally while he was alone in the parking lot of a church. When two female police officers showed up to investigate, he charged them with a wooden folding chair. One officer fired a single 9 mm hollowpoint shot that proved fatal. The deceased was one foot away from the officer when she shot, and he literally landed in her arms.

The man's motives, whatever they were, are unknown. He had no previous criminal record.

A police board found the officer's actions justified. The shooting was not referred to a grand jury.

Later, another internal investigation found the officers at fault for failing to follow procedure in the use of force. The officers will face a disciplinary hearing later this month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/nyreg ... ss&emc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[baldeagle]

What else would you expect from New York? A professor of criminal justice at a New York University is quoted in the story saying that it was “progressive” thinking by the department and showed that they are committed to training their officers that it shows “incredibly bad judgment to get yourself in a position where you have to shoot.” So, when someone attacks the police, the police are at fault for having gotten themselves in the position where shooting is required? Now you know why I refuse to live anywhere were liberals are in control of the government.

If you read the story, the officer backed up until she could back up no more and the guy was one foot away swinging a chair at her when she fired. I don't know what else should possibly have done except leave.

[Oldgringo]

What else would you expect from New York? A professor of criminal justice at a New York University is quoted in the story saying that it was “progressive” thinking by the department and showed that they are committed to training their officers that it shows “incredibly bad judgment to get yourself in a position where you have to shoot.” So, when someone attacks the police, the police are at fault for having gotten themselves in the position where shooting is required? Now you know why I refuse to live anywhere were liberals are in control of the government.

If you read the story, the officer backed up until she could back up no more and the guy was one foot away swinging a chair at her when she fired. I don't know what else should possibly have done except leave.

Two batons against one chair? BTW, I was last in NYC in 1968 and '69 while involved with the WTC construction. There has been no need to go back.

[Fangs]

Taser? I personally wouldn't have felt too threatened by a chair, they're not as easy to wield as a bat, but I can definitely see why a cornered female officer would feel the need to defend herself using deadly force.

[Teamless]

they're not as easy to wield as a bat,

really depends on what kind of chair.... if it were a wooden folding chair, about 4-6 lbs, when folded it can be wielded quite easily and could do a lot of damage to the side of the head.

[Cobra Medic]

If you think it's not easy to be a cop in NY, try being a taxpaying citizen. The cop is facing possible job loss or other disciplinary action. The good citizens on the front lines in NY would have to take a beating. Unless they're carrying. But if they're carrying, they're almost sure to be convicted on weapons charges, even if the jury rules the shooting self defense, like with Mr. Goetz. The're also pretty much guaranteed to lose their job, even if they beat all the criminal charges.

[srothstein]

This is wrong. No, it is not wrong to judge the officer's actions that led up to the shooting and discipline him for poor tactics. I have seen/read of some shootings where I wondered how the officer was not charged because it was his fault.

But, if you follow the timeline in the article, the officers were cleared of wrongdoing (though the first board did acknowledge possible poor tactics). They were even honored by the union with the police commissioner there. Then the estate filed a lawsuit, so a second charge was filed against the officers and they were found to be in the wrong.

The way I read this, and it is my biased opinion of police administrations, the agency decided it could defend itself in the lawsuit by claiming the officers acted outside the scope of their authority and training. They needed to discipline the officers to show that this was outside the scope. This helps stop the claim of failure to supervise, etc.

And it also smacks of double jeopardy. I know that this is a very tricky area and the courts will probably say the employer/employee relationship takes precedent over the government/citizen relationship, but this was a government agency charging two people a second time for the same offense. It may be legal but it certainly is wrong, IMHO.

[seamusTX]

And it also smacks of double jeopardy.

The fifth amendment to the U.S. constitution says, "... nor shall any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb*."

This has been interpreted by the courts to refer to criminal prosecutions. The decision of a police internal-affairs investigation is not a finding of fact as required by court rulings.

In this case, the officers are not subject to criminal prosecution. As things stand now, they could at worst be fired for failing to follow policy. I am assuming (though I could be wrong) that the union will cover any legal defense and the agency's liability insurance will cover any settlement.

That said, the subject line expresses where my sympathy lies in this case.

BTW, among the numerous facts that we don't know are the layout of the scene, the timing, and the deceased man's physical profile and affect. A 300-pound guy on a psychotic rampage is pretty scary, compared to a skinny cross-eyed drunk.

*This curious phrase, "life or limb," suggests that amputation could have been considered as a legal punishment. It has never been interpreted that way in the U.S.

- Jim

[C-dub]

Taser? I personally wouldn't have felt too threatened by a chair, they're not as easy to wield as a bat, but I can definitely see why a cornered female officer would feel the need to defend herself using deadly force.

Taser won't go through a chair.

[seamusTX]

The incident occurred in November in New York. The clothing that someone might wear in that climate might defeat a taser.

It's easy to imagine evading and triangulating the guy, tripping him, conking him on the head, etc.—but we weren't there.

Judge not harshly and all that.

- Jim

[Dave2]

Taser won't go through a chair.

That's the danger of the .25 caliber taser. They really should be equipping their officers with tasers chambered in 9mm or larger.

[Oldgringo]

The incident occurred in November in New York. The clothing that someone might wear in that climate might defeat a taser.

It's easy to imagine evading and triangulating the guy, tripping him, conking him on the head, etc.—but we weren't there.

Judge not harshly and all that.

- Jim

Do we ever, have we ever, had a first person, in your face, account of these various dastardly deeds from the surviving knight on the white horse?

[ELB]

Some thoughts.

Double jeopardy: srothstein has a point, in that the decisions of the two internal police investigations feels wrong. As a strictly theoretical/logical analysis I can see the difference between saying, "the tactics you used were within guidelines, but you could have used different tactics," but in real life this is a confict, especially when you publicly honored the officers for what they did, then turn around and punish them for it. It does smell of legal butt covering by the city in the face of the lawsuit, especially with the long gap between the two decisions and the timeline of lawsuit and second decision.

As for legal double jeopardy; no, as seamus said, the criminal realm and the department administrative realm are different spheres (and undoubtedly have different standards). Just like the civil and criminal realms are different (see Simpson, O.J.).

In fact, had the facts been somewhat different, the officers could have been prosecuted by both the State of New York and the Federal government (see case of King, Rodney). When I was on active duty, one of our military law courses pointed out that the UCMJ is yet a third realm, and we could be prosecuted under it as well as state and federal law without violating the double jeopardy cause of the Constitution. As a practical matter this doesn't happen (or not much anyway), but I was told it was possible.

As far as dealing with emotionally disturbed persons: a guy with a weapon is a guy with a weapon. If he imediately threatens an officer's (or my) life or limb, the fact that he is unstable is not likely to lessen the severity of the officer's wounds. Frankly, it seems to me that knowing one is dealing with an EDP would heighten the liklihood of a bad outcome -- it's not like one is dealing with a rational actor who can properly weigh consequences (not that most violent felons seem to be able to do that anyway).

And finally, I have to say my sympathy for the officers is severely mitigated by the fact that had I shot some some nut to keep him from beating me to death with a chair in a NY City parking lot, those same officers would have arrested me in a heartbeat for various felonies and testified against me to put me in a NY prison for defending myself. They signed up to enforce the law of a corrupt state that oppresses and criminalizes one of the most basic, if not THE basic human right, so the fact that they are now getting their knickers ripped by the same system does not overly depress me.

[seamusTX]

And finally, I have to say my sympathy for the officers is severely mitigated by the fact that had I shot some some nut to keep him from beating me to death with a chair in a NY City parking lot, those same officers would have arrested me in a heartbeat for various felonies and testified against me to put me in a NY prison for defending myself.

True enough.

Maybe my attitude is formed by having been born and raised in Chicago. No single citizen in New York, Chicago, or any such place can change the law. The operative phrase is "you can't fight city hall." Your choice is to work the system or leave.

Many residents of these cities enjoy living there.

I left.

Police officers in Texas enforce laws that I find unconstitutional, but no one here cares much.

- Jim

[ELB]

Police officers in Texas enforce laws that I find unconstitutional, but no one here cares much.

- Jim

True enough. And it will probably be true in any system of law and law enforcement in a country this large. But there are degrees of outrageousness, and NY, NJ, Chicago, Cali, have crossed that line for me. If I suffer an unconstitutional search or arrest or whathaveyou, I at least have the chance to raise heck about it later. If am prevented from defending myself with anything more effective than a crayon, I very well may not have a "later."