| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dem Pol pushes bill: Cops may only shoot to wound, not kill |
| 2006-02-23 |
| Makes a lotta sense. Especially in NYC... ALBANY - Sen. David Paterson is pushing a bill that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force - drawing outrage from officers. The bill also would create a new provision for second-degree manslaughter that would be reserved specifically for an officer who "uses more than the minimal amount necessary" to stop a crime suspect. ...and who makes that call? Paterson, who is on Eliot Spitzer's ticket as lieutenant governor, has reintroduced the bill twice since first sponsoring it in 2001, refusing to let it die. In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: "There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective." Why, thank you, Mr. Sanctimonious! Let's hope someone doesn't have a gun to your head some day and the ESU cops remember this quote. We'll see what you think then... Current law gives cops a wide berth to use deadly force when a suspect presents a danger to another person's life. Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg." You know? Like "The Lone Ranger"! He used to do it all the time... "This bill shows absolutely no understanding of just how difficult it is for a police officer when they get into situations requiring the use of deadly force," John Grebert, director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, told the Daily News. That's why he's a politician. But feel free to fire away with an antitank gun if you catch someone breaking into his house... His sentiment was echoed by Dan DeFedericis, president of the New York State Troopers PBA, who said: "We are definitely opposed to this bill ... and we strongly believe it could endanger the lives of police officers and innocent civilians." While Spitzer already has the endorsement of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, that group's Albany lobbyist, John Poklemba, said, "This bill is very ill conceived. I can't imagine any police agencies not being opposed to it." ...and I must call Eliot and ask him why he has a friggin idiot on the ticket. Paterson told The News last night that his bill would safeguard the public. He explained that he wrote the bill in response to the acquittal of four NYPD officers charged in the 1999 shooting death of the unarmed Amadou Diallo in the Bronx."Many people were surprised the officers weren't guilty of something, criminally negligent homicide or something that involved some negligence," he said. "I thought I was writing the bill that really mirrored what the department rules are." That shows how "in touch" this guy is... A Spitzer spokesman declined to comment. We'll get right back to you on that.... |
| Posted by:Psychic Friends Hotline |
| #18 over-medicated himself with off-prescription hand-crafted pharmaceuticals Gorgeous, Robert! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-23 23:17 |
| #17 Revenge of STAR-GATE, where a simple. no frills, bland Xmas Star on a similar green tree was NOT ENOUGH for Lefties in different parts of Amerikkka to complain about. NOw we have SANDOVAL's REVENGE, i.e. MARIO/GERARDO-GATE, where a San Francisco's demand that POLICE UNITS be the proper medium of response to any new terror attacks/new 9-11's > NEW YAWK wants their NY-specific, perennially cash-short State-Local-City Police responders to only wound any surreal future Osamas, NOT kill them even iff to save the lives of many, i.e. WE DON'T WANT TO INSULT ISLAM OR HURT THE TERRORISTS FEELINGS BY STOPPING THEM FROM KILLING AMERICANS!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-02-23 22:46 |
| #16 In fact, non-lethal weapons are on the market, and many officers are trained in their use. There is no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon". There are less lethal weapons. After Cincinnati had a riot, the excuse for which was police shootings, the police started to use tasers. Then an overweight guy with a heart condition over-medicated himself with off-prescription hand-crafted pharmaceuticals and made enough of a public spectacle of himself that police were called. While trying to get him under control, a taser was used. He had a heart attack and died. Last I heard, the local rabble rousers were agitating against the use of tasers beause they're too dangerous. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-23 21:37 |
| #15 What? Current laws already require that an officer show cause before post incident investigators, that his life was in danger at the time of use of deadly force. Existing deterrents ensure that it is of last resort. In fact, non-lethal weapons are on the market, and many officers are trained in their use. |
| Posted by: ToughLove Not Hate 2006-02-23 18:47 |
| #14 Outrageous! The cop should first try a nice hug and then lead the perp and bystanders in a rousing round of Kumbaya. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-02-23 15:16 |
| #13 This guy is a danger to the public. No concept of how force is applied. The police never shoot to kill. The Police in NY should unite to run him out of office. A true TRANZI fool. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O' Doom 2006-02-23 14:36 |
| #12 Anyone who has ever received instruction in the handling of firearms knows two things: A) Never point a weapon (loaded or unloaded) at another person unless you are willing to shoot them. B) If you are pointing a weapon at someone you must be prepared to kill that person, whether you intend only to wound them or not. Anyone who thinks that officers are able to choose or calibrate the level of harm inflicted by the firing of their weapons is a certifiable wingnut. An officer fires to prevent further loss of human life. At that point, the perp is posing sufficient danger to other people whereby his own life is forfeit. Morons who are incapable of comprehending the reasoning behind such a decision chain are a danger to all around them. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-23 14:06 |
| #11 Several years ago a "homeless" man threatened a number of folks (including 7 police officers and a police dog) at a downtown McDonalds with a big stick and was shot 41 times for his trouble. Wow, and not a peep out of Bruce Springsteen. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-02-23 14:05 |
| #10 "I sure as hell shot to wound. What a pity the perp moved, putting his center of mass where his arm had been." Guarantee there'd never be a conviction. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-23 14:02 |
| #9 "If they can do it in Hollyweird, then we can do it here, too, goshdarnit! I saw it done on Law & Order, Special Stuff Unit!" I wonder if this would hold true if Paterson's home was invaded and he managed to get his hands on a gun after one of the invaders had dragged his pre-teen daughter off to another room... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-23 13:01 |
| #8 Shooting someone in the arm or leg sounds so mean and painful. We should require the cops to simply shoot the weapon out of the alleged perpetrators hand. But only after all attempts to sweet talk the presumably innocent citizen into behaving nicely have failed. [sarcastic snorting noises] |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-02-23 12:56 |
| #7 Aim low! He's a voter! |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-23 12:45 |
| #6 This guy has watched too much Lone Ranger. It's hard to hit the wrist in the real world. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-23 12:44 |
| #5 Ignorant twit! Cops shoot to stop--not to kill, and not to wound--simply to STOP the perp. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-02-23 12:32 |
| #4 This would never fly in San Diego. Here the police shoot early and often with the full support of an admiring public. Several years ago a "homeless" man threatened a number of folks (including 7 police officers and a police dog) at a downtown McDonalds with a big stick and was shot 41 times for his trouble. The only public outcry was that in the melee, one of the officers accidently shot the police dog. People were outraged at the cruelty to animals. Lethal force reduces recidivism. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-02-23 12:31 |
| #3 Sorry, misread. The dems hate the police, don't they? |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2006-02-23 12:11 |
| #2 Canada really hates their police force, don't they? |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2006-02-23 12:11 |
| #1 Subversives, on the side of the criminals, always. Untile THEY are in power and sneezing becomes a crime against THE PEOPLE and you get reeducation in a mental asylum if you disagree with Mao Tze Clinton. |
| Posted by: Poitiers-Lepanto 2006-02-23 12:10 |