Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/24/2006 4:42:32 AM EDT
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.

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."

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 toshoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

"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.

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."

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."

A Spitzer spokesman declined to comment.


web page
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:08:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheeBadOne:
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."

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try toshoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."



Gee... I'm shocked that a Dumbocrat could come up with an ill-conceived piece of legislation...


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."


Wow. The union's got their panties caught in this one, now don't they?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:09:57 AM EDT
Aim for the pinkie toe!
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:30:39 AM EDT
Funny, I didn't know we could shoot to kill now. I thought I was shooting to STOP a threat. I am sure everyone of us was trained to shoot for center mass. I will aim for an arm or a leg when thats all I am given. How many officer involved shootings are there where the officer hits exactly what he's aiming for? It its a gun kind of day, I am shooting for what I see.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:12:02 AM EDT
Dumbest idea of the year.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:49:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:55:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:58:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:57:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bigern:
Dumbest idea of the year.



Only the year?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 5:22:49 PM EDT
Any good snipers on this site?

What does this Patterson guy look like?


Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:13:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tvc184:

Originally Posted By bigern:
Dumbest idea of the year.



Only the year?



Well he's still living so I don't want to rule out an even more dumb idea coming forth later this week.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:40:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigern:

Originally Posted By tvc184:

Originally Posted By bigern:
Dumbest idea of the year.



Only the year?



Well he's still living so I don't want to rule out an even more dumb idea coming forth later this week.

Warning shots, then shoot to wound.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:44:23 PM EDT
the warning shots go in the chest....when i get serious its the face.

as far as i'm concerned, shooting to kill is a very effective means of "stopping the threat".

i'm realistic, if i ever have the misfortune of participating in a shoot out to defend myself, i'm sure i'll be scared as hell and most likely shitting my pants at the same time. my instinct will be to do a mag dump --hopefully some (most) will hit their intended target
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:58:51 PM EDT
two warning shots to the head.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:12:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tac45:
two warning shots to the head.



Lets see were we are now. No death penalty it may hurt.

Use of deadly force to wound only. If they bleed out your guilty of manslaughter.

Sick logic here.......................

Top Top