Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/23/2006 10:05:51 AM EDT
So you coppers think you're safe from the Democrats that your unions and Police Chiefs support? After the NYC Democrats disarm all the law abiding good citizens of NY you guys are next on the list. Patterson is the Democratic Minority Leader of the NY Senate.
"For example, an officer would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

I hereby award Mr. Patterson five "Please Don't Hurt Me Hats".




STATUS:
S1571 PATERSON
Penal Law

TITLE....Prohibits police or peace officers from using excessive force either defensively or in furtherance of making an arrest or preventing an escape

01/31/05 REFERRED TO CODES
01/04/06 REFERRED TO CODES

SPONSORS MEMO:
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
submitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1


BILL NUMBER: S1571

SPONSOR: PATERSON


TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law, in relation to the use
of deadly force by police officers


PURPOSE: To require police officers to use the minimum amount of
force necessary to deal with a person committing a criminal act.


SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Amends Penal Law § 35.15(2)(a)(ii), relating
to the justification defense as it applies to a police officer who uses
deadly force to defend himself or another, by requiring that the officer
use only the minimal amount of force needed to stop.

Amends Penal Law § 35.30(c)(1), relating to the justification defense as
it applies to a police officer who uses deadly force against a person
who is resisting arrest or escaping, to require that the officer use
only the minimal amount of force needed to stop.

Amends Penal Law § 125.15 to add a new subdivision 4, adding a new
offense under the crime of manslaughter in the second degree, which
occurs where a police officer intends to kill rather than to stop a
person, and in doing so uses more than the minimal amount necessary to
affect such a stop.


EXISTING LAW: Current law allows a police officer to kill in defense
of himself or another, or to apprehend a person who is resisting arrest
under certain circumstances.


JUSTIFICATION: In recent years, the killing of criminal suspects by
police has focused the public attention on how police respond when the
suspect is a member of an ethnic minority. The issue is highly contro-
versial, with critics accusing the police of racism while supporters
deny any racism and assert that the killings have been in good faith or
an unfortunate mistake.

This bill would modify how a police officer responds when he believes he
must use his gun to defend himself or another, or to apprehend a suspect
who is resisting arrest. It requires the officer to use his weapon with
the intent to stop, rather than to kill such a person. There is no
justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure
may accomplish the same objective.

For example, an officer would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm
or the leg. The bill will not penalize a good faith effort to shoot with
this intent, even though the shot may prove fatal. Further, the number
of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the minimal number
necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes the purpose, it
is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to empty his barrel.
The bill is intended to limit the use of force to the minimal amount
needed.


LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2003-04 - S.3307 - Referred to Codes 2001-02 -
S. 1494 - Referred to Codes


FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State.


EFFECTIVE DATE: The first of November after enactment.


Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:11:45 AM EDT
Geez, sure why not. What an asshat.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:20:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 10:21:15 AM EDT by GoingIncognito]


This guy is a total
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:26:50 AM EDT
And you guys in NJ thought you cornered the market on whacko politicians. Then again maybe he moved here from NJ.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:59:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Further, the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the minimal number
necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes the purpose, it
is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to empty his barrel.



I wasn't aware I kept all that many rounds in my barrel.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:16:58 PM EDT
His ignorance knows no bounds!
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:22:42 PM EDT
I read in GD that Paterson is Spitzer's running mate. Not good for Spitzer if NY cops don't like him because of that idiot.

I wonder how many cops are going to get hurt because of "aim small miss small?"
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:35:48 PM EDT
The NYPD PBA has already endorsed Spitzer. Reap what you sow as they say.

Maybe the NYPD PBA will wake up and stop supporting the NY Democratic Party but I doubt it.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:40:16 PM EDT
I'm amazed he also didn't try to amend the self defense law as it applies to private citizens to also include the "shoot to wound" limitation. Or maybe he didn't bother since he and Spitzer have sweeping disarmament in mind once they are elected.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:40:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:30:04 PM EDT
Read it in the Daily News and then got a E-Mail.

You see Spitzers office had a NO COMMENT to the PBA about it.
Top Top