Amazing how many morons believe this should be the standard

Shoot to hurt, pol urges cops

BY JOE MAHONEY
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

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.

He is running for LT Governor of NY

I prefer 'shoot to hurt their feelings'.

I wish someone would put that fucktard's life in danger and see if he could just shoot the gun out of the BG's hands.

Dumbest idea ever, is this clown for real?????

Police shoot to stop threats, not to kill.

Shooting to wound or maim, yeah that's intelligent

Thats old.  He has already dropped the idea.

Quoted: Thats old.  He has already dropped the idea.

Well duh because law enforcement would be in a pickle to support him.

Quoted: I prefer 'shoot to hurt their feelings'.

I shoot to thrill

Shoot to hurt 3 times. 2 to the chest 1 to the head. Sorry didn't think those wounds would be lethal with a 9mm.

The police should always shoot to stop which means hitting center mass. That almost always ends up in death for the bad guy.

.

Quoted: Shoot to hurt 3 times. 2 to the chest 1 to the head. Sorry didn't think those wounds would be lethal with a 9mm.

Everyone calls 9mm a pansy round.  That's great!  I have no reason to expect it to do any more than feel like a good punch.  See, I'm being humane?  (Ranger T)

Ok shoot them in the leg so they bleed out and suffer, nice. How about 2 to the chest and dead before they hit the ground, seem more humane to me.

or.....


I guess my aim in the stressful situation was not as good as I thought it would be, I thried to hit him in the knee but I shot him in the face, oops

New York will begin replacing all LEO firearms with the following:

Well, I was shooting to hurt but unfortunately I missed and hit him in the head.  Sorry.  

Apparently the Maricopa County Sheriff's office agrees.......

Seems their folks who're authorized firearm carry, aren't allowed to carry anything bigger than .40 caliber.


Because it's wounding profile is 'too high' or some such nonsense.





The kool-aid must be pretty tasty to have gotten all the way down here.

Quoted: Apparently the Maricopa County Sheriff's office agrees....... Seems their folks who're authorized firearm carry, aren't allowed to carry anything bigger than .40 caliber. Because it's wounding profile is 'too high' or some such nonsense. The kool-aid must be pretty tasty to have gotten all the way down here.

Lots of departments issue and or only authorize 9mm or .40 caliber automatics.  That isn't new.

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Paterson Meets with Association of Chiefs of Police   Tuesday, February 28, 2006          Senate Democratic Leader David A. Paterson announced today that after a "productive and positive meeting" with John Grebert, executive director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, he has decided to pull a bill that would have required police officers to use the minimum amount of force necessary when subduing a criminal.

www.nyssenate30.com/

Quoted: Quoted: Apparently the Maricopa County Sheriff's office agrees....... Seems their folks who're authorized firearm carry, aren't allowed to carry anything bigger than .40 caliber. Because it's wounding profile is 'too high' or some such nonsense. The kool-aid must be pretty tasty to have gotten all the way down here. Lots of departments issue and or only authorize 9mm or .40 caliber automatics.  That isn't new.

For THAT specific reason I mentioned ???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Apparently the Maricopa County Sheriff's office agrees....... Seems their folks who're authorized firearm carry, aren't allowed to carry anything bigger than .40 caliber. Because it's wounding profile is 'too high' or some such nonsense. The kool-aid must be pretty tasty to have gotten all the way down here. Lots of departments issue and or only authorize 9mm or .40 caliber automatics.  That isn't new. For THAT specific reason I mentioned ???

I wouldn't be surprised, especially if the SHeriff had "experiences" with fools or "agenda" people in the jury pool.  See, I didn't blame the lawyers first: they didn't create the situation but surely exploit it.

COnsider the case of a .44 Magnum revolver: great thing for being in the woods/mountains as it'll drop a mountain lion or a bear if done properly.  One also can put in .44 Special, for low recoil while still punching a big hole.  But, imagine if you used a  629 revolver, though loaded with .44 Special.  Don't you think an ambitious prosecutor or, in a civil suit the plaintiff's lawyer, would keep hammering that you used a "Dirty Harry .44 magnum revolver, 'the most powerful handgun in the world'?"  Doesn't make it true, but blue hairs or slobs on the jury won't know or care.  "You are a Dirty Harry wannabe, and we're gonna show you."  The SHeriff knows this.

As many people have advised others who asked what they should carry: "Use what the police use, and you can't be accused of overdoing the force."  No, it shouldn't matter, we all know this.  Reality is somewhat different.  If you can at all anticipate having to have yur case heard before a jury, you need to think of this.  As there are more and more low-lifes or just plain dummies out there and, consequently more and more on juries, it's an issue.  SHouldn't be, but this isn't "Richardworld".

Maybe the first shot or two... no harm in watching them agonize in pain before the last shot to the head. If that's what he means then sure... I support it.

Might make 'em think before shooting a fleeing robber in the back, when playing ninja when breaking into the wrong home, etc. Just because they are cops, they should not have an 007 license and have the law enforcement establishment back them 100%.

Let a civilian in N.Y. kill a person committing a felony and have a cop do the exact same thing in the same way and see which one is praised and which one goes to jail. If citizens are required to meet standards, the fuzz should be required to meet those same standards.

I don't know about up there, but in Louisiana there is no such thing as "Shoot to hurt."  If you shoot at 'em, the law assumes that you are trying to kill them.  Therefore, I might as well just kill 'em.

I always shoot 'til I hurt.

DUPE

Isn't the Arfcom consensus to shoot until your wallet hurts?  

...shoot to hurt... Gimme a break... Is this part of the new, gentler, "Peace through inferior firepower" way of handling bad guys?

From after action reports I've heard or read, it seems that it's difficult enough for most to shoot to hit. Now somebody expects to hit arms or legs?
Anybody who would propose something that absurd either has no idea what it's about or is extremely proficient. I think I know which it is.

Sen. David Paterson is a complete and total moron.

This guy should be given a gun, I will have a gun also. Tell him to shoot to hurt me, once he realizes I am a threat. I will use any hi-cap 9mm(only to have as many rounds as possible) 30rnds at least. Lets see how well he can stop and take aim on one of my legs while I am moving in and out of cover raining lead at him like it is my job. What the hell give me an AK-47(most likely a SKS but the reporter go for schoke value and emotion you know)

If the police are lucky, maybe Paterson's own body guards will someday shoot to "wound" an attacker and then he himself will be shot as a result...I'd hate to see a police man killed because of that stupid law.  
 We already spend way to much "nursing" the criminals.  

If I shoot ta badguy its gonna hurt until i put them down for good. Ill hurt their existance does that count?

Quoted: Quoted: I prefer 'shoot to hurt their feelings'. I shoot to thrill

To many women, to many pills.

If police officers can't use their weapons in the most effective way, they might as well be carrying feather dusters.  That ass-clown governor needs to learn from....

THIS


THIS


And watch THIS

Obviously he doesn't understand that if a leg or arm wound was sufficient to stop the suspect, then the threat wasn't severe enough to justify lethal force in the first place. IE, if wounding was enough, then shooting them wasn't justified.

Badguys are supposed only be shot when they need to be TURNED OFF right away.

Every cop should leave NY if this passes and let them (politicians) deal with the criminals.

Grand pappy told my pappy back in my day, son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he'd done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree, round up all of them bad boys
Hang them high in the street
For all the people to see