LEO Takes Knife in Stomach-Captures Assailant

I would have shot the little ************* in the legs
which pretty much explains why i'm not an LEO :)
 
I'm glad his Police Commissioner is proud of his restraint, but would he have had a problem if he'd shot a pair of homicidal muggers? It's good they were caught. I doubt that's the case generally.
 
I would have blown them away, but given that the asshats are 15 and 16, and given that the location is NY, the publicity wouldn't have been good.
 
The officer would not have been correct or legal in his actions if he had shot either suspect even though he had been threatened and stabbed.

Self defense requires you to be in imminent jeopardy of great bodily injury or death. The subject stabbed him and ran off. By running away, the officer was no longer in imminent danger and so the self defense claim requirements would not have been valid if he had shot the fleeing subject.

They broke off the attack and ran. Imminent danger is no longer present, hence no escalation to a self defense claim if he had drawn and fired his weapon at either of them.

Always remember the three criteria for legitimate self defense claims.
If one or more are not present, you do not have the right to use deadly force.

He acted appropriately and in accordance with the laws.

Kudos to the officer for chasing them down and nabbing one right then. He showed us through example how one must remember the rules of self defense.

Brownie
 
Wow, NY is screwed up if that's the case. You are actually saying that you aren't allowed to shoot someone for threatening to kill you, displaying the means & ability to do so, then stabbing you? Furthermore, you aren't allowed to shoot them after they have attempted to murder you? What's the line you draw, Brownie? Wait until you are actually dead?
 
Originally posted by Spark
Wow, NY is screwed up if that's the case. You are actually saying that you aren't allowed to shoot someone for threatening to kill you, displaying the means & ability to do so, then stabbing you? Furthermore, you aren't allowed to shoot them after they have attempted to murder you? What's the line you draw, Brownie? Wait until you are actually dead?
Click to expand...
The headlines would have screamed "Cop Shoots Fleeing Kids in Back!" Further down in the story it would mention that the officer was jabbed by a "pocketknife" or something. But that wouldn't matter. What would matter is that someones "babies" were brutally gunned down in the street.

We just finished up a case here where a lunatic wielding a hammer charged at officers who repeatedly ordered him to put the hammer down. They shot him, and the half dozen officers were involved in civil lawsuits for a couple years afterward.

I guess Brownie is right, if the guy was going to fire, it would have to be while in the midst of being stabbed. He'd still catch heat for picking on kids anyway :rolleyes: and kids will be kids, right?
 
It seems that the law states that if someone is standing with their back to you stabbing behind them, it is never legal to shoot them. Imagine having 5 or ten guys back you into a corner, all of them turn their backs to you, and then start stabbing you. Farfetched? maybe. But no matter what you do in the corner they can argue that they had stopped, broken off the attack and turned their back to run when they were shot. If someone turns around to reload, you have to wait for them to turn back around before you can fire. If they run off a few feet to retrieve another weapon, you have to wait for them. If they run around a corner for reinforcements you have to wait for them. And if they are good at shooting over their shoulder looking in a mirror, you never have a chance.
 
Not sure where most of you live, but around these parts (Il.), attempted murder of a LEO is a felony, and you can shoot a fleeing felon, front, back or whatever direction he is facing.
 
Originally posted by grommit
It seems that the law states that if someone is standing with their back to you stabbing behind them, it is never legal to shoot them. Imagine having 5 or ten guys back you into a corner, all of them turn their backs to you, and then start stabbing you. Farfetched? maybe. But no matter what you do in the corner they can argue that they had stopped, broken off the attack and turned their back to run when they were shot. If someone turns around to reload, you have to wait for them to turn back around before you can fire. If they run off a few feet to retrieve another weapon, you have to wait for them. If they run around a corner for reinforcements you have to wait for them. And if they are good at shooting over their shoulder looking in a mirror, you never have a chance.
Click to expand...

How I love laws....
 
Originally posted by sph3ric pyramid
I would have blown them away, but given that the asshats are 15 and 16, and given that the location is NY, the publicity wouldn't have been good.
Click to expand...

If the NY cops can get away with shooting an unarmed, innocent guy 43 (or whatever) times, one would think they would eventually be able to get off for shooting someone who's just stabbed them in the stomach?:confused:
 
It's pretty hard to draw weapon, shoot and hit a fleeing person, especially when your pumped with adrenilin, scared, been stabbed in the stomach and your weapon is a handgun. You'd be more likely to miss and cause unwanted collateral damage. Only on TV does the wounded officer raise his gun and drop the guy from 30 yards.
 
Originally posted by donutsrule
If the NY cops can get away with shooting an unarmed, innocent guy 43 (or whatever) times, one would think they would eventually be able to get off for shooting someone who's just stabbed them in the stomach?:confused:
Click to expand...
That's an inflammatory comment. No one "got away" with anything. Those officers were in a freaky situation and they believed the man had a gun. By all accounts they were devastated by their mistake. You've been listening to too much Bruce Springsteen, friend.
 
Amadou Diallo was only hit 19 out of the 41 times that police officers fired at him. The officers, during the stress of the situation, misread what was happening, and believed that their ricochets were actually shots coming from the black object in Diallo's hand. They continued firing until Diallo fell to the ground. I hope I got everything right, I just finished a report citing that case. Like knifedaddy said, they didn't get away with anything.

As far as shooting the teens, I seem to remember that the only time an officer can shoot a fleeing felon is if he truly believes that the suspect is capable of, and will harm the next human they come into contact with. I have to agree with brownie0486 in regards to the officer not being justified in shooting the kids when they ran, as they ceased to be a danger to him. However, I have to disagree in that I feel he would have been justified to use a firearm(deadly force) once a knife(also deadly force)had been presented, as well the intent to use it.

But this situation is weird for a couple of reasons. Once the attack had ended and the kids ran off, the use of deadly force was no longer justifiable, as the officer was no longer in danger, hence, if the officer had pursued the teens and shot them both, he could have been convicted. However, if, after the attack had ended, the officer had a reason to believe that the teens posed a threat to other individuals, then isn't he obligated to pursue and apprehend them by any means available to him? So if he caught up to the two teens, and they threatened him with a knife again, wouldn't he be justified in using deadly force? And lastly, if the teens had ended their attack, and the officer chose not to pursue them, could he be held liable if they had attacked and killed someone else?

I don't know..maybe I'm reading too deep into the situation.

Chris
 
I never listen to Bruce Springsteen.:confused: I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. My point was merely that I'd have thought this cop's likelihood of being excused (adrenalin and a stab wound to the gut) had he shot his guilty assailant(s) would be greater than in that incident.

Hell, [fake lawyer]at 2:45am, maybe after being stabbed all he could see were their forms and couldn't tell whether they were facing him or not and was afraid they were coming towards him to finish him off?[/lawyer]

With that said, I think what he did was pretty amazing and I wish him a speedy recovery, and hopefully the juveniles are charged as adults (does NY do that?) and put away for a VERY long time.
 
Spark,

Here's where I draw the line, whether in NY or anywhere else.

The cop was not in imminent danger once the perps ran away. Would you have the cop shoot them in the back after the immediate threat had passed and the perps were running away?

Do you think he was in imminent danger while they were running away?

Did they still have the means to inflict gret bodily harm or death while their distance increased by runningaway and the knife [ their choice of weapon in the scenario ]is contact weapon?

By running away, are they, at that time showing intent to harm you?

The answer to all three is no, of course. So then we have not one of the three elements necessary for a righteous self defense case. As you better have all three in most parts of the country to get no charges filed [ maybe ], how would he be correct in shooting them in the back after the fact.

Self defense doesn't involve what just happened, it involves what is happening right now. Right now, they are running away and do not have the means or opportunity to harm you further.

If you were to shoot the perp as he ran away, you would be deemed the aggressor, not the defender. The time to defend [ self defense ] is while under attack, not after the fact.

The laws are quite clear on this, and the officer did whay he could to bring them to justice legally. To have shot one or both in the back would be an act of retaliation and vengence on his part. He did all the rightthings for the rigth reasons, and some of that has to be from his training and occupation.

Kudos to the officer for being cognizant of the laws, not allowing his emotions to kick in and keeping a level head where others would be prone to vengence and retaliation [ to feel they were getting even with the perp somehow by backshooting him ].

Others will say, what if they turned and had a gun? What if they ran away and brought back friends. The what ifs get dealt with in real time, not in what ifs scenarios prior to an action folks.

Self defense is based on others actions, it is reactive. To shoot them in the back is an offensive actions not defensive and you then face the penalties for bringing yourself to their level on the ladder of primates.

Hope everyone can see past the emotions and look at the facts.'

Brownie
 
It's refreshing to hear about an LEO's courageous and intelligent action. Sadly, LEOs are too often unjustly maligned in the media. I hope the officer quickly and fully recovers from his wound. A commendation is certainly in order.

Can someone explain the circumstances in this case that prompted a "criminal possession of a weapon" charge against the assailant? I think a discussion of this matter would be beneficial to members of this forum.
 
I believe the criminal possesion of a weapon goes something like this: Since they're in NYC most likely the knife was illegal, and even if it was not, using it as a weapon like that is. Usually they get as many charges as they can in this kind of incident. (e.g. illigal possesion of chemical substance - pepper spray) You could be charged with illegal posession for having a wrench if you were involved in a fight, but not otherwise (i think). It became a weapon because of the way they used it, even if it would not be considered a weapon before.
 
Brownie I think you are confused. The deadly force statutes in most states are slightly different for police officers than the citizens. I don't play a police officer on T.V., I play one in real life and have been doing it for the last decade in a large metropolitan city.
At least in my state an officer can shoot in defense of there lives or serious bodily injury, in the defense of a third party, etc. This is where it is different than a civilians use of force in that they can shoot a fleeing felon if they can justify the need for immediate apprehension and a continuing danger to the public if apprehension is delayed. It wasn't a matter if the officer was in imminent danger anymore but whether or not society was. They clearly demonstrated their brazen disregard for human life by stabbing him.

I clearly think he would have been justified if he did end up shooting the punks as they just demonstrated their disregard for human life and clearly would pose a danger to others if not immediatley apprehended. Now if he wasn't a badge carrier then I would agree with you in the fact that the bad guys were running away not posing any more risk to him, he would not have been justified in shooting them AT THAT POINT. I also need to state that if he pursued them and they both gave up and followed his commands he would not be justified in shooting them. Now if they continued to refuse his commands to stop he would have benn justified in most states.

He caught them and it all worked out okay. Thats what matters. We have the news article not all the facts of the case. My point is if he chose dealy force or felt the need for it he would have been okay legally in most states.
It doesn't matter if someone is facing you or not if they are in the process of causing you serious bodily injury or risk of death and you need to take the appropriate action to stop the behavior.
Running away though is another issue all together depending on the above mentioned circumstances. I apologize for my spelling and syntax errors as I did not have time to spell check first.
KS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top