Pepper spray would have been bad - It probably would have hit the victim too.

 

I'll take the spray to get rid of the knife blade myself.

 

Harry

But did either of you think how painful the sting of pepper spray in a knife wound would be? Didn't think about that one did you!

 

(Of course I am kidding, if the smilies didn't give it away)

...then there is always the possibility that the cops that have this beat know the area and arent willing to get splashed with aids infested blood over a couple of sterno sucking bums that are stabbing each other every other week. Just another possible perspective.

NFR my post makes perfect sense if you understand the subject matter.......

...then there is always the possibility that the cops that have this beat know the area and arent willing to get splashed with aids infested blood over a couple of sterno sucking bums that are stabbing each other every other week. Just another possible perspective.

 

then they should find another job.. protect and serve is not something that should be applied as it is felt like it.. again.. dont like the job.. no one makes you do it..

 

I understand where you are coming from.. but I can just in no way consider justifying letting something like this continue while it is happening right in front of your eyes..

Why are we arguing over this... It happened in ny right.. and we all know from previous instances nj law enforcement usually gets in trouble for excessive force. If that happened in Newark the guy would be so full of lead it wouldn't be funny.... And like I said before you can't say just cuz u had a gun on you, you would of done differently, just like police you would have to look at the totality of circumstances and.moment. in time, now if u has a gun on u and was attacked that's one thing, but in a crowd of people, with possible family or accomplices of the person commiting the crime, then add the fact that you may not have a perfect shot, police are on the way, and.ur with ur family, ur really.gunna pull a gun out, point it at some one, with ur kid standing there, police respond to a violent crime, see u holding a gun pointing it at 2 people.... Guess what... To prevent death or serious bodily injury to themself or a 3rs party, law enforcement is able to esculate force to deadly force... That means forget the spray forget the baton, forget constructive authority and resort to deadly force.. so if its some trigger happy cop, or u turn to him and try to explain the situation u maybe dead..... Just saying, and guess what, he may be open to a civil law suit, but since u had a gun pointed at the 2 individuala specificly the one stabbing the other guy.... And he inturpits it as a need for deadly force says drop the weapon, u not thinking turns towards him, or with the whole commotion don't hear him..... It's a good shot.. so don't sit there and say if I was they I would of some.better, becuase the reality is u may become the victim. I hate the ignorant public who sit there and judge to police, at the end of the day there the ones u depend on at times like these. And once again it was nypd... Here in nj the guy would of been full of lead

 

 

 

Sry.about the spelling and grammar I'm.on my cell phone

Yeah they could have just shot the knife out of his hand.

That sh1t only happens.on cops Lmao

Yeah they could have just shot the knife out of his hand.

 

I know right. I see that on tv and in movies all the time! That would be the easiest solution. Problem solved.

All my target holders have less than 5 fingers...but fingers last longer all the time now.

My thoughts, not that I expect it to matter but here they are anyway;

 

7 cops of the same rank is leaderless. With a group that large no one wants to make a move because they don't know what the plan is. Two cops that are partners - golden.

 

This is just a general observation. I have been in many circumstances that are dissimilar to this but yet in some way prove that a distinct leader would make all the difference.

 

No details will be forthcoming of said incidents, cuz I'm just sayin'

cmon now - just taze the crud out of him already - oh right. NJ cops can't use tazers. Duh - Harlem is not in NJ...

 

Tasers are now allowed to be used by NJ cops it is up to their departments to supply and train their guys. I REALLY hope the homeless guy sues. That is bs on lack of action. IMO using the elevated use of force that police are allowed to use to protect themselves/others. They not only did a horrible job but FAILed to do it completely. IMO

Mike

My thoughts, not that I expect it to matter but here they are anyway;

 

7 cops of the same rank is leaderless. With a group that large no one wants to make a move because they don't know what the plan is. Two cops that are partners - golden.

 

 

 

I was actually just thinking that. With so many there, everyone is thinking someone else is going to do something, so nobody does. Or then maybe you have a younger officer who thinks he should do something, but sees the others not, and figures he shouldn't anymore.

Well, it was hard to tell exactly what was happening, but actively stabbing or not at that moment, is almost a moot point.

 

The point others are trying to make, is that the officers (at least 7, probably more) just stood around while the man was on top of another man with a knife in his hand. You hear the people around yelling for them to do something, hit him or anything. Of course shooting him dead based on that clip alone, may be an extreme. But the fact that only one officer made any attempt to stop him was a bit disturbing. That man was an immediate threat to the man he was on top, and not until he got off and dropped the knife was he restrained. I mean, could they really not safely hit him with something, or thrown him off, or used a taser on him?

 

I certainly don't want to be too quick to judge, but it seemed like the officers weren't too quick to help either.

 

 

 

 

 

+1

I don't always agree with Shane, but you're making the same point. The police are not there to judge and were right not to shoot him. Not right by a little, or depending on a circumstance, 100% right not to shoot him. I'd think a tazer could have been a good choice, but I'm not trained in tazer use.

 

 

You people are SERIOUSLY out of your minds. If there was EVER a time police should shoot someone, this is it. SOMEONE IS ON TOP OF ANOTHER PERSON, ACTIVELY STABBING THEM!!!! They weren't fist fighting, they weren't wrestling, one person was KILLING another person.

 

I can't believe I am reading this sort of non-sense on a gun forum. I think you guys SERIOUSLY need to educate yourselves on gun laws, police laws, etc. Police shoot people for MUCH MUCH less than this.

Ha, wait, we're all going to rush to judgement based on 65 seconds of amateur taping? Wait, no, looking at the state of things in the US, it makes sense. /sarcasm off

 

Unless someone has all the details, incident reports, witness accounts, etc., I think it's a bit much to think that any conclusion at this point makes much sense. There are a ton of reasons to maintain a stand-off, and there could have been a ton of reasons to bum rush the threat-- who are we to judge (or at least the ones who are)? And then to use it for an argument like CCW without having much of the facts? Eh.

 

It was in the papers. The man on top is stabbing the guy on the bottom in the neck with a pocket knife. I believe the guy on the bottom was a homeless man. That is ALL the police need to know to shoot. They need to see the man on top with a knife, and the man on the bottom bleeding. Circumstances have absolutely no weight at that point. If the guy on the bottom raped an entire school 10 seconds ago, and the guy on top is the pope, POLICE are NOT supposed to stand there and "judge." They see a VIOLENT crime being committed right in front of them, and that is ALL they need to know.

Oh, and BTW, since this is a gun and pro CCW forum...you guys do know Bloomberg's BS right? "We don't need guns in NY because we have the world's best police force, and they are enough to protect the people." Yea, I saw a lot of protection there.

You people are SERIOUSLY out of your minds. If there was EVER a time police should shoot someone, this is it. SOMEONE IS ON TOP OF ANOTHER PERSON, ACTIVELY STABBING THEM!!!! They weren't fist fighting, they weren't wrestling, one person was KILLING another person.

 

I can't believe I am reading this sort of non-sense on a gun forum. I think you guys SERIOUSLY need to educate yourselves on gun laws, police laws, etc. Police shoot people for MUCH MUCH less than this.

 

Still reading that "How to win Friends and Influence People" Book aren't ya??

 

Harry

I'm rather disinclined to take your legal help dot org seriously now due to some of your statements.

 

Yes, it's rather disconcerting to see the relative level of inactivity by the cops there, but they do have to worry about their safety and the safety of others as well. From a short video clip, you can't lawyer in any ruling on whether or not the attacker should be shot and potentially killed.

 

I was disappointed how slowly the NYPD reacted. I know they have extendable batons - heck even I have one. Did they need to shoot the guy? Maybe. Would a different tactic have worked? Probably. A taser in this situation would probably have been more than enough.

It was in the papers. The man on top is stabbing the guy on the bottom in the neck with a pocket knife. I believe the guy on the bottom was a homeless man. That is ALL the police need to know to shoot. They need to see the man on top with a knife, and the man on the bottom bleeding. Circumstances have absolutely no weight at that point. If the guy on the bottom raped an entire school 10 seconds ago, and the guy on top is the pope, POLICE are NOT supposed to stand there and "judge." They see a VIOLENT crime being committed right in front of them, and that is ALL they need to know.

 

 

I disagree.. shooting should be prefaced with "stop police.. put the friggin knife down" or something to that regard.. what if you are LEO and respond to a "robbery in progress" and when you walk in.. someone is pointing a gun at another individual is that a criminal? or a law abiding citizen trying to stop the criminal.. you must assess the situation to the FULLEST before shooting.. my issue with the standing around is the complete and total apathy..

I disagree.. shooting should be prefaced with "stop police.. put the friggin knife down" or something to that regard.. what if you are LEO and respond to a "robbery in progress" and when you walk in.. someone is pointing a gun at another individual is that a criminal? or a law abiding citizen trying to stop the criminal.. you must assess the situation to the FULLEST before shooting.. my issue with the standing around is the complete and total apathy..

 

I think you guys need to read up on the rules of engagement. If there is a person with a knife ABOUT to stab someone, then yes, "stop, police" is the appropriate first statement. However, if someone is ACTIVELY stabbing someone, then there is no more time for verbal warnings.

Did you say you were on the LegalHelp website?? Just wondering.

I'm rather disinclined to take your legal help dot org seriously now due to some of your statements.

 

Yes, it's rather disconcerting to see the relative level of inactivity by the cops there, but they do have to worry about their safety and the safety of others as well. From a short video clip, you can't lawyer in any ruling on whether or not the attacker should be shot and potentially killed.

 

I was disappointed how slowly the NYPD reacted. I know they have extendable batons - heck even I have one. Did they need to shoot the guy? Maybe. Would a different tactic have worked? Probably. A taser in this situation would probably have been more than enough.

 

I am sorry you feel that way, but sometimes LEGAL judgements are not to everyone's taste. The man who was stabbed will now hose the NYPD for potentially, millions of dollars due to police inaction. Yes, police have no duty to protect, but in a civil suit, that does not apply. Most of you are also not really getting what I am saying. Should they have shot him? Maybe, maybe not. However, they should have done SOMETHING to stop the stabbing, simple as that. You all also fail to realize that police often put the "officer safety" card first and foremost. In this case, you have an attacker with a knife. There is no telling if the attacker wont turn on police and start slashing them. Thus, engaging the perp in close quarters would be a bad idea, since the officer's first job is to come home to his family that night for dinner. Thus, you are left with a very easy choice with two jobs....the first is to stop the attack, the second is to not put yourself in harms way....other than shooting, I would like to hear what the officer's options are when dealing with a man wielding a knife.

Did you say you were on the LegalHelp website?? Just wondering.

 

Yes sir.

BTW, I never said they should have KILLED him. I simply stated the threat needed to be stopped.

 

Safe to say that officer will not only lose his job, he will do jail time as well. Again, circumstances don't matter. We can safety assume the guy getting run over was a protestor annoying the police, and maybe even doing something illegal. However, trapping his leg under a scooter is NOT proper protocol for detainment, so it definitely won't end well for that officer.

I figured that since the subject was frivolous lawsuit material.

Honestly both situations are very similar. Guy stabbing other guy , guy getting stabbed, and guy purposely laying under scooter should all be shot, then keep it up until normal is normal again. I guess a few million each would settle it too.

I think you guys need to read up on the rules of engagement. If there is a person with a knife ABOUT to stab someone, then yes, "stop, police" is the appropriate first statement. However, if someone is ACTIVELY stabbing someone, then there is no more time for verbal warnings.

 

 

oh.. really? SO I dial 911.. man with a knife call.. it is an intruder.. I engage the intruder.. now we are BOTH cut.. and BOTH scuffling.. I get on top of him just as the police come in and AM stabbing him..

 

the appropriate response is to blow me away? because I am "actively stabbing someone" could be wrong.. but I am almost positive.. the police need to take a moment and assess the situation..

 

 

BTW, I never said they should have KILLED him. I simply stated the threat needed to be stopped.

 

flip flop much?

 

That is ALL the police need to know to shoot.

Yes sir.

 

Wow, really, don;' know what to say..

 

 

 

 

Well maybe I have an Idea, you might want to leave the advise to the lawyers, even if you had 100% valid information and it's not but thats neither here nor there for this point. I will say after reading how you have tried to get your point across, especially when someone isn't agreeing with you you can see the emotion in you writing and defensive writing, let alone trying to talk down to people thinking it will get your point across better.

 

Also after seeing the way the thread went and your input I will have to agree with Nick, there is now way I would visit the Law site or even think about referring anyone there.