Officials Defend Fatal Shooting of a Knife-Wielding Man Near Times Sq.

[realizm]

 

 

"The New York police officers who fatally shot a knife-wielding man after he escaped arrest near Times Square did what they were trained to do, city officials and experts on police procedure said Sunday.

 

 

Police officers pursued a man brandishing a knife on Seventh Avenue on Saturday. None of the officers were carrying stun guns, officials said.

 

Two officers fired 12 shots at the man, Darrius H. Kennedy, after he ignored their orders on Saturday to drop the long kitchen knife he had been waving as he skipped backward down Seventh Avenue, frightening the tourists wandering around on a summer day, police officials said. At least seven of those bullets hit Mr. Kennedy, including three shots to the chest, the police said.

 

Source: New York Times - http://www.nytimes.c...quare.html?_r=1

[Brighton Express]

The officers had to do their job, I am sure he was threatening the safety of many innocent civillians.

[peacemak3r]

From a cop friend; "When threaten by a deadly weapon, they are to use any force necessary to take them down."

 

As Brighton Express and I'm sure others would say, they are doing their job.

[Phantom909]

good for the cops

 

joe

[realizm]

I'm glad to see that the NYPD did their job, that's what they are supposed to do. Instead of just issuing tickets all day long. Props. If they only just happen to have the stun guns then they can immobilize the criminal instead, as much as this guy was clearly dangerous. But they didn't so I guess they had no other recourse but to gun the dude down in a split second desision. Can't say that the cops didn't handle the situation incorrectly, it looks like they had no choice.

[peacemak3r]

They would only use stun guns if the guy wasn't using a weapon like a damn knife. If he were to use a bat, I'm sure cops would have stun-gunned him down.

[realizm]

Googled this one. Yes Police is authorized to use deadly force in the case of a man or woman yielding a knife with the intent to kill. I must highlight the fact that according to the writer of the news article that the cops did not posess stun guns which led to my on the fly assumption. Good catch.

[Joe]

Meanwhile the EDPs family says that the NYPD response was "excessive". I'm telling you, the amusement never stops. Let's just outright blame the NYPD for this guys behavior.

[peacemak3r]

Meanwhile the EDPs family says that the NYPD response was "excessive". I'm telling you, the amusement never stops. Let's just outright blame the NYPD for this guys behavior.

 

 

And then when the family is attacked by a guy with a butcher knife, they'll wonder "Why did the cops only use stun guns or rubber bullets?"

 

Seriously.

[Grand Concourse]

It's what happens when you have reporters wanting any excuse to blame the cops and lawyers wanting the 'victim's' family to sue the cops... Also if the person was high on drugs, I'm not sure stun guns would be totally effective.

[realizm]

If the perp was full blown on PCP in particular as an illegal drug then yeah he may not even fall from a gunshot. Seriously I'm not kidding. people on PCP are known to get shocked by power lines, and with electrical burns and all continue in their delirium.

 

And yes then there's the politics and ethical issues. Which is'nt always in relation to the crime at hand and more for the sake of lawsuits and pointing fingers as you've said. I can clearly see it in this case.

[INDman]

I'm glad to see that the NYPD did their job, that's what they are supposed to do. Instead of just issuing tickets all day long. Props. If they only just happen to have the stun guns then they can immobilize the criminal instead, as much as this guy was clearly dangerous. But they didn't so I guess they had no other recourse but to gun the dude down in a split second desision. Can't say that the cops didn't handle the situation incorrectly, it looks like they had no choice.

 

For a TAZER to be effective, the target must be less than 20 feet away. NYPD guidelines dictate that officers keep at least a distance of 20 feet between them and the EDP with a deadly weapon. That means it's drop the knife or get shot.

[MHV9218]

Meanwhile the EDPs family says that the NYPD response was "excessive". I'm telling you, the amusement never stops. Let's just outright blame the NYPD for this guys behavior.

 

 

*raises hand* I think it was excessive! He didn't hurt anybody, and there's no evidence that he ever threatened the cop. The cops got scared and reacted by shooting him (12 times). This is what we have tasers for, to stop nutcases like this guy without outright killing them. The fact that the cops had no tasers on hand is something they should be looking into, because shooting somebody whose greatest crime was holding a knife 12 times, that's not a good policy.

[Joe]

Disband the NYPD and empower savagery!

[DanTheTransitMan]

*raises hand* I think it was excessive! He didn't hurt anybody, and there's no evidence that he ever threatened the cop. The cops got scared and reacted by shooting him (12 times). This is what we have tasers for, to stop nutcases like this guy without outright killing them. The fact that the cops had no tasers on hand is something they should be looking into, because shooting somebody whose greatest crime was holding a knife 12 times, that's not a good policy.

 

 

Dude, he had knife around a crowd of unarmed civilians; he could of rushed towards any one of them at any moment and could of done something horrible. The police did not want that to happen so they shot him. It's a legal and more importantly it was justified because the man was crazy. Any court would tell you the same damn thing.

[RTS CNG Command]

*raises hand* I think it was excessive! He didn't hurt anybody, and there's no evidence that he ever threatened the cop. The cops got scared and reacted by shooting him (12 times). This is what we have tasers for, to stop nutcases like this guy without outright killing them. The fact that the cops had no tasers on hand is something they should be looking into, because shooting somebody whose greatest crime was holding a knife 12 times, that's not a good policy.

 

Normally, you and I are on the same page with several ideals, but not this one. This man was carrying a lethal weapon and lunged at officers. The second he lunged at officers, then they shot him, as they should, one shot or twelve shots. And in response to the bold, there was plenty of evidence that he threatened at the cops (and bystanders, too), from his taunts to the fact that him swinging at bystanders to him lunging at cops before he was fatally wounded.

 

When an officer feels threatened, then they'll shoot at the perpetrator. If he dropped the knife and surrendered, then they wouldn't have shot him. There were dozens of eyewitnesses right there watching the whole thing. Someone from the NY Times said this perfectly:

“He was either going to get shot or he was going to take someone hostage.”

[realizm]

For a TAZER to be effective, the target must be less than 20 feet away. NYPD guidelines dictate that officers keep at least a distance of 20 feet between them and the EDP with a deadly weapon. That means it's drop the knife or get shot.

 

 

True.

[MHV9218]

Dude, he had knife around a crowd of unarmed civilians; he could of rushed towards any one of them at any moment and could of done something horrible. The police did not want that to happen so they shot him. It's a legal and more importantly it was justified because the man was crazy. Any court would tell you the same damn thing.

 

 

Honestly the courts would tell you the exact opposite, we don't live in the Minority Report here, you can't say that you suspected a crime would be committed so you killed somebody. The scorecard at the end of the day was zero injured civilians, zero injured officers, and one man shot 7 times to his death. Something's off with that.

 

Normally, you and I are on the same page with several ideals, but not this one. This man was carrying a lethal weapon and lunged at officers. The second he lunged at officers, then they shot him, as they should, one shot or twelve shots. And in response to the bold, there was plenty of evidence that he threatened at the cops (and bystanders, too), from his taunts to the fact that him swinging at bystanders to him lunging at cops before he was fatally wounded.

 

When an officer feels threatened, then they'll shoot at the perpetrator. If he dropped the knife and surrendered, then they wouldn't have shot him. There were dozens of eyewitnesses right there watching the whole thing. Someone from the NY Times said this perfectly:

 

 

This is the kind of thing we have non-lethal weaponry for though: he was nuts, he was armed, but he didn't hurt anybody. He should have been disabled, but not killed.