NEW YORK - An unarmed, mentally ill teenager could be heard yelling, "I've got a gun!"� in a 911 call made by his mother before police arrived and killed him in a 20-bullet barrage, according to a transcript of the call released by police Tuesday.

Five officers opened fire after Kheil Coppin, 18, ignored warnings and suddenly charged them outside his mother's home with a black object in his hand, police officials said. The object turned out to be a hairbrush.

Officers received the 911 call from the teen's exasperated mother around 7 p.m. Monday, police spokesman Paul Browne said.

She had attempted to have the teen, who had a history of mental illness, hospitalized earlier in the day, Browne said.

Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch was quick to come to the officers' defense.

"This is an unfortunate situation where the deceased convinced everyone involved--from family members to responding officers-- that he was in possession of a gun,"� Lynch said. "Tragically, he sought and succeeded in forcing a deadly confrontation with police."� link

It's easy to second-guess the police and suggest they should have known better, but if the facts as described remain the same after the investigation that is certain to follow, I don't know how the New York City cops can be blamed in this case.

It is extraordinarily difficult to lock up a mentally disturbed person before they do something harmful to themselves or anyone else. As more details emerge it will it come out whether or not Kheil Coppin was taking any medicines to deal with his psychosis and if so, was he off his meds?

Without a doubt, there have been too many cases regarding the NYC police using excessive force against Black suspects. However, unless the facts change dramatically, this does not appear to be one of those cases.

The question for debate:

Do you believe the police acted appropriately or inappropriately in the shooting death of Kheil Coppin?

NT- I have dealt with stuff like this for some time now- as far as the inpatient mentally ill thing goes.

I would say the general public and lawmakers basic misunderstanding of the treatment of the mentally ill, and the rights of the mentally ill. It is really still in evolution, and it is not in a good place. Too many knee jerk reactions regarding the mentally ill and criminal and civil law and the mentally ill.

It is quite apparent we are dealing with "suicide by cop". I think we can all agree with that- and then examine what went wrong.

the mental health system itself DID NOT let this guy down- the laws that allow someone to be commited do. It is very hard to have someone commited these days, no matter what the illness or thier disability. You pretty much have to be ACTIVELY homicidal and/or suicidal to get commited- just being crazy ain't enough! Even being a POTENTIAL harm to self or others is not enough- you have to be ACTIVELY homicidal or suicidal.

On top of that, what wsa once a good thing- mental health advocacy services, has turned to an awful and gross monster that really does nothing positive for the mentally ill anymore.

The English common law basis that makes the framework of America, and set up the basics of mental health law, is still pretty much mired in the 10th century.

1) One thing that most "laypersons" don't realize is that 99% of the mentally ill, no matter how floridly psychotic, are completely culpable for thier behaviors. It is good defense lawyers that have played on the ignorance of juries on this matter.

2) "pt's rights" have now become more important than thier own safety or the safety of the community.

3) "Privacy" and "confidentiality" are usually used by very, very bad poeple to shield thier very evil deeds.

We need to swing the pendulum just a bit back the other way- it has gotten to the point that public and private safety has been harmed, and we need to fix some of the laws dealing with the mentally ill.

First thing I would do away with completley is "diminished capacity" laws, and would make someone MORE culpable for thier crimes if they are refusing pych meds, and commit crimes while psychotic- I would put mandatory minimum sentances of no less than 5 years for assaulting mental health staff, and take away the AGs discretion for prosecuting them- I would force each and every case to be prosecuted- similar to what eventually had to be done with domestic violence laws- that when a patient acts out violently in the in-patient setting, they MUST be arrested, arraigned and tried, and thier only defense allowable shoudl be "did you do it, yes or no"- no other defense.

Then, put them on probation for LIFE. If they don't take thier meds- back to jail they go, period. They are simply too big of a risk to innocent poeple to allow them to NOT take thier meds.

I have dealt with literally hundreds of killers, pedophiles, rapists, thieves and lowly trespassers, and the story ALWAYS starts "well, he got off his meds, then he/she went and did "x"

Now, I am NOT talking about jailing folks for nothing, before a crime happens, just AFTER thier initial first violent episode.

I have to say, this was a case where the police did everything right. Too bad for the kid, but the policemen should not be required to try to analyze someone that has stated " I have a gun" and runs at them with an object pointed at them.

I can't imagine what else they could have done.

Do you believe the police acted appropriately or inappropriately in the shooting death of Kheil Coppin?

I'll agree with Nighttimer here and say that it appears from the facts given that the police were justified here. When someone says "I've got a gun!" the police must take them at their word. To do otherwise would by idiotic. When a person with a gun charges out of a house, the police must assume the worst. It may be tragic, but Kheil Coppin is that one that forced the hand of the police.

I hit the wrong button - the cops are NOT responsible. So, at least 1 vote is incorrect.

While a tragedy, the cops - as usual - did what they could to save their own lives. I don't believe it's part of a cop's job description to get shot before he's allowed to defend himself. Where were the people surrounding this person to make sure he didn't cause harm to himself or others? Why didn't the mom call 911 again and say he only had a a hairbrush and was not armed?

A lot of people failed the kid that day, but the cops weren't one of them.

Barring any huge change in the facts that have been presented thus far, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the cops. Everyday, they leave their families behind knowing that they may not return home at the end of their shift. When it is dark, dealing with someone that is not acting rational and that person as well has his family is telling the cops that he is armed, there is no reason for the cops not to think otherwise. When someone that you believe is armed refuses to follow commands and rushes you, you only have one choice. It is tragic that this person had to be killed, but the cops are not to blame. They will have to carry this incident with them the rest of their lives, and I believe that will be difficult enough for them.

Just a little perspective here: Cops are not even in top 10 when it comes to rate of death per 100,000. (See 2005 list of most dangerous jobs). So, while the job is indeed dangerous, let's not overdramatize. Millions of loggers, steel workers, roofers, airline pilots, taxi drivers, etc. leave their families knowing that they may not return home at the end of their shift. I do believe that American cops are too trigger-happy sometimes; however they seem to have more justification than usual in this particular incident. Although, come to think of it, why not tazer the guy?

because using a Tazer doesn't guarantee the person will stop shooting. In fact it's likely to have the shooter shooting wildly injuring or killing bystandetrs.

Are you making your point that there are other dangerous jobs simply to start an argument, or are you thinking that using less than lethal force against someone that everyone involved thought had a handgun would be a logical decision? At no point did I imply that cops are the only ones that work in a dangerous line of work, but thank you for pointing that out since that point is directly related to the discussion in this thread.

Exactly. However, he wasn't shooting, was he? He could have been a foreigner who doesn't speak English. Isn't it cop's responsibility to make sure there's a mortal danger before using the deadly force?
I know that's not how things work in this country, and maybe gun-happy culture and the fact that every Joe Public on the street can potentially have a piece in his pocket contributes to such trigger-happiness by police.

A brush... a Brush!?!?!? OK a Black Brush.... ewwww that makes a diference.

I voted the police are responsible. Eh simply put, our police are reckless due to a society that feels some need to call them "heroes". Hero worship is becoming a staple of the American populace... along with BA oneliners.

Look, there was no gun... so why did officers fire??

How do you mistake a hairbrush for a gun.

Fact: police were not fired on. Police were not under mortal threat.

The most you can say is that the police were scared and undisciplined. This is not to totally absolve the lunatic for being a lunatic, but then again, dead people don't need absolution.

Police are the police because they are the professionals. That why we as society give up our rights to do as they say in situation. That is why they can use deadly force.

To shoot somebody with a hairbrush is showing a severe lack in professionalism, training, and maybe even courage. They shot him not because they were under mortal threat, but because they feared they were under mortal threat. It makes a difference.

Family calls police, "He's got a gun!"
Police arrive he charges holding a black cylindrical item screaming, "I've got a gun!"
Yeah the police were totally trigger-happy. The people needed heros! Society is to blame!

Do you even read what you post lately?

Nowhere in the original article it says that he "charged" police officers holding "cyllindrical" item (where did that come from?) screaming "I've got a gun".



Police were afraid they were under threat and did exactly what DaytonRocker said:

Actually, if you read the original post, you will see this quote:

Suddenly charged them, sounds like this person failed to follow the cops instructions, and charged them. Pretty cut and clear. Add the fact that it was dark and everyone involved, the kids mother and himself, told the police that he had a gun. Police don't have the luxury of playing Monday morning quarterback like you do and making this decision knowing all of the facts. They have to go on what is given them. They were told by everyone that the kid had a gun. The kid was trying to either rush them, or get away. Either way, if he was rushing the cops, that shows intent to cause them harm, if he was trying to get away, the innocent neighbors were put in harms way. Either way, the cops had to do something. They don't get to wait to find out that their suspect actually does have a gun and some innocent person gets killed.

I just wanted to tell off the 66 some percent who thought Coppin was responsible; I don't know how many of you have serious, extensive contact with or understanding of the mentally ill. If so, maybe you can explain why this teenager is responsible.

Fact is, this is a tragic event that we have to prepare for when we give our cops guns. It's a natural outcome, and I'm sure similar incidences have happened before, will happen again. I'm not saying that to suggest that cops should or should not be armed here in the united states. I'm saying that to suggest that cops are human, and fallible, and not always aware of the particulars of a situation.


I do think the NYPD has a history, however, of making this mistake time and time again. Just about once every year or so there's a story that comes out about a black male being shot because he was holding something that cops mistakenly thought was a gun. It's an old NYPD story, and here's what I suspect lies behind this:

Not everyone can be a cop, just like everyone is not cut out for the Navy S.E.A.L.s. It takes a certain clear-headedness, I'll just use the catch-all term nerves. YEs you have to err on the side of protecting your own life, and the life of those civillians involved. But the NYPD needs people who can very quickly make a more accurate judgment than mistaking a hairbrush or a wallet for a gun. Those are two pretty grievous and unfortunate conclusions to reach. Those two incidents didn't have to happen.

I suspect that the NYPD, like the New York School System, hires a lot of employees that supervisors secretly know are not up to the task, to meet growing demand. Maybe NYPD needs a massive pay raise coupled with an intense restructuring-- moving these kinds of cops from the streets into desk jobs, etc. Because when you've got five NYPD offices clustered into a little apartment, and one starts firing, the others don't look at each other and say, "why is Greg firing." They shoot. They rely on his judgment. We need to tighten the NYPD forces and make sure that we don't have these kinds of officers responding to serious, violent incidences.

I think that is a conclusion that all sides can agree on. Now we just need the federal government to decide that a life lost to street violence is as valuable as a life lost to terrorism. How about a department of tenemant-land security?

I agree with Droop 100% here. As a society we insist upon being policed and we allow the police the power of death over the rest of us. As such they have a responsibility to be right 100% of the time when they use lethal force. There is no excuse for killing an unarmed teenager. There was no actual mortal threat to the police, merely an assumed threat. As such the use of force was a wrong choice. It's time we accept that the police are human like the rest of us and thus flawed. Increasingly the police show that a major flaw is fear. Fear of the citizenry they are supposed to protect. And with each act of fear that leads to another mistaken shooting followed by the usual excuses of perceived danger the police become less effective. It's time we look at these shootings and ask why the police are trigger happy to the point where any black object is assumed to be a gun and noncompliance with police instructions has become a possible death sentence.

The difference of course between being cop and a logger, steelworker, roofer, airline pilot, or taxi driver is that for those jobs there is a reasonable expectation that at no time during their shift will they have to face off against a armed individual who intends to shoot them.

Questions about why cops shoot people instead of using tasers, gas, bean bags, rubber bullets and other non-lethal weapons always arise after incidents like this. Not being a cop, I can't answer why other methods aren't used, but I do know that police hate domestic disturbance calls because there are so many variables involved. Add to the drama a person who is acting irrationally (are they drunk? are they on PCP or some other drug? are they mentally ill?) and the cops have to make a lot of decisions without a lot of information. Those decisions can have life or death implications for the suspect, other civilians or the cops themselves.

Cops are supposed to be trained to only pull their guns when necessary and when they do it's not to fire a warning shot or wound someone with a shot to the leg or arm. They aim for the largest body mass and that's the torso and chest area and when they fire they go for a kill shot, not a wound because a wounded person can still advance and attack. People don't always flop to the ground dead when they're shot. That's movie jive.

There is a more detailed follow-up story from MSNBC:

At a press conference Tuesday, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the shooting was "within department guidelines" in that officers had reason to believe that Coppin was intending to use deadly force.

Kelly said Coppin was holding what police believed to be a gun under his black sweatshirt .

Kelly said Coppin ignored officers' commands to surrender. When Coppin brandished the object from under his shirt, Kelly said he pointed it at officers like someone would a gun. That's when officers fired at Coppin. The object turned out to be a hair brush.

As police were en route, Coppin apparently told his mother, "I'm prepared to die," and put a tape dispenser in his pocket. She apparently said she'd tell officers he didn't have a gun, which is when he grabbed two knives instead.

Police arrived at the apartment, seeing Coppin holding the knives. They called for emergency services and other backup.

Police said they have nine independent witnesses to the shooting who said Coppin was moving toward police and was reaching from his waistband or pocket, lifting his arm when police opened fire. link

Of course "the usual suspects" (hello, Al Sharpton) are now on the scene ready to play Monday Morning Quarterback and the family wants "justice" for Coppin. I'm just curious how much "help" they actually tried to get him before he reached this point of no return.

I've no reluctance at all in criticizing the police when they overreact and shoot people under less than valid circumstances. But I don't see this as a Sean Bell or Amadou Diallo scenario. In this case, I am still inclined to give the cops the benefit of the doubt.

Good post NT.

I wonder... why would this be news in the first place? I mean, it's a tragedy, but so? Unfortunately, there are tragic circumstances just like this every day in America. Some kids had a car accident in Dallas killing one on Saturday, is that a whole bunch different?

I suppose it's because a black kid was shot by cops. Are all shootings by police on the news?

If this is used to train police on mentally ill patients, that's cool. Being that I've been shot at, I can understand. It's terrifying. Granted, this kid didn't shoot, but in a case like this... who wants to give someone the chance to shoot first?

Oh, the news value of the story is really easy to figure out, Aevans176. First, it's a mentally-ill, 18-yr-old Black kid who threatens his mother and then the police (a familiar scenario played out multiple times across the country, but this time it ended in violence and death). The police shoot and kill him but come to find out he's only armed with a hairbrush instead of a gun (That makes the story "odd" and "tragic" because of the error).

Finally, it happened in New York City (where everything is bigger, louder and more subject to the spotlight). This is a classic case of a story where "if it bleeds, it leads." It ain't complicated and the boundaries are broadly drawn--Black kid, White cops (presumably), mental health agencies dropped the ball, a panicked 911 call, gunfire, threats of demonstrations by self-styled "leaders." This story practically sells itself.

And if all things stayed the same and instead of NYC and a Black kid we were talking about Ft. Wayne, Indiana and it was a White kid, I sincerely doubt there would be anything more than a news brief in passing outside of the local area.

There is an unhappy tendency by the media to focus on what is familiar and easily related to the masses than to dwell on issues that go beyond our preconceived expectations on race, cops, and crime. For example, while The Jena 6 case finally became national news after a massive demonstration that drew thousands of marchers, Al and Jesse and camera crews from across the country, a much more heinous crime occurred in Florida that drew no such dramatic reactions.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Mother and son huddled together, battered and beaten, in the bathroom â€â€� sobbing, wondering why no one came to help.

Surely the neighbors had heard their screams. The walls are thin, the screen doors flimsy in this violence-plagued housing project on the edge of downtown.

For three hours, the pair say, they endured sheer terror as the 35-year-old Haitian immigrant was raped and sodomized by up to 10 masked teenagers and her 12-year-old son was beaten in another room.

Then, mother and son were reunited to endure the unspeakable: At gunpoint, the woman was forced to perform oral sex on the boy, she later told a TV station.

Afterward, they were doused with household cleansers, perhaps in a haphazard attempt to scrub the crime scene, or maybe simply to torture the victims even more. The solutions burned the boy's eyes.

"So a lady was raped. Big deal," resident Paticiea Matlock said with disgust. "There's too much other crime happening here." link

Big deal, indeed. A Black woman and her son are brutalized by Black thugs in a predominantly Black housing project and who gives a damn? Not even her neighbors who ignored her cries. Black victims preyed upon by Black criminals don't interest the mainstream (White) media. Had race been involved in either the victims or the perpetrators, media interest might be aroused. I say "might" because if it's a poor White victim being attacked by a Black criminal, unless the crime is particularly heinous or the victim physically attractive, it might not be "newsworthy" either. Class, even more than race, has a lot to do with the amount of attention paid to stories like this.

But the media can't be blamed alone for the disinterest. I have yet to see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson lead a demonstration against Black-on-Black crime or even acknowledge it is far more likely that a Black teenager will be shot by another Black teenager than a White cop. If racist cops were killing Black teens as casually and on the scale Black kids kill each other there would be demands for federal intervention and a new civil rights era.

Unfortunately, Black life is often cheap and not considered newsworthy to the Sharptons of the world. I would say I am starting to reevaluate my position about the relative usefulness of the Revered Sharpton. At some point if you're not part of the solution, maybe you're just exploiting the problem for your own benefit.

I'm not becoming more conservative as I get older, but I am getting far more cynical and not as easily outraged.

Well this is a surprise... but a welcomed one



Wow BA, you actually typed more than a one liner... still said nothing constructive... but it is an improvement!! Keep up the good work

This is but one of numerous examples of cops using too much force. Do you even look at the news... As a matter of fact, turn on SPIKE TV some times and look at wildest police Chases, or some show similar. In that show you'll see numerous acts of police acting like thugs rather than the professionals they should be.

you have a car chase, your adreniline is pumping. You corner the man he comes out with his hands high. you tell him to get on his knees... then you come in with a flying knee kick...

Oh and how about the tactic keep repeating "stop resisting arrest" while you pound the crap out of somebody. What's your natural reaction when you are get hit?? Well if it isn't hit back and you can't run, it's going to be cover up. Are cops just too stupid for this to register?? No, they are not, they just don't care. or in the heat of confrontation they are unable to keep cool.

Brave cops die all the time. Because the don't live in fear of citizens. They don't come to every car or situation with their hand already on the pistol. When the heats turned up they use force as last possible course of action... not the first option.

Those cops get caught by the wrong people and get blown away.

Then you have the "i just want to get home to my family" cop. Every human wants to live to see the next day. But these cops under pressure, react too fast. And they act lethally. Their first regard is not the citizens, but themselves. They lack heroic virtues, they lack the steel mettle that is needed in our police.

Which brings us to the hothead cop. The most cowardly and dishonorable of them all.

Brave police die... the others... they shoot lunatics with hair brushes.

When we as a society don't say "Fire those cops.." but instead, looking at the AD poll say.. "the lunatic is to blame" You are creating an environment that does not vet out WEAK cops. WEAK, SCARY cops are a danger to us the citizens.

OK... we all agree. The cops were told the suspect had a gun. He said it the family said it... so lets start with the assumption ... the cops thought he had a gun.

Were they fired upon??
No, cause he had no gun.

Did they see a muzzle pointing at them??
No cause he had no gun.

Did they seem him even wave a gun??
No cause he had no gun!!!

So why would it be acceptable to any of us here to accept FEAR as a reason to use lethal force?? I'm not saying that they were not afraid, I am not saying they shouldn't have been afraid, I am saying they are Police, and should not act on fear alone.

And if the gun turns out to be a hairbrush... what else can we say they acted upon. They did not even verify a lethal weapon before shooting to kill.



The no longer have high beam lights attached to cars??



He had the "weapon" in his hand. If police don't have the "luxury" to verify that it is a gun before applying lethal force... why do we need them. Anyone can get a gun and shoot to kill whenever they think there might be danger.

Why do we use tax dollar to train them, if they don't have the luxury to use that training?

I am confused by your post, first you agree that the police were wrong in shooting the teenager, then you support the fact that police are human and react to fear.

I do like your professional opinion that an assumed threat does not justify using deadly force. By what factual evidence did you find that supports this point? By your logic, just because someone does have a gun in a similar situation, it is only assumed that that person is going to use it against the cops or other people, so deadly force isn't warrented unless the individual actually shoots at someone. Correct me if I am wrong.


What real world experience do you have to justify categorizing these individuals as you have? Have you walked a mile in their shoes? Have you actually been in situations that allow you to come to these conclusions?

Scubatim


No, I've never had to decide whether to shoot someone waving a loaded hair brush!
No, I've never been a cop

Yes I've carried loaded weapons on patrol.
Yes, I've been freinds with cops
Yes I've seen people killed in front of my face.
Yes I've been threatened with a gun, (albeit not directly to my temple), one was a "watch yourself" like threat, the other was some one believed some one stole a CD.
Yes, I've had cops come to me with hands on their guns.
Yes I've had cops that were unprofessional harass me
Yes, i've had cops show me the utmost courtesy but still give me a sobriety test. (which I passed)

What exactly are you looking for Scubatim

Let me tell you many of your cops are prior military, MANY. I'm prior military. I know the type of people that go to be cops. And just like in the military, every soldier isn't a brave soldier. Every cop isn't a brave cop. Some do it for the money, some do it for the adventure, some do it for power, some do it because they actually care about the citizens of this nation. We don't need steve erwins of the police force waving guns at us.

Soldiers go abroad and kill "them...", Cops are killing "us". I am making my judgements by their actions... They are using force in general too soon. They are human, they do have emotions, but those shown to act too hasily on emotion, whether , it be fear or anger, need to be vetted out.

You can honestly say that you would have been able to determine that the guy with the hairbrush didn't actually have a gun in the same situation these cops had to. You admit that you have never been in a cop's shoes, so how do you justify judging them? You are suggesting that we need cops without emotion. How do you suggest we do that?

Simple. We impress upon them, the nature of emotion, and explain, it deatil, how very doubleplus-ungood it is. Weed out those who attempt to doublethink, and then reinstate the officers with a martial arm of the military. Freedom, after all, is innefficient, and unecessary.

Remember everyone, police officers must be taught to do their duty doubleplus-goodwise, else our great establishment fall to ruin.

First, I'm not saying that cops should have discerned it was a air brush in the hand of the looney-toon. I'm saying if they could not see "visually" that there was a gun they should not have opened fire. They saw no muzzle flash, they saw no muzzle, they heard no bang coming from the individual.

That means someone shot because they were afraid, someone shot because they we're peed off, or someone shot because they just didn't care. We as a society , don't need cops like that.

Secondly, are you suggesting only cops can judge cops? Well, by that standard can we say only criminals can judge criminals. Only drug dealers can judge drug dealers. Come on Scubatim what's your experience of growing up in the ghetto?? What's your experience with harrassing cops... You know what it's like be surrounded by drug dealers, crackheads, in a broken home?? Ttwo can play this game.

Lastly, you are flat wrong to read that i don't think cops should have emotions. I think people who we allow the power to use lethal force and physical force on us, MUST have the utmost control of those emotions. And when we see in this instance that they do not... i'm not advocating throwing them in Prison (at least not in this case) but they obviously do not have the stomach to be police.

When the fires on, which it was in this instance, the blood is racing, they must control their emotion. When you hear about a 20 bullet barrage to an individual who was armed with hairbrush, it is obvious they allowed their emotions to control them.

Actually Droop, I'm interested in a previous question the Scubatim asked.


Could you?

If your first imperative is to prevent the loss of innocent life, and the aggressor is running forward with---whatever it is, gun knife...hairbrush, in his hand, generally, it is not possible to stop, and calmly rationalize the situation. How well do you analyze, when a possibly armed man is running towards you, screaming that he's "got a gun?"

Nothing is obvious to me as you have stated. By your rationale, an individual has to shoot at someone in order to use leathal force to stop said individual from causing harm. That in itself is not rational. To wait until there is a victim in order to prevent an individual from causing someone to become a victim is reactionary and irrational.

I am pointing out the fact that until you walk a mile in the shoes of cops, it is hard to make judgements to their decisions.

Do you believe the police acted appropriately or inappropriately in the shooting death of Kheil Coppin?

From the information offered, how can you tell?

The dead man is described as acting in a way that forced a confrontation, I believe this is commonly termed a 'suicide by police'. In such a situation, the police are forced to react to protect themselves and unless there is some way to immedietely determine the none existence of a threat, in a society with so wide spread a propensity of guns, the only way to guarantee the safety of a police officer is to shoot first and ask questions later.

Any other course of action short of immediete retreat does not guarantee the safety of the police and one can ponder on whether the public wishes a police force which retreats at the first sign of ambiguity. It could also be argued that the police ought to be better at their jobs, ought to be better trained, but the fact is this sort of killing happens in every society, not just the USA. Its also happened in Denmark where guns are not very wide spread.

When ever the police come into contact with some one determined to force a confrontation, then they are obliged to guarantee their safety first and if that means shooting a would be attacker who ignores their commands, then so be it.

I thought I answered but allow me to answer more directly.

Someone is coming towards police who may have a gun, but the police have yet to see a gun, should not be fired upon. I have no clue if i would or wouldn't. I would like to think I wouldn't, but if I did, I don't have the stomach to be a police officer.

Akalae

How well do you analyze, when a possibly armed man is running towards you, screaming that he's "got a gun?"

Why does this matter? Are you equating a trained police officer with a common citizen like myself?? Isn't that the whole point of having a trained police officer, so that given a situation they don't act like the common joe with a hand gun?? If not I refer you to the thread a while back that asks.. "Do we need cops??"

My belief is this. It really doesn't matter if the guy would have reached under his shirt and pulled out his hand in a gun gesture. People are unwilling to hold our police to any standard, when they kill off what they deem as expendable.

Scubatim



They DON'T see a weapon. They are open up a 20 bullet shootout... but we can't even call it a shoot out, cause only one side had guns. By my rationale if he brought out a gun or a fake gun that strongly resembled a the real thing, then the police acted appropriately, upon him charging them.

If however, he is just shouting I got a gun, with his hand in his pant and pulls out a hair brush, why shouldn't police be calm enough ad trained enough to verify it is a gun before firing. Verifying its a gun takes an extra second. Yeah a second put the officer in additional risk. But if you don't want to be at risk.... WHY ARE YOU A COP?!?!?





I am countering that argument with the fact we judge people all the time people whom we have never walked a foot in their shoes.



EXACTLY!!! Cops should be trained on the "suicide by cop" tactic. Why do we want cops that "shoot first and ask questions later". As a citizen that would make me a plum fool of an idiot.They are trained, they should question... is this guy truly a threat, I hear noise from his mouth but he hasn't showed me somuch as a hairbrush yet." To normalize, and not penalize, a shoot first and ask questions later mentality in people with the authority... to shoot me, or my children.

There is a balance that officers must juggle, that the average citizen does not that puts them at greater risk of lethal threats. There is a line to be drawn... that line CAN NOT be drawn at a point before police VERIFY someone has a lethal weapon and clear present danger with that weapon.

But, droop, this case... this specific case the person who felt they were most expendable was actually the one intentionally getting himself expended. Everyone, including his mother (literally) believed this person to have a gun. When he pulls a black object at police, who have actual guns, he's committing suicide - and not because the police are at some fault, or trigger happy or any of the other things they can be accused of here on by some posters, but because if you draw a weapon at armed people they are going to kill you - unless you're John McLean and manage to kill them all. It is a reasonable response to your unreasonable action. The fact that you don't actually have a weapon only exacerbates the unreasonable aspect of your actions.

Frankly speaking these cops were put in an impossible situation. There's no doubt in my mind that in a similar situation I'd have fired on this person. I'm not a trigger happy person (I don't even own a gun, never have, but I have fired many) but the reasonable response to this situation is to protect you and those around you. How many of these cops do you suspect are having a real hard time sleeping knowing they shot and killed a kid with a hair brush? Or do you think they are hoisting a mug in celebration?


These LEOs don't sound particularly trigger happy.

Thank you for making my point exactly. You have equated common citizen thought to a trained officers actions throughout. The fact that this guy's own mother told the police that he had a gun gives credible thought that this guy posed a risk to innocent civilians. Why would she do that if she didn't believe it? The police are protecting more than just themselves, they were protecting the rest of the neighborhood.

Taken from the Amnesty International site.

"The NYC Police Departments patrol guide states that The primary duty of all members of the service is to preserve human life. The departments guidelines for the use of firearms provides that deadly force may be used as a last resort when an officer or another person is in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death and all other reasonable alternative measures have been exhausted. NYPD guidelines on fleeing suspects state that deadly force shall not be used to subdue a fleeing felon who presents no threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to themselves or another person. Under this standard a NYC police officer may not fire at a suspect fleeing from the scene of even a violent crime simply in order to stop the suspect, or make an arrest, unless someones life is in direct and immediate danger. This is a stricter standard than provided under both New York state law and nationally. (The US Supreme Court established a national minimum standard governing police use of deadly force in Tennessee v Garner in 1985, ruling that deadly force may not be used against a nonviolent fleeing suspect; however the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of someone suspected of a serious felony involving violence, or the threat of violence, has not been ruled unconstitutional. NY state law allows the use of deadly force against fleeing felons suspected of certain categories of dangerous crime.)

The guidelines also prohibit the firing of warning shots; discharging firearms in defence of property; firing at a moving vehicle unless the occupants are using deadly force other than the vehicle itself; and discharging firearms when doing so will unnecessarily endanger innocent persons. They provide that, wherever feasible, a verbal warning should be given before firearms are discharged. They also state that police officers shall never cock a firearm (hold the gun with the trigger lever raised in readiness for firing) under any circumstances."

Perceived danger does not qualify as justification for the use of lethal force. To clarify my position Scubatim, fear is no replacement for an actual threat to life and limb. The police assumed he was armed and based upon this assumption took his life. It was an understandable fear but only if the man was actually armed. Nothing can take away the fact that there was no actual threat to the lives of the officers. looked like a gun, or it being dark, or assuming a gun was on the scene, all these are excuses to justify a tragic mistake that crosses the line into negligence.

Judging by what you posted the NYPD did everything correctly.

Yes, thats all true, for as long as you recognize the object in his hand as a hair brush. What we have here is the question at the heart of the matter. The neighbour reports the 'suspect' (for wont of a better word) ignored the police's commands and deliberately strode forth brandishing the dark object that later turned out to be a hair brush.

How does a police officer, expecting someone to come at them with a gun, in a split second or two, identify a hair brush, as a hair brush, especially if it is being held in a matter to suggest a hand gun?

Actually I'm sure the police are trained in how to avoid 'suicide by police', but as you must know, no amount of training can grant a police officer the power of clairvoyance. In an instance like this, the police must retain a cool head despite the heightened tension caused by instinct, fear and andrenaline and judge whether or not the 'suspect' is dangerous or not. In this case they erred and the simple fact is, no matter how much training, preperation and education you carry out, to err is human.

I don't believe it is possible to avoid such accidents as these for so long as gun crime is a serious threat to a society. As I pointed out, even in countries like mine, where such crimes a rarer, the police still sometimes shoot people who attack them with all manner of odd 'weaponry'. Usually they manage to do this by shooting people's legs or using nonlethal weapons, but sometimes, as happened twice in recent years, they end up accidently shooting some one dead and sometimes as we saw recently in Canada, even a nonlethal weapons kills some one.

Unfortunately accidents happen.


I'm sorry, but threatening to kill some one, even if you don't have the means to actually do so, is still a crime and no police officer is obliged to let themselves be shot dead whilst trying to identify the nature of an object being described by the person weilding it as a gun.

It would be cool if the police were so well trained that they were able to identify and passify any one who acted like this, but in a job where one is repeatedly faced with gun crime, it is inevitable that people are going to be hit by accident. That such a person deliberately acts in a manner to force the police to shoot him simply increases the likelihood of misunderstanding.

edited to add:

And can you show us an example of human beings who are 100% right all the time?

Because it seems to me that if your going to hold the police responsible for not being 100% right all the time, then you r asking for the impossible and threatening retribution for the unavoidable.

Scubatim


Huh

IF they were protecting the neighbor hood why did they only shoot when he pulled out the lethal hairbrush on them??

And what common citizen thought have I equated to trained officers through out this thread. CAuse i'm not sure what you are talking about??

The story doesn't indicate that the mother thought he had a gun, unless I missed a link that said that. The story says the police heard the boy yelll "i got a gun " while the mother was calling the police.

BA



How impossible was it to question first shoot later??



Then maybe you shouldn't be a cop.



Well I think the decent one are seriously considering whether they have the mettle to be a good police officer.. or a "shoot first ask question later" cowboy.

The question was answered before it was even asked. It was answered with "I HAVE A GUN!"

Short of cyborg police officers, we have to suffice for now with actual human beings who
1) can't read minds
2) don't want to die
3) probably have loved ones they don't wish to leave behind

I don't see a remedy for the above three human "faults" anytime soon. Unless and until we can replace humans with robocops, this is a situation in which policemen actions were justified.

Well, nobody wants to die, obviously, but if they want a safe working environment, they're in the wrong line of work.... Does it matter whether they have loved ones they don't want to leave behind or not? By that logic, a single childless officer is more expendable than the one with wife and children? The police officers chose line of work in which they were granted power over lives of general citizenry. In exchange they are supposed to be trained to wait that extra quarter of a second - possibly, putting themselves at risk - to identify that the danger to their life is clear and is present before pulling the trigger - which was obviously not the case here. If they're not ready to take that risk, they shouldn't be cops.

Let's see; you ask why they opened fire when he pulled out what they were told to be a gun. I don't see the logic in this question. Please expand on your thought.

You ask about the common citizen thought I refer to? Your thoughts as a Monday morning quarterback compared to the experiences of police officers.

MOIF




By waiting until s/he sees a weapon that justifies lethal force. They are shooting on the belief he had a gun, which I can understand if a hairbrush actually resembled a gun. If they were too far to differentiate a gun from a hairbrush, then yes they had the second or two or 3 to spare.

I am not really understanding what is difficult about expecting Police officers to , at least visually, verify that the person you are shooting has a lethal weapon before shooting??

Is that too steep a criteria??

We have pilots and soldiers in foreign lands that are sometimes given orders to not fire until fired upon. Is it humanly impossible to hold your fire until you verify there is a weapon??



Yes to err is human. Thus i am NOT calling for them to be locked up without a key. At the same time, one has to question their nerve and whether officers that err in such a manner should continue to be officers with the responsibility.

Maybe I'm just off my bonkers.. but killing someone who you think may have a weapon before verifying the weapon even exists... seems like a pretty big err. It's not like they wrote the wrong address on a speeding ticket. And it's not like I'm complaining that the officers should verify a gun is loaded.



I'd be careful what you call an "accident". I'm pretty sure the officers intentionally killed the guy... it's hard to have 20 bullets fly in an accident. An accident would be he died from non-lethal force like a taser gun or rubber bullets.

And, I'm not saying that that mistakes aren't made. But when a mistake is made where a person with no weapon is killed... I'm thinking this is a "screw up" of such magnificent magnitude that somebody needs to get fired.

Also to you and Mrs P. You both make a comment about clairvoyance and reading minds. let me state for the record.. I don't expect cops to have psychic powers. I think there should be a requirement for cops to have working eyeballs and ears. With these tools I believe a cop should have to visually see a lethal weapon before use of lethal force.


Again, not psychic power, just functioning eyeballs and ears.... oh yeah and the nerve to verify, before going all terminator.


Scubatim


I have explained but I will again.

Why did they open fire before verifying that he had a gun?? That is my question. And i answered it. Because they were too scared to verify he actually had a gun. Fear controlled these police and their actions, rather then they control that fear.



Monday morning Quarterback. I would think they are trained to verify there is a weapon. I'll wait till my freind finishes the academy to whether this is true or not.

But wow what if Officer are actually trained "if you get scared enough, start shooting.." And you are still stuck on this idea that only cops can judge cops... where does this mentality come from. Since when is being a cop some god like status unapproachable by the mere likes of a citizen??

SNIPPED for Space Only

The gist of your question is, Why did the police shoot this kid without verifying he actually had a gun?

The implication is these trigger happy cops were out of their minds with fear.

The facts as reported by bystanders are that the kid claimed to have a gun. Charged out of the house at the police. The police backed up. Gave verbal warnings. Took cover. And began to shoot.

The police did everything they could have done given the situation at hand.

No they did not. Why should bystander's words decide the life of a kid?
Another scenario: my neighbor, who doesn't speak English, has an argument with his uncle. That uncle, for spite, calls police and tells police that my neighbor behaves rowdy and claims to have a gun. Police arrives, shouts something at my neighbor, he doesn't understand and moves towards them. They shoot him dead.
There're dozens of scenarios like that - a person can be deaf, can be a foreigner who doesn't understand English, can have mental problems, etc. etc.
The police DID NOT verify the claim that the teenager actually had a gun. They feared he had one, and chose the safe way out - the one that cost someone else's life.

The bystander is reporting what happened. What have you read that differs from this account?

The bystander made an erroneous observation, since the teenager did not have a gun. Isn't that a fact?
The police relied on bystender's observation without verifying it... also a fact.

You need to read the article. The mother of the boy called the police and told them he had a gun. He told the police he had a gun. It was completely reasonable to believe he had a gun.

Did the bystander actually tell this to the police? My understanding was the bystander quoted was a witness to events but had nothing to do with the police or the dispatch call which summoned them. I don't see that the bystander who was