What would you do?

GratefulCitizen · 10-07-2007, 18:09

Another disturbing event:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...cho_goes_.html

It made me think.

In NYC, most of us don't have the option of carrying a firearm.
If I saw someone stabbing a 67 year-old woman wearing a neckbrace and walking with a cane, I'd have to do something about it.

From a tactical point of view, what would be the best course of action?

**The Reaper** · 10-07-2007, 18:23

You would think that the value of a good CCW program would be clear from this.

Lacking that, OC the SOB, and put the boot to him once he was on the ground. A cane is another viable option against a knife attack.

A little look into the number of nutjobs like this walking the streets of the city would also be another concern. Why is this asshole not incarcerated or committed?

TR

82ndtrooper · 10-07-2007, 18:42

A Louisville Slugger to the back of the head sounds pretty good to me.

Maybe a an ASP baton, hickory stick, some steel toed boots, piano wire around the neck from behind, take your pick.

In all seriousness NYC has a big problem. Most people do not want to get involved, and most won't even cooperate with law enforcement if they have witnessed anything.

I'm just glad that I enjoy living in a state with legislators that recognize the dangers in infringing the right to bear arms for personal safety. If it's in Kentucky then I'm going to approach, check my back drop, and then squeeze two between the running lights of the SOB. In NYC, it's a whole new game with the use of deadly force.

CoLawman · 10-07-2007, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You would think that the value of a good CCW program would be clear from this.

Lacking that, OC the SOB, and put the boot to him once he was on the ground. A cane is another viable option against a knife attack.

A little look into the number of nutjobs like this walking the streets of the city would also be another concern. Why is this asshole not incarcerated or committed?

TR

The systematic deinstitutionalization of this country's severely mentally disturbed over the past thirty years is the cause. Time and time again we see nuts like this creating havoc in our society. The politically correct and human rights watchers rarely examine the result of their asinine advocacy.

Our streets are littered with homeless. They are made up, by a large percentage, of nuts that in previous decades would have been institutionalized. Most require medication, which the do gooders failed to consider prior to opening the gates of the Cuckoo's Nest.

These same do gooders were the ones blaming the increase in homelessness on Reaganomics. Geez I detest these individuals who place individuals rights above a society's, regardless of the consequences.

I lay may head down upon my pillow every night praying that they will start eating their young.

Plutarch · 10-07-2007, 20:19

Geraldo Rivera came to fame for his reports on the conditions at the Willowbrook State School for the Mentally Ill. Instead of cleaning up the institutions and providing better care, the State of New York basically just released mental patients onto the streets. The result has been people pushed in front of subway trains, random stabbings , and the general public having to tolerate lice ridden smelly people in public places like libraries.

When I have had to travel to NY City, I made sure to take OC/Mace and steel toed boots.

mdb23 · 10-07-2007, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

These same do gooders were the ones blaming the increase in homelessness on Reaganomics. Geez I detest these individuals who place individuals rights above a society's, regardless of the consequences.

It has little to do with "do gooders" and much more to do with funding. Simply put, unless your family is independently wealthy (and I'm talking in the millions here), then they cannot afford the bill of your being institutionalized and treated for a lifetime.

Insurance won't cover that kind of long term care, and at best the modern HMO pays for a short eval/stabilization period, the prescrition of new meds, and then the patient is forced back onto the street and told to check in with their shrink for a follow up. Like the paranoid schizo type is really going to do that...

Most families aren't mentally, physically, or financially capable of caring for a seriously mentally ill person. As a result, they end up homeless.

And though I am a fan of Reagan in many aspects, I believe in calling it like I see it. Reagonomics did result in the closure/defunding of an outrageous number of state/public mental institutions. The large number of mentally ill people on the streets today is a direct result of his shutting down and cutting the budgets of public mental institutions.

We should all just fall down and thank the deity of our chosing that we don't have a seriously mentally ill person in our immediate family. It tears the family apart, bankrupts them, and often results in the ill person being out on the streets to fend for themselves.

Like I said, unless you have a couple million laying around for private treatment, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I work with the public mental health system and the mentally ill on a daily basis, and it is an underfunded, skeleton operation. The costs to treat these individuals properly is astronomical, and most insurance plans either cap the costs or opt for outpatient treatment.

And for the record, our country is founded on the core concept that an individuals' rights are above those of the state or society in general. I don't think thats a bad thing.

Defender968 · 10-07-2007, 23:07

Personally I would have drawn my 40 cal back up weapon, ordered him to drop the knives as the off duty NY transit Cop did (and good on him) and then put 2 in his chest and 1 in his head when he took the first step towards me, and if he didn't stop I'd keep shooting until my pistol went dry or until he dropped. But thanks to the Police officers protection act I can carry my duty weapon or my back up pretty much anywhere in the country even communist.... er I mean liberal states like NY, not everyone has that luxury.

As for the non armed civilian who happens upon this scene, obviously the first decision is whether to engage the threat or not and that's a personal choice. I personally couldn't stand by and do nothing as someone was being brutally attacked. I'd look for something heavy, and preferably long, bat, 2x4, chair, tire iron, crow bar, mag light, large brick, whatever is close and could be used accurately as a devastating weapon. I would seek to "neutralize" the suspect as quickly as possible from behind. That's my nice way of saying I'd try to crush his head like a f&%$ing melon to make sure A. he doesn't continue his attack on the current victim, and B isn't capable of trying to attack me.

Tubbs · 10-08-2007, 12:26

My biggest issue with this whole debacle is the mandatory breathalizer they made the off duty cop take after the incident. WTF!!!
So if he had a beer with his meal would he have been punished for interveneing? He obvioulsy wasn't wasted, what the hell!?
This is new policy is outrageous.

Defender968 · 10-08-2007, 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubbs

My biggest issue with this whole debacle is the mandatory breathalizer they made the off duty cop take after the incident. WTF!!!
So if he had a beer with his meal would he have been punished for interveneing? He obvioulsy wasn't wasted, what the hell!?
This is new policy is outrageous.

That's actually standard after any shooting in my department, including shooting a deer who was hit by a car, it's kind of stupid but it's pretty standard.

My thought, were I his chief, and he blew a .10 but still managed to shoot and/or kill the bad guy while off duty, would be to pull him into my office, tell him not to drink before shooting any more wackos and send him out. The flip side is however, if he had one beer was completely good to go but in the same situation and hit the victim for whatever reason he'd be screwed.

That's just part of the job, I don't think it's right but it's just the way things are.

Tubbs · 10-08-2007, 12:50

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/nypd.sh....2.245161.html

http://www.policeone.com/news/1360320/

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/artic...lity/9127.html

I think that this policy is an ill conceived, knee jerk reaction to an incident in which officers acted appropriately and were then hung out to dry by their department.
Now, having said that my opinion on this matter doesn't carry much weight being as I am neither a police officer, nor would I ever consider working for the NYPD. But since I am pursuing a career in LE I like to keep current on events that affect this community. This isn't meant to argue with any LEO's, its just some of the research that I've done on this topic that lead me to form my non-expert opinion.
Oh and the NYPD removed their offical press release on this policy from their public site or I would've linked to that as well.

mdb23 · 10-08-2007, 16:31

The policy is pretty standard among all PDs. You shoot someone, you have to take a piss test and/or breathalyzer. It's part of the job, you know it going in. Like it or not, we (LE) are held to a higher standard than Joe Citizen when it comes to an off duty shooting..... once again, you know that going in. If you are going out to drink with the boys, don't take your weapon. If you are going to dinner with the family and have your piece, then don't drink. Simple as that. Alcohol and weapons don't mix..... ever.

The reason for the breathalyzer/piss test isn't always to jam the officer up. If and when you get into LE, you will see that every (and I mean every) shooting results in a wrongful death lawsuit by the douche bag's family. It happens every single time. In 99% of the breath/piss tests, the results 0.0%, which protects both the dept and Officer from some dickhead attorney who plans to imply that the officer was impaired or under the influence. It's all about CYA and limiting liability in this day and age.

Once again, you know this going in. Big boy rules.

If having to pee in a cup after capping someone upsets you that much, then I would suggest another line of work........ IAD investigations and being forced to take polygraph's at the Chief's whim aren't going to be your cup of tea.

Defender968 · 10-08-2007, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubbs

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/nypd.sh....2.245161.html

http://www.policeone.com/news/1360320/

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/artic...lity/9127.html

I think that this policy is an ill conceived, knee jerk reaction to an incident in which officers acted appropriately and were then hung out to dry by their department.

I understand what you’re thinking here Tubbs but as Mdb23 said this type of policy is pretty standard and you just need to know it going in, you also need to realize that in our litigious society you will be sued in this type of situation or any situation you have to shoot someone no matter how much the dirt bag deserves it, and the department will try to protect itself, and hopefully the officer as well. Unfortunately in today’s society many departments do not stand by their officers, and that is also something you need to understand and take into mind when entering this profession. The reality is it's often dangerous work, with high liability, working crappy hours, for low pay, and you may or may not have a dept that will back you if a situation goes really bad, and often it’s boring as hell, but on the up side there is a sense of helping people every so often, there are some adrenaline rushes from time to time (hopefully you don’t get hurt or hurt someone else during them) and on occasion you get to catch the bad guy. Realize going in that this is how it is and make an informed decision on your career choice it’s not like cops where it’s nonstop action, and it’s not like the old days where a police officer was always right.