Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Cop Land

« | Main | »

New York City To Cops: Drop Dead

By Wyatt Earp | May 28, 2010

A more accurate headline would read, “New York City Values the Lives of Criminals Over Police Officers.” The city suggested legislation that would force police officers to shoot suspects in the arm or leg instead of center mass.

I was always trained to shoot to stop the threat. That means shooting at center mass. I’m a pretty decent shot, but I can’t shoot an arm or leg of a moving armed suspect in a high-pressure situation. I guess the politicians think everyone in the NYPD is Wyatt Earp.

Van Helsing has the insanity:

Let’s see, how could moonbat bureauweenies make the job of police officers even more difficult and deadly, guaranteeing that anyone sensible bails out of the profession at the first opportunity? Here’s an idea:

City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day — requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.

The “minimum force” bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to amend the state penal codes’ “justification” clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else’s is in imminent danger.

The bill — drafted in the wake of Sean Bell’s controversial police shooting death — would force officers to use their weapons “with the intent to stop, rather than kill” a suspect. They would be mandated to “shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg.”

If enacted, this legislation will get people killed.

Topics: The Job | 28 Comments »

28 Responses to “New York City To Cops: Drop Dead”

  1. RogerDee Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Oops, I missed…Got him in the heart instead of the leg. Sorry about that, Chief…

  2. Randal Graves Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 8:32 am

    How do you even try to enforce this bill? RogerDee is right. The cop just has to say that the suspect ducked when he fired and took it in the skull instead of the arm.

  3. Indiana Ed Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I’m not in law enforcement or the military. I’ve never fired a gun at another human being and never want to. But after 20 years of just punching holes in paper I can tell you what most readers of this blog already know. Either this law was written by people who have never actually fired a gun, or people who just don’t care (or both). It isn’t always easy to hit what you’re aiming at to begin with, and add any kind of stress and it gets much harder. Now they’re saying “shoot at a much smaller target”? You’re right, this is going to get good people killed.

  4. Indiana Ed Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Oh, and I’m also waiting for the reciprocal law. The one that says that Joe felon has to shoot at the cops arm or leg. Fair is fair right?
    *crickets chirping*

    sorry, this kind of thing just pisses me off, so snark went up to 11

  5. John D Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Don’t worry, I’m sure they’re also planning to pass a law requiring criminals to shoot to wound. That way the playing field will be even.

    All politicians suck, but New York politicians suck more.

  6. Jon Brooks Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!! Are these legislators NUTS!! What in the name of Jehovah God Almighty are these idiots thinking?? 20 to 25 years ago when I was the nuttiest gun nut you would ever want to know, went to the range several times a week, shot competition with primarily pistols, spent weekends in town dumps with my .45 to quick shoot rats just for the love of shooting, even then, in my prime, I would never have judged myself good enough to only go for an arm or a leg when the adreniline was pumping, the fear of God was in me that I might die if the other guy was quicker, luckier, a better shot, a true combat veteran with steadier nerves etc.

    These pols also have no idea that what they are asking
    with this legislation is to inadvetently mandate a training regime so gun focused that 90 out of a hundred of people who could have become police before, will not be good enough to make it thru the pistol qualifications, and for those that do, it will then take continual practice, practice, practice, not to mention ammo, ammo, ammo which is money, money money. All to save some perps life who could care less about yours or mine which is why he is using that gun to shoot at people during a robbery???????????????

    Unless you are Wyatt , of course, we are not talking microseconds to shift your sight picture to an arm or leg, we are talking tenths of a second minimum, and I’ve been in enough competitions to know that that timing is the difference between winning and losing. And this is without any REAL STRESS. ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!

    It will be a very bad day to be a policeman in NY if this idiocy passes.

  7. BillN Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:10 am

    What will really be great is the uproar when some poor cop misses a perps arm and hits an innocent bystander. They’ll probly charge the cop with manslaughter but the f’in political hacks will go scott free.

  8. joated Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:13 am

    “…this legislation will get people killed.”

    Yep. And all the wrong ones, too.

    And who is going to pay the hospital bills for the wounded perps? The city’s not broke enough? Then there would be the perp’s trial. His court appointed counsel. His incarceration. Much cheaper to send the cops to the range to make sure they are capable of putting the SOB in the ground.

  9. Dennis Petty, aka MUD Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I know, the legislature will buy armored vests for the perps. That way no one will get shot in the heart. Except the morale of the poor police officers. Another good reason to not live in New Yark. MUD

  10. Smite A. Hippie Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:26 am

    our large cities are just going to hell in a handbasket…

    (and Philly, while not totally lost, isn’t far behind.)

  11. Bob G. Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Wyatt (et al):
    Only the LONE RANGER can shoot to disarm…
    (trust me, I’ve watched the DVDs)

    This clusterf$ck doesn’t bode well at all for those wearing the shield.
    Time to get the heel of reason upon the neck of politics…ASAP!

  12. Robbie Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:43 am

    This is why I hate New York City – I was always looking for a concrete reason other than being mugged in the crown of the Statute of Liberty (no I’m not kidding) by a big black girl from Brooklyn – who could have slaughtered this skinny little white girl from Philly – and she even told me so – Now I have a better reason – I didn’t think it was possible.

  13. Rick Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:45 am

    What a moronic law.

  14. Wyatt Earp Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Roger – Lousy crosswinds.

    Randal – I guarantee it’s the most used excuse.

    Indiana Ed – It’s difficult to shoot someone standing still, let alone someone moving. And to pick out an appendage? Near impossible.

    John D – They’re liberal Democrats with a “highly oppressed” constituency. What do you expect?

    Jon – Like they wrote in the Moonbattery post, this will drive the good police officers out of the department.

    BillN – That’s the thing. Everyone matters more than the police officer. We have no rights.

    Joated – If I am an NYPD officer, I’m shooting at center mass. If they want to fire me, so be it.

    MUD – You couldn’t pay me enough to work there.

    Smite – Only a matter of time before Philly City Council suggests this.

    Bob G – Stories like this make me happy I’m not in patrol. And I’ll never willingly go back.

    Robbie – What, you didn’t disarm her and knock her down like Steven Seagal?

    Rick – Proposed by morons.

  15. Robbie Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Wyatt, see now today – I would have gone all kung fu on her, but back then, I came from a segregated white neighborhood and was taught that all black people were bad and to run for my life – see it wasn’t my fault.

  16. Richard McEnroe Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 10:09 am

    When I was in basic, there was a kerfuffle going on among the chatterati about how using .50 cals to engage troops was a war crime because it was ‘armor piercing’ and only supposed to be used on “equipment.”

    This is an actual quote from the briefing we got on this:

    “The Browning .50 caliber M2 machine gun is only supposed to be employed to engage enemy equipment. (Pause) A helmet is equipment. A belt buckle is equipment. It is not your problem how close the enemy is standing to his equipment…”

    Just say you were trying to shoot the gun out of his hand. You can’t help it if he was holding it in front of his face.

  17. Wyatt Earp Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Robbie – I figured your Little Flower tai chi would have kicked in.

    Richard – His groin is his equipment . . .

  18. Robbie Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I hadn’t hit the bad lands of LF yet, I was a fresh faced 8th grader.

  19. bob (either orr) Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 10:35 am


  20. Wes S. Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Oh, I can just see it now: In an attempt to comply with this insane directive, some hapless NYPD officer will try to shoot to wound a violent felon and end up hitting an innocent bystander center-mass.

    And – despite the fact that the officer was literally following orders and policy – the city will proceed to throw the cop to the wolves in the subsequent lawsuits.

  21. Kim Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 10:57 am

    But it happens in the movies all the time! Surely the movies are just like real life, right? If Hollyweird can do it, so can NYPD.

  22. metoo Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Again, enough with this PC crap. And this is the biggest load of it so far. These persons writing this bill have absolutely no idea of life in the real world. Later, I’ve got to remember where I put the duct tape cuz I’m gonna blow!

  23. proof Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Just shoot the gun out of their hands, Wyatt. I’ve seen it on TV like a million times!
    If that doesn’t work, call for your stunt double to stand in for you!

  24. Rob in Katy Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    proof, good one! Well, I was trying to shoot the gun out of the perpetrator’s hand and i missed buy only about 1/2 inch. Sad thing was, the perp was holding the gun directly in from of himself, why would he do that…eh, sorry about that chief.

  25. Ingineer66 Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I tried to shoot the gun out of his hand 14 times, but I kept missing. I guess I need more range time.

  26. Pops Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    There is only one way to prove that this tactic will work. Have the esteemed wienies who are pushing this bill, show how it can be done time after time.

  27. Dennis Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    The .50 is supposed to be used against materiel. We were taught that we were rendering their uniforms unserviceable. (Actually, I don’t know anything in the Hague Convention that restricts the .50, but it’s too good a story to let go of.)

    On to serious stuff, others have noted that this is the “Shoot the guy next to the perp” bill. In reality, if this insanity is adopted, it will simply result in cops retreating at the first sign of force.You can’t go to jail for not shooting someone, and you can’t expect a guy to take suicidal risks.

    We might as well just send the cops home and save the expense of policing.


  28. 1oldleg Says:
    May 29th, 2010 at 9:03 am

    And then we can give the Officer’s widow a Medal of Valor for Restraint, just like the Army is considering. It will be presented by Unicorns and the Tooth Fairey