[Maren Bell Jones]

All this for a teenager smoking pot? :roll: :roll:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/437672p-368722c.html

 

[Stacia Porter]

All this for a teenager smoking pot? :roll: :roll:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/437672p-368722c.html

You have got to be joking...26 bullets? 26?

How many of those could have hit the little boy had he not been playing in a bedroom? And why seize the puppy? They were after a teenager who had smoked pot...why torture this familiy (who have enough grief thanks to their dead dog who was doing noting more than protecting them) simply because a teenage suspect BROKE into their apartment?

 

[Lou Castle]

All this for a teenager smoking pot?

Since this suspect was named we can safely assume that he's at least 18. Let's not forget that he's the one who kicked the door open releasing the dog to bite the officer. He escalated this situation when he ran and loosed the pit bull on the officers.

You have got to be joking...26 bullets? 26?

How many do you think it should have taken?

They were after a teenager who had smoked pot

He ran from his apartment to another one on the same floor. There's no indication that the officers knew whose apartment this was. They didn't know if it belonged to a friend, a crime partner or some innocent person whom Acevedo was going to take hostage.

 

[Stacia Porter]

[
He ran from his apartment to another one on the same floor. There's no indication that the officers knew whose apartment this was. They didn't know if it belonged to a friend, a crime partner or some innocent person whom Acevedo was going to take hostage.

Exactly. So officers fire multiple weapons at a dog (hitting one another) risking ricochet into the apartment they have yet to enter...they could have hit the child, or anyone else who happened to be there. And why do I not think it takes 26 bullets to kill a dog? It doesnt' take 26 to kill a man...or did these police officers fail marksmanship?

No matter how you spin this, it's overdone. Especially seizing the puppy from the apartment: why? This reminds me of a situation a while back where a suspect hopped someone's fence during a chase and a GSD and her litter of puppies were in teh backyard; she bit the assailant, taking him down, and then the PD seized the dog AND her puppies b/c she bit! The puppies were put up for adoption on the AC website in the town (I remember this all b/c we were trying to arrange rescue). I never knew what happened to the mother. If private citizens are going to be punished because criminals try to seek refuge on our property, we need to take an honest look at our legal system.

 

[Lou Castle]

And why do I not think it takes 26 bullets to kill a dog? It doesnt' take 26 to kill a man...or did these police officers fail marksmanship?

It's always interesting when someone, from the comfort and safety of their living room, with 20-20 hindsight, can tell exactly how best police officers operating under the stress of a rapidly unfolding, potentially deadly situation, should have handled it.

It's foolish to try and predict how many rounds it will take to stop a fight before that fight occurs. I knew a man who was shot 36 times and survived! There's an awful lot of open space around any target that includes complete misses and hits that don't do enough damage to stop the threat. It's not how many times someone (or a dog) is shot, it's where the shots land that determine whether or not they stop the fight and whether or not they survive. You've been watching too much TV.

I wonder how much experience you have with firearms and being attacked by a pit bull that you'd be able to calmly place one round where it would effectively stop the problem? About 20 times I've taken people with such an attitude, stressed them, put them on the range and had them fail to make a single hit, much less a stopping one, on a man size target from a distance of 5'. These people are just cops. They're not TV or movie cops and they're not supermen either.

No matter how you spin this, it's overdone.

No spin is necessary. I wonder how many times you've found yourself in such a potentially life threatening situation such as this one? Police rightfully should keep shooting until the threat against them has been stopped. If that can be done with one round, great. If it takes 26, that's what it takes.

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not defending these officers. I'm saying that you don't know everything that happened (neither do I). With that thought in mind, it's foolish to assume that things happened when you don't have a clue. There are many things going on that you don't know that you don't know.

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

What, you forget that most cops are doofs? C'mon, I thought 26 shots was pretty low. Forget about just reaching down and prying the dog off with a gunbarrel, this is an opportunity to save a life, that cop could of died from that leg bite. Forget common sense, why use that when we can get away with shooting blindly 26 times. They should all be fired. screw em, if they are that stupid, GONE. Time to actually have to pay for your stupidity. No wonder we can't produce GSD's. Look at the dumb humans we got. Too bad for the dog, but the image I get in my head of this happening is pretty funny.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

 

[Lou Castle]

What, you forget that most cops are doofs?

Many are but I'd match the average cop against the average JQ Public any day.

C'mon, I thought 26 shots was pretty low. Forget about just reaching down and prying the dog off with a gunbarrel

This ranks pretty high on list of the "stupid comments" I've heard people make.

this is an opportunity to save a life, that cop could of died from that leg bite.

Probably not but he could have easily suffered a career ending injury. One that would have left him limping badly for life. People have had to have amputations from dog bites and some HAVE lost their lives to them. How do you know how serious this bite was or wasn't?

Forget common sense

Probably never a good idea.

why use that when we can get away with shooting blindly 26 times.

There's no indication that anyone "fired blindly." Making such a statement is just inflammatory.

They should all be fired. screw em, if they are that stupid, GONE.

According to the news article, NYPD has already determined that they acted properly. Not gonna be fired.

Time to actually have to pay for your stupidity.

Just about universally when a police officer gets hurt it's because his stupidity took the form of being too nice, giving people the benefit of the doubt or giving people a break.

the image I get in my head of this happening is pretty funny.

There's nothing the slightest bit humorous in this situation. It's sad all around. Sad for the injured cop. Sad for the "teenager." And sad for the dog and his owners.

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

I knew you were gonna get me for that post.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

 

[Stacia Porter]

If my husband and his fellow soldiers had shot an armed Iraqi man 26 times, there'd be one hell of an investigation. Especially if several soldiers were grazed with bullets during the firefight AND it was in the presence of a minor. Why should I hold the NYPD to different standards?

And I'm sorry, Lou: dog is on your leg. How can you not put a bullet through its head? And why do several officers fire at once, risking collateral damage? What if one of those bullets had gone into an apartment and killed another occupant? Forget the dog: there were people living in this building, people who were probably home and in their apartments when a voray of bullets were sprayed over their hallway (OVER A DOG). If the dog were hit 26 times, and several officers received graze wounds, think about the number of bullets that were flying. Unless the NYPD is using machine guns these days, that's a lot of trigger time.

 

[Woody Taylor]

If Mike Morris had held that stupid football just a little looser the snap wouldn't have gone high, Gary Anderson wouldn't have gone wide right, and the Vikings would have won the whole deal in 1998.

Speaking as a poster here--this is not a mod comment--speculation on this kind of stuff never works out and only offends the people on this forum who have been in spots that we can't really imagine. To Lou's point, it's just a sad situation all around. Don't know what we learn factually about this, good or bad, particularly from a source like the NY Daily News.

 

[Lou Castle]

I knew you were gonna get me for that post.

Darn right Jeff. I'll be the first one to admit that sometimes cops do the wrong thing. I arranged for the firing of several that I caught at it. Cops come from the same gene pool as everyone else. The background examination that we go through weeds out most of the crooks, idiots and those not psychologically suited but it's not perfect. Sometimes bad apples slip through the cracks, sometimes they're friends of relatives of the right (wrong) people and they get through. Sometimes they go bad after getting in. There are about 800,000 police officers in the US. Expect that a few of them will be stupid. Expect that some of them will be crooks. Expect that some of them will make mistakes today.

Please don't forget that there are also stupid and crooked lawyers, doctors, plumbers, dog trainers, electricians, grocers, and on and on. Even if they're not stupid or cooked, some of them will make mistakes today too.

We can't all be Wyatt Earp (Heck, even Wyatt Earp wasn't Wyatt Earp)! We can't all have knowledge about everything on the planet; so when a dog bites a cop it's silly to expect that he'll respond the same way that most of us would much more calmly and rationally than the average person.

When such a story hits the papers it does so precisely because it's so rare. It's the phenomenon of "man bites dog."

If my husband and his fellow soldiers had shot an armed Iraqi man 26 times, there'd be one hell of an investigation.

According to the news story, NYPD conducted an investigation. Do you have any factual support that it was any less than a "hell of an investigation?" In any case, once a person (or a dog) has "earned the right to be shot" (by his actions) it makes no difference how many times he's shot (except to civilians who have watched too much TV). As long as he's a threat, it's appropriate and proper for the police to continue shooting. As long as the dog continued to bite, it was appropriate and proper for those officers to shoot at him.

Especially if several soldiers were grazed with bullets during the firefight AND it was in the presence of a minor. Why should I hold the NYPD to different standards?

I haven't suggested that you do so. I am saying that you don't know the entire story from a 400 word news report. Typically investigations of such incidents run dozens of pages and thousands of words.

dog is on your leg. How can you not put a bullet through its head?

Well, first of all it HURTS. That's going to affect how well the shot is placed. Secondly (I don't know but can reasonably assume, having seen dozens of real dog bites on real humans) it's not a calm situation. This dog was probably thrashing about violently, making the placement of a gun against his head, all but impossible. When a (normal, not drugged or drunk) human being realizes that he's not the top of the food chain he becomes a very primitive animal. So primitive that he often forgets that he's the "tool using animal." I've seen suspects bitten by dogs put down guns and knives they had in their hands to fight the dog. Common sense is not present at those moments, survival is.

How many real bites have you seen? I noticed that you didn't respond to my earlier questions about experience with firearms and pit bull attacks so it's safe to assume that you either have no experience or that it's minimal. You have some idea of my qualifications as a dog trainer. I'm a certified (by the State of CA and the NRA) firearms instructor. I'm a certified instructor for the MP-5 submachine gun. I'm also a former member of my department's SIT (Special Investigation Team) that investigated, among other things OIS (Officer Involved Shootings). There are many dynamics at work that you have no concept of.

And why do several officers fire at once, risking collateral damage?

I'd really like to put you into a highly stressful situation and see how you'd respond. All of the people I did that to in my career, had the same response, "I had no idea." So easy to sit in your living room and pass judgment on people about whose job you know little or nothing.

What if one of those bullets had gone into an apartment and killed another occupant?

That would have been a tragedy, but still the officers would have been justified.

Forget the dog: there were people living in this building, people who were probably home and in their apartments when a voray of bullets

Do you mean "volley of bullets?"

were sprayed over their hallway

You write as if this was a spray of water from a garden hose, indiscriminately fanning out in all directions. It wasn't. The officers were trying to hit one target, albeit one that was probably moving quite rapidly.

(OVER A DOG).

It wasn't over a dog. It was over the survival of a police officer.

If the dog were hit 26 times

It's not perfectly clear that all 26 rounds hit the dog. The article states in the headline "Cops 'justified' to shoot pit bull 26 times" but then in the article it says that, "it took 26 bullets to subdue the attacking dog" I'd guess, based on the fact that we often miss human sized targets in stressful situations that the dog wasn't hit with all 26 rounds that were fired.

and several officers received graze wounds, think about the number of bullets that were flying.

Twenty six rounds. It's quite clear how many bullets were flying.

Unless the NYPD is using machine guns these days, that's a lot of trigger time.

Two officers shooting at the same time can fire 26 rounds in less than two seconds. Is that a lot of "trigger time?"

speculation on this kind of stuff never works out and only offends the people on this forum who have been in spots that we can't really imagine. To Lou's point, it's just a sad situation all around. Don't know what we learn factually about this, good or bad, particularly from a source like the NY Daily News.

Stacia what kind of education and experience do you have in investigating shootings? I'd guess none. Your comment about "trigger time" clearly shows that. Your education probably consists of watching some TV shows and extrapolating from there. As I said earlier, you don't know that you don't know.

 

[Maren Bell Jones]

Woody, here's one from the New York Times from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/nyregion/24pitbull.html?_r=1&oref=slogin:

4 Officers Hurt (One by Pit Bull) as Police Fire 26 Shots to Kill Dog in Bronx

By FERNANDA SANTOS
Published: July 24, 2006

Three officers were grazed by bullets yesterday morning, when the police fired more than two dozen shots at a pit bull that had locked its jaws around a fourth officer’s leg in a Bronx building, the authorities said yesterday.

In all, the police fired 26 bullets at Red, the pit bull, during a confrontation inside a fourth-floor hallway at 480 Concord Avenue, in the Port Morris neighborhood, about 12:10 a.m. Nine shots hit the dog, according to its owner, Theresa Franco, and a number of errant bullets grazed the officers in the leg, the police said.

Red, who was 12 years old and weighed about 45 pounds, died at the scene, while the four injured officers were listed in stable condition at Lincoln Hospital.

Five officers were on the fourth floor at the time of the shooting, trying to mediate a dispute between a resident and the superintendent, when they came upon the pit bull outside Ms. Franco’s apartment, the police said. The narrow hallway was dimly lighted and the dog seemed agitated, witnesses said. Suddenly, the dog charged one of the officers and bit his leg, the police said. Gunfire erupted and within seconds, the three officers were hit and the dog was dead.

The officers, who were from the 40th Precinct, were not identified. The police did not say how many of them fired shots.

“The shooting was justified,” the Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said yesterday. “As with any police shooting, the tactics employed, including the number of shots fired, will be examined by the firearms review board.” The police said there would be no necropsy on the dog.

Ms. Franco, however, told a slightly different version of events. She said the officers had been chasing a teenage boy whom they saw smoking marijuana on the stairwell when they came face to face with her dog. The boy had managed to get inside Ms. Franco’s apartment before the police could get to him, she said. He locked the door behind him, not realizing that the dog had slipped outside.

The dog was “nervous from all the commotion,” Ms. Franco, 33, said. As one of the officers kicked and banged on her door, she said, the dog attacked. She said she heard two shots at first, and then so many more that she lost count.

Mr. Browne said that once the injured officers had recovered, they would re-enact yesterday’s shooting at the Police Department’s firing range in the Bronx — standard practice with every police-involved shooting.

“I’m upset that a member of my family was killed,” said Ms. Franco, who brought the dog into her home as a puppy and named it for its red nose. Red was docile, “a good house dog” who had never bitten anyone, she said. It was so big and sturdy that children used to ride on its back, a neighbor, Barbara Johnson, said.

There were at least a dozen bullet holes on the metal door and door frame at Ms. Franco’s apartment, as well as on a corner wall nearby. The door itself was warped and off its hinges at the top. Blood drops were sprinkled on the stairs, delineating a trail that led from the fourth floor to the lobby.

At 11:15 a.m., a crime scene unit detective carried the pit bull’s body out of the building, encased in a box that resembled a rolling trunk.

Jennifer Epstein contributed reporting for this article.

Good Lord, a 12 year old dog? Probably was asleep and couldn't hear much except the door of its home being broken into. And can we PLEASE not ALWAYS have to use the phrase "and the pit bull locked its jaws on (insert body part here)" in every pit bull attack story ever? :roll: Not to mention that the dog's name in the NYT's article was named Red and the one in the NYDN article was Cookie, so who knows.

 

[Stacia Porter]

You think what you want, Lou.

And if someone other than the police officers had been hit by one of those bullets, would that change your view? Do PD's not have to worry about collateral damage?

How safe is it for MULTIPLE officers to fire at a dog on an officer's leg?

I may not have PD experience, but I've grown up in military families...and I'll say it again: no one would accept this scenario from soldiers. If a squad went into an Iraqi apartment building after a suspect and a dog came out and bit one of the soldiers, if several fired at the dog at once and soldiers were hurt in teh process IN A RESIDENCE, there'd be hell to pay: not only under the UCMJ, but in the media. That would be considered too dangerous for the civilians, not to mention the soldier being attacked by the dog (and the friendly fire graze wounds). There would be NO military official on the 6 o'clock news declaring the squad's actions "justified." That's where I come from on this...concern for the innocent citizens who could have been injured. I would hope that PD SOP's do not condone this, regardless of the amount of stress on the officers; but since the NYPD is claiming the situation was justified, and you are defending it, I suppose that isn't the case. If it's applicable to combat situations, I think it ought to be in civilian criminal scenarios as well...

 

[Kristen Cabe]

Two officers shooting at the same time can fire 26 rounds in less than two seconds.

Good grief, what kind of guns are they using?! I don't see 26 rounds being fired between two people shooting 9mm or 45 ammo in less than 2 seconds unless they're firing automatic weapons.

 

[David Frost]

<<two people shooting 9mm or 45 ammo in less than 2 seconds>>

If you don't know shooters that can do that, they need better guns. Most service pistols today carry 15 in the mag and 1 in the tube. 2 seconds is plenty of time to empty a gun.

As for people in combat being struck with 26 rounds, well having been in that situation, it's not uncommon for a body to be hit with that or more. Bullets are cheap, soldiers aren't. The "one shot, one kill" slogan may be fine for a sniper, for a grunt it's get them down range fast quick and in a hurry.

comparing a combat soldier and an officer in a deadly force situation is apples to oranges for the most part. A soldier takes on a completly different mind set from the moment they enter a theater of operations to the moment they leave. sometimes it affects them even longer. Having been in both situation as a combat man and a law enforcement officer it always amazes me at the number of people that, from the comfort of home, can make such judgements. While many dog people may have had a dog hanging off of them while training, how many of you have done it not knowing if it is a diversion so someone can come out and start shooting. It's no secret trained pits are a favorite among drug dealers and thugs. When an incident is over it's easy to say, well it was a 12 year old dog, the officer wearing that dog at the time, probably didn't draw that conclusion, he had more serious concerns at the time. Officers in todays litigeous society are trained to stop the threat. We don't shoot for the gun, the knee, the shoulder or give warning shots. You don't shoot unless you have too, if you have too, you shoot until the threat ceases. I can't say how many bullets that takes, I'm willing to give the officers involved the benefit of the doubt, they felt it needed 26.

DFrost

 

[Woody Taylor]

Woody, here's one from the New York Times

I'm more liberal than conservative, so I can't take the obligatory shot at the NYT. ;-)

Again, just looking at the thread...this is just one of those things, I guess, that only serves to upset people directly involved in this line of work. Me taking potshots at rogue SARs people, random generalizations about breeds, etc....and this involved a really bad situation that we don't know about (us, non-LEOs) but that some LEOs here can certainly empathize with (without taking one side or the other). It's just a bad deal. I just don't get how we're informed enough to comment as civilians reading about this via two, three, or four hundred URLs. Certainly not enough to do tactical walkthroughs of how people could have acted.

Just my thoughts. I commented on the Sgt. Caradona situation in Abu Ghraib as I felt reasonably well-informed from multiple perspectives on what did, may, and could have happened. This just strikes me as cursory treatment of something most of us will never really "get."

 

[Lou Castle]

And if someone other than the police officers had been hit by one of those bullets, would that change your view?

Nope. The appropriateness of their actions has to be judged by what the circumstances were and what was their state of mind at the time of the incident. This is very old law. It's been stated by the US Supreme Court as, "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

Do PD's not have to worry about collateral damage?

Yep. But since the NYPD investigation found that they acted properly, I'll acquiesce to their judgment. They had all the facts, we have few.

How safe is it for MULTIPLE officers to fire at a dog on an officer's leg?

Not very. But that's what they did. That's how the situation was resolved. And the NYPD said it was within policy.

I may not have PD experience, but I've grown up in military families...and I'll say it again: no one would accept this scenario from soldiers.

That's part of what's causing you not to understand. The military model is not the same as the police model. The "Rules of Engagement" are vastly different.

If a squad went into an Iraqi apartment building after a suspect and a dog came out and bit one of the soldiers, if several fired at the dog at once and soldiers were hurt in teh process IN A RESIDENCE, there'd be hell to pay: not only under the UCMJ, but in the media.

Please tell us what articles of the UCMJ would have been violated? The fact that you base part of your statement on how the media would play this just shows how confused you are. The media is in the business of selling newspapers or air time, not telling the truth and not in what's right. They get the facts wrong too often and have been caught blatantly falsifying facts.

That would be considered too dangerous for the civilians

I'd bet that his has happened dozens of times. Perhaps not in Iraq because of their outlook on dogs in general, but in many other places around the world. And I'd bet that when it did, the dog was dispatched and the soldiers moved on. Sad over having to kill a dog that was merely defending his home but glad to be alive.

There would be NO military official on the 6 o'clock news declaring the squad's actions "justified."

Pure speculation on your part. But since you brought it up . . . How many times have officials apologized for "just" missing a military target and killing a buncha innocent civilians in just this conflict alone? The answer is dozens. It happens quite frequently.

That's where I come from on this...concern for the innocent citizens who could have been injured.

There are recourses available if that had occurred. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, but it's not all-controlling.

I would hope that PD SOP's do not condone this

NYPD already has. The first news story said, "Police chiefs said NYPD procedures were followed . . . " The second news story said, " 'The shooting was justified,' the Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said yesterday." Knowing the basic facts as outlined in the two news stories, my findings would have been the same. Had a military investigation been conducted, I have no doubt that their findings would have been similar.

since the NYPD is claiming the situation was justified, and you are defending it, I suppose that isn't the case. If it's applicable to combat situations, I think it ought to be in civilian criminal scenarios as well...

It is.

Good grief, what kind of guns are they using?! I don't see 26 rounds being fired between two people shooting 9mm or 45 ammo in less than 2 seconds unless they're firing automatic weapons.

Most officers on NYPD are carrying Glock 19's in 9mm. They're semi-automatic, meaning that the gun fires each time that the trigger is pulled. (Automatic, means that the gun will empty itself with one pull of the trigger). In fact it's quite easy to shoot at this rate or higher. Never mind when one is highly stressed and pumped full of adrenalin.

This just strikes me as cursory treatment of something most of us will never really "get."

I think that's a safe bet Woody.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

I think it's a safe bet, too, Lou and Woody.

We just do not know enough to judge. People who did know enough did judge.

I can't even imagine the amount of information we would have to absorb in order to have intelligent discourse about it. But we don't have the information needed, and most of use don't have the experience needed.

It's news, of course, and naturally we will all discuss news, but discussion stops short of judging, doesn't it? We can raise questions, I think, without presuming to answer them.

 

[Tim Martens]

I think it's a safe bet, too, Lou and Woody.

We just do not know enough to judge. People who did know enough did judge.

I can't even imagine the amount of information we would have to absorb in order to have intelligent discourse about it. But we don't have the information, and most of use don't have the experience.

that sums up this thread beautifully connie. well done...

 

[Kristen Cabe]

I'm only posting this because I spent some time looking it up and I don't want it to be in vain. :lol:

I know the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon. I find it hard to believe that one can empty a high capacity magazine, plus one in the chamber, of a semi-automatic pistol in 2 seconds. Here's why:

According to http://www.armystudyguide.com, the max effective rates of fire for the M16 are:

* Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
* Burst - 90 rounds per minute
* Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute

Semiautomatic, as you have stated, means that one bullet is fired with each pull of the trigger. One would have to pull the trigger approximately 35 times to fire 26 rounds. Could you imagine being able to pull a trigger 17.5 times per second?!
Burst fires 3 bullets with each pull of the trigger, which means that one would have to pull the trigger approximately 4.5 times a second to fire 26 rounds. Possible, but that's with an automatic (sort of).

Granted, I'm comparing a rifle to a pistol, but the point is that you have to really be pumping to get 26 rounds out in 2 seconds. Even if both people (since the reference was made to two officers being able to easily do this) were pulling the trigger simultaneously, the liklihood of it actually happening is extremely low, because that would still mean that the triggers would have to be pulled 13 times per second. Right? :twisted:





ONE more question, and then I'll hush:

Why did they have to use bullets? Why didn't they use a tazer instead??

I don't really expect an answer, since no one here was involved, but just another thought!