Contagious Cop Shooting

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:25:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yesterday I wrote about Sean Bell, the 23 year old who was gunned down Saturday night in a hail of gunfire by New York cops, hours before his Sunday wedding.

Today's New York Times has another article on the shooting, with one officer suggesting the phenomenon of "contagious shooting" took over:

The whole thing most likely took less than a minute. The officer who fired 31 times could have done so in fewer than 20 seconds, with the act of reloading taking less than one second, Mr. Cerar said. The 49 shots that followed the undercover detective’s first may have been contagious shooting, said one former police official who insisted on anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

“He shoots, and you shoot, and the assumption is he has a good reason for shooting. You saw it in Diallo. You see it in a lot of shootings,” the official said. “You just chime in. I don’t mean the term loosely. But you see your partner, and your reflexes take over.”

Turns out, this is not a novel theory.

The phenomenon of officers’ firing dozens of shots at a time dates back in part to 1993 and the department’s switch from six-shot .38-caliber revolvers, cumbersome to reload, to semiautomatic pistols that hold 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. The change, like any of its magnitude, followed years of studies and differences of opinion, and finally came into effect after the 1986 murder of a police officer, Scott Gadell, who was reloading his six-shooter when he was fatally shot.

Maybe it's not a good idea for police weapons to be able to fire so many rounds.

Commissioner Kelly, during his first term in the office, in 1992 and 1993, ordered a switch to semiautomatics, but ordered the clips modified to hold only 10 rounds. That modification was later undone, prompting him, after Mr. Diallo’s shooting six years later, to speculate in a New York Times op-ed article, “Now may be the time to re-impose it and to intensify training that teaches police officers to hold their fire until they know why they are shooting.”

< Brent Wilkes Lawyers Up | The Divisive Issue of Peace >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Contagious Cop Shooting | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'll preempt Patrick this time (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by aw on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:53:31 AM EST

Go away.

Your opinion is so extreme, you will find no agreement here. Everyone has had some experience with the law here, either directly or indirectly, good or bad. We don't advocate cop killing here; we do want accountability.

I banned that commenter and erased his comments (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 12:11:00 PM EST

obcharlie's comments advocating death were offensive. He has been banned and his three comments removed from the site.


I'm not opposed to (none / 0) (#16)
by Patrick on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:05:08 PM EST

accountability, never have been. However, I must wonder who's opinion is extreme.


what you missed (none / 0) (#20)
by aw on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:24:30 PM EST

The comment was deleted. It advocated killing cops. I posted the above in response (Bill objected to the offensive comment as well and asked that it be deleted) and Jeralyn subsequently deleted the post, as you can see. That's the whole story, Patrick.


: Now it makes sense (none / 0) (#22)
by Patrick on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:28:27 PM EST

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Remember the guy in the thread (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:27:13 PM EST

about the student who was tasered?


Dead men tell no tales (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 12:10:34 PM EST

I am sure that the five suspended police officers are praying that there were no witnesses to counter their version of what happened.

To come up with an excuse so flimsy as "contagious shooting" puts a bad smell on this story. It sounds like something devised by PR hacks. Pathetic.

Actually (none / 0) (#18)
by Patrick on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:13:47 PM EST

The theory has been around for some time.


: Theory? (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:23:38 PM EST

Has the "theory" of "contagious shooting" ever been ascribed to those not in power (i.e. others than police or military)? Or is it a just a term used to explain away irresponsible killings where some life is considered the equivalent of garbage.

more data coming out............ (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:22:57 PM EST

sorry, even with the new guns, it takes more than one second to reload.

these guys violated two basic rules:

know who you're firing at.
know why you're firing.

the officer who started may have known, the rest clearly hadn't a clue, they just responded to him.

these guys were firing so wildly, a round shattered a window in an elevated train station, injuring two transit officers with shards of flying glass.

according to witnesses, one undercover officer planted himself in front of the altima, with badge hanging around his neck, gun drawn and aimed at the vehicle. he identified himself. however, according to this witness, it was dark, so they couldn't see the badge, and the windows were closed, so they couldn't hear him. they thought it was someone trying to kill them. that's when the driver tried to hit him. can't say that i wouldn't have done the same, given those circumstances.

according to police training, the officers violated the rules, with regards to shooting at moving vehicles. this might explain why their guns have been taken away from them.

this makes the good officers look bad, and most are good cops, doing a difficult and often thankless job. the last thing they need is a bunch of hyped up cowboys making it harder still.

Perfect sense (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 09:28:14 AM EST

It makes perfect sense. If a cop's partner starts shooting the non-shooting cop must either assume that shooting is appropriate, or assume that the partner should be stopped from shooting. IOW, are you going assume the suspect is a threat to life, ot you going to assume your partner is intent on killing an innocent civilian. In the former you shoot the suspect, in the latter you shoot the partner. It seems rather obvious that the right answer is almost always to shoot the suspect.

no (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:01:17 AM EST

It seems rather obvious that the right answer is almost always to shoot the suspect.

Doesn't seem that obvious to me. Why does every shooting have to be lethal? Isn't there a third option, assume that your partner's shooting the guy once or twice is probably good enough and not unloading 15 more rounds?


: Absolutely right, scarshapedscar, especially... (none / 0) (#9)
by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:34:26 AM EST

...given the fact that these events occurred on a city street, where the odds of hitting an innocent are just unacceptable. And 50 rounds! OMG these guys should be fired, no weapon was found and the very words of one suspect, such as the now oft-quoted statement by one of the detectives that one guy said, "Go get my gun" is a statement calling for someone else to go GET a gun, which would tend to indicate THAT HE HAD NO WEAPON.
Much is remaining unsaid here and the white-wash to protect the cops involved is well underway.

It'd explain a lot (none / 0) (#1)
by roy on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 12:15:52 AM EST

I've often wondered, what is it about the situation after 49 shots have been fired that makes a cop think that one more shot needs to be fired? And what changed between 49 and 50 to make them all think, OK, it's time to stop? Maybe the answer is just that the cop didn't think.

Limiting beat cops to 10 shots per magazine might yield some benefit, but most people aren't any deader with 11 bullets in them than they are with 10. The real solution will be a combination of training, accountability, repealing some criminal laws, and demilitarizing the enforcement of some remaining laws. And I'd much rather have good cops enforcing good laws with good equipment, as opposed to so-so cops, crap laws, and arbitrarily limited equipment.

I'd love the irony of all those old "LEO only" hi-cap magazines being banned for use by LEOs though.

Amen roy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by kdog on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:19:42 PM EST

repealing some criminal laws

Exactly. The dept. is claiming the undercovers were at the strip club on a drug/prostitution sting. Is drug and prostitution prohibition worth having tragedies like this happen in cities across America? I say no. The human toll of these prohibitions is a cost that no one seems concerned about. IMO, There are better things for police to be doing than hanging out at strip clubs at taxpayer's expense (plum assignment, btw) to make sure nobody is getting a handjob in the champagne room. Seriously.

This is just the claim mind you...for all I know the cops were at the club getting loaded and decided to have a turkey shoot.


: Every law is enforced at the barrel of a gun (none / 0) (#33)
by roy on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 08:14:52 PM EST

Society should be more concerned with the fact that it sends men with guns to enforce its preferences on who sticks what in whose body than it is with who stick what in whose body.

I am Curious (none / 0) (#2)
by plumberboy on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:40:27 AM EST

I am curious if the guy even had a gun. The news report I seen said they were yet to find a gun it is also said that undercover agents followed the men from the club to there car.This lead to the men trying to run officer over or something then they said after that they pulled a gun and started shooting at officers.I was wondering if the under cover agent identified himself as a cop? or if the guys just thought they being followed by someone trying to rob or kill them.This sounds to me like trigger happy cops ready to kill.I mean you can fire shots in way to make people realize you mean business without killing someone.

: Nope (none / 0) (#30)
by kdog on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:20:25 PM EST

No gun was found...frankly I'm surprised one wasn't planted in the car.

Who knows? (none / 0) (#7)
by Slado on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:09:56 AM EST

There are two questions...

Did this situation merit the officers using leathal force?
If yes is 50rounds and "excessive" use of force?

My answer to number 2 is no. If the suspects didn't fire any shots and/or didn't use their car as a deadly weapon then there shouldn't have been any shooting at all.

The question of how many shots is enough misses the point. Once the shooting starts you shoot at your adversary until he is no longer a threat.

We shouldn't judge cops for winning a fire fight just because they brought more guns to the party. If you shoot at cops or try to run over them with your car you deserve to be shot back at and if there happen to be more cops then you that's just bad luck. If you are just some guy in the car when your buddy shoots at cops or tries to run them over then again, bad luck.

The only real question here is was this a justified shooting.

If it wasn't then these cops should go to jail.

Slado (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:59:31 PM EST

Exactly right.

If a threat requires the use of deadly force, then you use deadly force until you are absolutely sure the threat is gone, ie., dead. If the situation does not require deadly force, then you don't use it.

Did this situation require deadly force? In 20-20 hindsight, it looks like no. Apparently at the time it looked like deadly force was required.

If the cops did screw the pooch, while I'm sure there will be a huge lawsuit, if it were my son/husband to be/whatever who was killed, it would not be enough.


What we do now (none / 0) (#15)
by Gabriel Malor on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 02:32:24 PM EST

Now that the confrontation is over, we can find out whether Slado's question one is actually true. We know that the officers at the time thought that lethal force was necessary. In hindsight, we can look and see if that belief was reasonable. My gut is that when someone tries to run you over with their car, you're allowed to resort to lethal force to defend yourself.

Then we can talk about appropriate levels of lethal force. Again, we ask what was reasonable at the time of the confrontation. My gut is that 50 shots is not reasonable, but I'm willing to wait and see what police policy and the courts have to say about it before I claim that a white-wash is going on.


: Right... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:05:17 PM EST

We know that the officers at the time thought that lethal force was necessary. In hindsight, we can look and see if that belief was reasonable. My gut is that when someone tries to run you over with their car, you're allowed to resort to lethal force to defend yourself
And my gut tells ME when someone steps in front of my car with a gun pointed at me, in street clothes (without identifying themselves; the police say they did; witnesses discount this), I'm allowed to run their ass over or leave some sort of way so as to avoid being gunned down.

: And (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:10:30 PM EST

we know the victims attempt to drive their way out of a deadly situation was justified. What would you do with a weapon pointed at you by someone in plainclothes in a strip club parking lot in the wee hours? I'd defend myself as well.
Bottom line, the victims broke no law from what I've read. The witnesses that have come forward so far are backing the victims. This is murder, and I hope the shooters are tried for same.

Slado's two questions (none / 0) (#12)
by Kitt on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:04:41 PM EST

You didn't answer your first question.

1. Did this situation merit the officers using leathal force?

Apparently - you did in your own head because now we have:

2. If yes is 50rounds and "excessive" use of force?

It's enough to make one falter to see what passes for logic.

"Winning the fire fight because they brought more guns to the party?" Surely you jest?

The police officers were NOT in uniform. They were un-der-cov-er.

Witnesses told of chaos, screams and a barrage of gunfire near Club Kalua at 143-08 94th Avenue in Jamaica about 4:15 a.m. after Mr. Bell and his friends walked out and got into their car.

While leaving a club at 4:00 a.m. someone begins to follow you & your buds, and after you all get in your car they draw a gun - I say it's time to leave. You don't know who they are. They have a gun; you don't.

~~~~~~

You just cannot know how idiotic your statements sound.


It may sound idiotic to you.... (none / 0) (#23)
by Patrick on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:34:10 PM EST

....but the truth of the matter is you don't shoot to kill, you don't shoot to injure, you shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat is gone, further shooting is unnecessary. It's that way with all use of force issues.

I'm sure I could dig it up for you if you want, but there is case law that says almost exactly that.


That's not how I read it to mean. (none / 0) (#24)
by Kitt on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:46:39 PM EST

I read it to mean - kill in order to stop the threat, which I think unnecessary. You can stop a threat without killing.


OK (none / 0) (#26)
by Patrick on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:52:07 PM EST

I read it differently...I'd submit that the vast majority of police shootings end without killing the person perceived as the threat. But yes, to kill someone is (should) never be the reason to use deadly force.


Oh-oh.... (none / 0) (#27)
by Kitt on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:58:23 PM EST

We're in a world of trouble now. I agree with you here.


Deadly Force? (none / 0) (#35)
by Slado on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:08:03 AM EST

Patrick is right in his asumption.

You neutralize the threat. Sometimes that means killing sometimes wounding. You reaturn fire until your adversary can't return it back. If that means he's simply wounded then great.

But I assure you when a cop and a suspect are shooting at eachother the cop takes a kill shot. That's how they are trained and that's what they do. You simply don't shoot for the leg in hopes that once you shoot a guy he'll say give. You shoot to kill. If you simply wound him and then it's over great, but you don't go out of your way to aim low when you don't know that your adversary is going to do the same.

Because these are the rules then cops should be held to a high standard of when they apply deadly force. Once you go down that path there is no turning back. If a suspect shoots at a cop or tries to run over a cop then they should know that there are consequences. In the same breadth a cop should be sure that the use of deadly force is necessary before applying it.

All that being said who knows what happened here. Early indications are the cops screwed up but we haven't really heard thier side of the story.

The facts will come out and the shooting will be either justified or not. My point is the issue of too much or too little force is a silly distraction.

1 bullet is too many if these guys did nothing to justify the use of deadly force.


Story gotta get straight (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:17:33 AM EST

We haven't heard their story because they have to get the cockamamie story straight first.


I think I was right the first time (none / 0) (#39)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:42:36 PM EST

I think you meant "kill" and not neutralize or disarm, but eliminate - period.


I'm sorry but (none / 0) (#42)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:25:44 PM EST

That's how they are trained and that's what they do. You simply don't shoot for the leg in hopes that once you shoot a guy he'll say give. You shoot to kill.

this is not true of any training I've ever received. They train to shoot center mass. That's center of the mass presented or available as a target.


: Touche Patrick (none / 0) (#43)
by Slado on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 08:44:03 AM EST

I guess "shoot to kill" is too strong a statement.
My point is they don't shoot to wound they shoot to neutralize.
That often results in deat and wounding but they don't shoot to clip.

This is the reasonm that the bullet... (none / 0) (#8)
by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:26:06 AM EST

...proof vests police wear have just as many, or sometimes more, ceramic armor plates on the BACK of their vest.

Seems they worry about an excited cop accidently shooting another cop in the back to be as big a threat as taking fire from the front.

And for the record: IMHO, anyone saying the "only good cop is a dead one" or in any way suggest that cops should be killed or any other words to that effect should be permanently banned.

OK (none / 0) (#17)
by Patrick on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:09:07 PM EST

proof vests police wear have just as many, or sometimes more, ceramic armor plates on the BACK of their vest.

Funny, but not true. Most "bullet proof" vests are not. They are bullet resistant kevlar. Some come with a trauma plate covering the sternum, but most do not any more(I heard ricochets were a problem) I've yet to wear a vest with ceramic or armored plate in the back at work, although when I was in the military they had some that came with those.


: If you ever participate in a drug raid... (none / 0) (#25)
by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:49:28 PM EST

...with the DEA, FBI, or most SWAT teams you will find it very common to have the armored ceramics in the back of the vest.
I agree with you that not all vest are so equipped, but people in the above agencies just don't like to accidentally take a round in the back from someone too excited (or scared) to be sure of their target before firing.
And, although I cannot personally attest to this, I have heard that a bullet in the back can ruin your whole day.

If someone (none / 0) (#31)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:41:28 PM EST

stands in front of my car and points a gun at me, you're damn right I'm going to use lethal force!

I will (none / 0) (#32)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:44:03 PM EST

discuss the outright stupidity of such a move after the threat is eliminated.

One second (none / 0) (#34)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:55:02 PM EST

I have seen shooters that can have a new magazine loaded and a round off before the old magazine hits the ground. A one second mag change for a good experienced shooter is not out of the question. I'm only a so so shooter but could easily draw and do 31 rounds of 45acp in under 20 seconds with two mag changes.

To murder is human (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:21:01 AM EST

Hey, it's easier than you think to slip up and spray a vehicle of unarmed people with fifty bullets. It can happen in the wink of an eye.

Plus, if you're black,(i.e., guilty of something at some point) and carousing in a bad neighborhood in the wee hours, your obviously asking for it.

: Speaking of which.... (none / 0) (#40)
by kdog on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:36:21 PM EST

the local papers were quick to point out some of the victims had records for minor stuff....how is that relevant? It's hard to grow up in NY in the Guiliani era and NOT have a minor record.
Me and all my friends have 'em. Do we deserve 50 bullets too? I didn't like the implication.

they violated procedure (none / 0) (#38)
by Sailor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:53:44 AM EST

Officers are trained to shoot no more than three bullets before pausing to reassess the situation, Kelly said in his most detailed assessment of the shooting yet. Department policy also largely prohibits officers from firing at vehicles, even when they are being used as weapons.