Kid shot by cops? Just on the news...

carmen

I just caught the very tail end of the news on local fox and they were reporting that cops shot and killed what locals were referring to as "a boy" (as in, "he was a good boy") but it may actually be a teen or an adult (the news referred to him as simply an individual when I saw.) It looked like it was on a corner with a C-town, and I thought I heard the corner of ___ and gates ave. It was a live taping about 5 minutes ago, tons of cops and lots of neighbors out screaming that they just mowed down this kid when he "fell" out of a window (?) Anyone live near there? Know whats going on? Its not being reported again that I can find and its not online yet...

carmen

oh and they said it was in bedstuy. And apparently a neighbor said the kid had a gun or something...Now I'm curious...

jeffrey

Just saw this on the news.

No idea as to the accuracy of the report, but...
(and I'm only messenger here, so go easy)

The report mentioned it was an 18 year-old who was having an argument with his mother and she called the police saying she was being attacked.

To make matters worse, the mother apparently told the police he was armed and dangerous fleeing the scene with a gun in hand.

He supposedly climbed out their apartment window and fled down the street on foot, where he was met by police expecting an armed and dangerous assailant.

Apparently all he actually had in hand was a hair brush (there was no weapon found anywhere), but the cops went on the mother's word, and assumed the worst as she had described.

All very tragic.

jeffrey

Also, the report mentioned it was on Gates Avenue in Bed-Stuy, and I think they mentioned that 10 shots were fired at the 18yr old.

Looking at Gothamist newsmap just now, I see this:

Shots Fired At Police
590 Gates Ave
Brooklyn, NY
11/12/2007 10:12 p.m.

That would be at or near the intersection of Gates and Throop, according to the map there.

Hm. Just speculating, but as it was night time and given the mother's description and the mention that he actually had been holding something (a brush) while fleeing, I wonder if one officer thought the 18 yr old was holding/waving a gun and fired at him, and in the darkness and heat of the moment the others then thought they were being fired upon, and "returned" fire.

Wonder if we'll ever know what really happened.

What a truly sad mess.

armchair_warrior

darwin must love the mother.

jeffrey

Here's a link to Channel 4's report:

http://www.wnbc.com/news/14578514/detail.html

homeowner

According to Fox 5, the son had a long history of mental illness and the mother had called the police on many occasions to deal with his behavior.

Edited to add: Just saw the press conference with the family. They said that while he has had mental problems in the past they can't say that his past problems affected his judgement last night.

limestonekid

homeowner wrote: According to Fox 5, the son had a long history of mental illness and the mother had called the police on many occasions to deal with his behavior.

But 20 shots! (at least that's what the NYTimes reported)

That seems a bit excessive. Even by Blackwater standards.

homeowner

Not suggesting that its not. Clearly the NYPD rules for dealing with the mentally ill need to be looked at. Its not the first time they have killed someone in responding to an call for a mentally ill person with a weapon.

MOD

NY Times:

An officer told Mr. Coppin to put up his hands, and when he did he dropped the hairbrush and the shooting began, although one officer called out to stop the gunfire, Mr. Sanchez said.

Officers started chasing Mr. Sanchez and knocked him to the ground after, he said, he protested: “Why you got to shoot him like that, for nothing?”

A similar description of the shooting was given by Precious Blood, 16, who said she heard about 10 shots fired, most if not all by one officer. Another officer called out: “Stop, stop, stop shooting — he’s down,” she said, but the shooter kept firing, “like he was playing with a toy.”

Hummm :? I'd be interested to know how trained/how many years on the force/race/previous records these cops had.

superdave

Man, I feel bad for the kid (yeah, 18 is a "kid") but feel even worse for the mom. Good luck living with that kind of loss.

jackson

"Precious Blood"

man that is one awesome name.

carmen

^I was thinking the exact same thing. Wtf were her parents thinking.

arlette

Maybe her parents are religious and thinking about the precious blood shed by the Lord.

That being said, mentally ill or not 20 shots is alot to fire when there are no shots being returned.Whatever happened to aming at the offender to injure and disarm without causing death? Seems like these officers are shooting to kill , guilty or not.End of story. Like that Clint Eastwood movie, the gauntlet. Just shoot,not one officer but all on the scene, even if no rounds are being returned. I am sure that mother is regretting making that call even though she was at her wits end.

jackson

arlette wrote: Maybe her parents are religious and thinking about the precious blood shed by the Lord.

that's actually a pretty good guess.

This story is just so fucking sad. The worst part about it is we all know nothing is going to happen to those cops.

Fucking sad.

king without a crown

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=152693893

guvna

King without a crown wrote: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=152693893

Pointless post. Thats a typical myspace page for an innercity teenager. It certainly doesnt warrant 20 bullets. God help us all if thats what you think.

eberri

Seriously, How many Black men have to be shot "by mistake" before the police or anyone are held accountable? There would be outrage if this consistently happened to White women, Jewish men, Asian children or anyone else. Think about it, what if it weren't black men (but any other gender/ethnic group) being gunned down every few months by the police? And people wonder why some blacks (justifiably so), have tension/hostility towards the cops.

I'm outraged and am not speaking in defense of criminals, but it is frightening to see the free reign these cops have. I am seriously FEARFUL for all of the upstanding, accomplished, good, law abiding Black men that I know and are in my family because it is as if they are marked.

Black men do not have the luxury of ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time with anything at all in their hands facing the cops. Isn't it the cops duty to protect and serve? Why is it that gun play always ends with the victim being shot MULTIPLE times usually by MULTIPLE cops? It's never even a one on one situation where it could be a question of a cop feeling threatened or being outnumbered. Its always a number of cops against one unarmed victim. Even if there are convictions, that doesn't bring the person killed back nor does it change the cops mentality about shooting first and asking question later....

KWAC don't even bother responding to me with your ignorance, I have no interest in anything you have to say, just so you know, in advance....

hamilton

Subject: Tragic

it's a terrible tragedy when anyone is killed but i have two questions.

Why didn't the mother call Kheils brother rather then the Police.

Why was he on the street after being arrested in Jan. 2005 for having a gun in five armed robberies against Women.

[as reported by The Daily News]

anonymous

I don't understand the outrage over this. He said he was armed with a gun and was going to kill somebody, his own mother called the police on him and when they came he didn't obey their orders. He wanted to die, he certainly was mentally disturbed and most likely suicidal, but the cops just did what they had to. Had he jumped in front of a train no one would accuse the train conductor. It is not a race thing, but unfortunately this is what Al Sharpton and the other race baitors will turn it into. I hope none of the officers loses their jobs over this. They did what they were trained to do. Let's put the blame where it really belongs to: an 18 year old who did not take his medication and already had a rap sheet, furthermore a certain mentality where no one likes to take responsibility. It was not the color of his skin that lead to his death - an accident - but his actions directly resulted in the outcome.

homeowner

The issue is not about race. Its about how you deal with the mentally ill when they may be violent and the police are called. The NYPD has a horrible record of dealing with these types of incidents irrespective of the race of the victim. Why is no one asking the question about why when the hospital was called at noon, did it take hours for a mental health professional to come to his home? Especially when his mother reportedly told people he wasn't taking his medication.

See the article below from 2000. Neither of the victims were black, but both died similar deaths. Do I think the cops had an easier time believing a crazy black kid might try to shoot them? Absolutly. Do I think that they would not shoot a crazy white person? Nope. Making this about race diverts attention away from the real problem, which is how to deal with the mentally ill.

In The News: Community Mental Health
by Lynda Crawford
February 2000

Someone is violently attacked or pushed in front of a subway train, prompting outrage and alarm about dangerous people on the streets - many of whom, it turns out, sought help for their illness but were turned away. Laws are swiftly passed (Kendra's Law) and funding pours in to fill a portion of the mental health program gaps (Major Mental Health Initiatives); this also makes news, usually with a photo of the Governor.

Smaller headlines emerge about the continuing incarceration of the mentally ill, where 15,000 to 20,000 people with mental illness are estimated to be in the criminal justice system. And there is the item about the mentally ill man, Gideon Busch, shot and killed by police last August. Commissioner Safir defended the officers, saying they acted in accordance with proper procedures. Or the item about the mentally disturbed Queens man, Alan Zelencic, shot and killed by police a few weeks ago. The officers didn't realize he was mentally ill, report say; if they had, they would have waited for the specially trained Emergency Services Unit. At the root of all these headlines is the old story of the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill without community services to help them. There were 93,000 people in mental institutions in 1954; today there are under 6,000.

Absent from these headlines, though, are the people that go in and out of The Bridge, a day treatment program for the seriously mentally ill on West 108th Street, open 7-days a week, 365 days a year. About 250 people walk into The Bridge each day for activities that include daily living skills, therapeutic groups, creative arts and recreation.

According to Peter Beitchman, Deputy Director for The Bridge, deinstitutionalization was a disaster. "People were given a big bottle of pills and an appointment to go to an outpatient clinic. They were in the hospital for 10 to 30 years, with no independent living skills, and were expected to do well without support. They went into SROs or became homeless and went into shelters. It took the State many years to catch up. It still hasn't caught up."

What people at The Bridge found was most in need was not primarily the medical model of medicine and therapy (although that is certainly included), but the basics such as shelter, housing, income, food, clothing and safety.

"Once you take care of the basic needs," explained Beitchman, "by helping them get a beautiful place to live, a safe place, getting them social security or disability benefits or helping them get on welfare, having them participate in a psychiatric program, making sure they are stable through medication and closely monitored, once these basic needs are met, the next step is rehabilitation."

Rehabilitation doesn't mean a cure. "No one is cured of serious mental illness," says Beitchman. "But the effects and conditions that the mental illness creates can be effectively treated and dealt with." Rehabilitation means people gaining independence, perhaps moving to independent housing or reuniting with family and children. It can mean finding work.

The Bridge came up with the first such vocational training program in the City, again in response to their clients. "They asked us: what else do you have for us," said Beitchman. "We said, what would you like. They said, well, how about work?"

There is a danger that politicians will hear the word "rehabilitation" and think that means people can be taken out of the mental health system. "People with mental illness may not be able to go to full-time jobs or achieve total independence," Beitchman explained. "Some clients can work at a full-time computer job but still live in a 24-hour supervised residence. In that area of their lives, they are not able to function as well. We work with a client to achieve as much independence as possible."

Lynda Sounds Off:

In response to the outrage over violent attacks and the previous budget cuts, Governor Pataki recently allocated $125 million to community mental health programs. One of the flaws of this initiative package, according to Peter Beitchman, is that the majority of money earmarked for residential programs is for unsupervised living. "Yes, it is supportive housing for the mentally ill," says Beitchman. "But the housing is the cheapest and the lion's share of it is virtually unsupervised." Supervised residential housing, such as The Bridge provides in nine locations, has 24-hour staffing and is geared for people just out of the hospital and in need of assistance with living skills, learning to take their medication, and learning to become independent. "These are more expensive," acknowledges Beitchman, "but there are not enough of them. And there are none being developed."

Linda Ostreicher, a former budget analyst for the New York City Council, is a freelance writer and consultant to nonprofits. She is currently on the staff of Bronx Independent Living Services.

eberri

How can this not be about race when this type of stuff typically happens to black men? That pleading insanity stuff only seems to work if you are white. If you are black and or mentally ill they throw you in jail or shoot you, bottom line.

Its not about race baiting, but when you look at the number of times this has happened it is an outrage. I am not speaking of just this isolated case, but how many times have black men been mistakingly shot by the police? Really.

Again, not defending criminals, but it certainly seems to be a troublesome trend only happening to one specific group, black men. Are any of you that don't think this is a race issue Black? Just curious....

And in terms of the cops being trained to do what they were supposed to do, I'm really scared that we have so many trigger happy police who have been trained, but can tell the difference between a gun and any other object.

Also, when they shoot why do they always shoot to kill? In case there is an error in judgment or if they are not 100% sure about the victim, why don't they aim for a leg or arm. I guess they're only trained to shoot to kill, again, VERY SCARY. Any "expert" who carries a gun, should better know how to use it and be "trained" in something other than killing the victims/suspects....

hamilton

Subject: alternative

Why arn't Police trained to use tranquilizer guns/rifles, it would be a safer and more effective alternative .

This practice would end these tragedies that are occurring more frequently

jackson

eberri wrote: How can this not be about race when this type of stuff typically happens to black men? That pleading insanity stuff only seems to work if you are white. If you are black and or mentally ill they throw you in jail or shoot you, bottom line.

Its not about race baiting, but when you look at the number of times this has happened it is an outrage. I am not speaking of just this isolated case, but how many times have black men been mistakingly shot by the police? Really.

Again, not defending criminals, but it certainly seems to be a troublesome trend only happening to one specific group, black men. Are any of you that don't think this is a race Black? Just curious....

And in terms of the cops being trained to do what they were supposed to do, I'm really scared that we have so many trigger happy police who have been trained, but can tell the difference between a gun and any other object.

Also, when they shoot why do they always shoot to kill? In case there is an error in judgment or if they are not 100% sure about the victim, why don't they aim for a leg or arm. I guess they're only trained to shoot to kill, again, VERY SCARY. Any "expert" who carries a gun, should better know how to use it and be "trained" in something other than killing the victims/suspects....

completely agree with you - and your early post.

guvna

Subject: Re: alternative

Hamilton wrote: Why arn't Police trained to use tranquilizer guns/rifles, it would be a safer and more effective alternative .

This practice would end these tragedies that are occurring more frequently

I wonder what the police manual says about dealing with a crazy terrorist who is rigged to blow up 10 city blocks if shot. I'm sure it wouldnt call for 20 rounds being pumped into him. What the NYPD wants everyone to believe is that every situation that gets out of control must be resolved with excessive deadly force. It is absurd.

guvna

Also, I heard the first 911 call on the news this morning. The mom sounds calm, and though you can here the victim in the background saying that he has a gun, when the operator asked the mother whether he has a gun she just says "you heard him say it, not me" which is a way of saying "do you hear this fool and his nonsense?". She certainly didnt sound like someone saying yes, it is true he has a gun and I'm scared he's going to shoot me. Then, on the second 911 call she definitively says he does not have a gun.

At the scene when the cops responded things sound like they quickly got uncomfortable for the cops. However, yet again, there is not even a hint of a controlled response. Do these cops not undertake shooting practice? If so, why cant one or two of them be assigned to shoot to wound the suspect first? Why must the only reaction always be for a group of cops to unload their weapons? Human life seems to have qualified worth.

boogieknight

ITA that overall the chances of any non-white male getting shot by the police in what turns out to be seemingly non-justified shooting are much higher than they'd be for a white male in similar situations.

Sean Bell and his friends - regardless of whatever criminal records they may have had - were likely acting no different than any bunch of drunken, celebrating white guys coming out of Scores or Hustler Club at 4am. A lot of loud talking and swearing and jostling and tough-guy words because some other guy or bouncer in the club gave them attitude. Their color and social setting just made a bunch of poorly trained and hopped up cops that much quicker on the trigger.

That said - I don't think any police force trains their officers in shooting to wound. Its too difficult - shooting a much smaller moving body part at upwards of 6 feet away. Thats for movie cops and swat snipers.

So they shoot for center body and add in the automatics that the cops use and you can empty a full clip in just a few seconds. That's why there's always upwards of 10 shots fired when just one cops freaks out - they empty the clip, which is real easy to do.

Tranqs and longer range tasers for any situation in which the perp hasn't actually fired a weapon first may be the way to go.

There's sure to be a spike in tranq and taser abuse, but its better than getting shot.

guvna

BoogieKnight wrote:
That said - I don't think any police force trains their officers in shooting to wound. Its too difficult - shooting a much smaller moving body part at upwards of 6 feet away. Thats for movie cops and swat snipers.

So they shoot for center body and add in the automatics that the cops use and you can empty a full clip in just a few seconds. That's why there's always upwards of 10 shots fired when just one cops freaks out - they empty the clip, which is real easy to do.

Shooting to wound doesnt have to mean aiming for a leg or arm. A single shot to the torso is better than 20. For all their training, it seems their reaction is no better than when I play first person shooting games on my X-Box i.e., blast away until you have to re-load. Sounds like the academy is a waste of money.

paraderest

The police shoot to "stop the threat." They do not shoot to disarm, disable, or kill. Shots will be fired until the "perp" no longer poses a threat. This threat could be with a firearm, edged weapon, or blunt object. Even after receiving a fatal wound the perp could put up a fight for another seven seconds. How long would it take him to squeeze off a round or swing a knife.

There are many published studies regarding safe distances for police officers from a person with an edged weapon or blunt object. The minumun distance needed to discharge a weapon and move out of the perps line of attack is 21 ft. by most studies. That does not include drawing the firearm and aiming at the target. That distance assumes that the officer recognizes the threat and has already taken aim. A determined perp could cover that 21 ft in 3 seconds.

This "victim" from 590 Gates proclaimed that he had a gun. When police arrived and entered his apt. he approaced them with a butcher knife in each hand. He's also a robbery recidivist. He was ordered to stop by police. He disregarded thier commands and continued to advance towards them. After hearing the perp state that he had a gun and after approaching police with two knifes the officers had a fear for thier safety and the safety of the public.

There are many critics who say that the police need better training in dealing with the emotionally disturbed. These critics think the police should be able to "talk down" these disturbed individuals. How long should the police spend "talking down" this person when he is believed to be armed (with either a knife or firearm)and headed towards the public? Maybe they should have continued to back up until he was in the street or on the sidewalk and attacking pedestrians passing by. If he was armed and allowed to leave the scene what would the public outcry be like when he attacked an 80 grandmother walking home from the grocery store?

Where are the police supposed to carry rubber bullet guns and other less than lethal weapons? In their sock? Police already carry pepper spray, expandable batons and "night sticks" as less than lethal options. Keep in mind that these alternate levels of force do at times also kill. There have been people killed by tasers and pepper spray. There was somebody a few years ago that lost an eye in the Kingsboro Houses after being pepper sprayed. The law also takes into account escalating levels of force. Police are not expected by lawmakers to go hand to hand or knife to knife. A fist gets matched with spray or a stick. A knife, gun or other weapon with often be met with a firearm.

If the police had another option available to them in their car what would happen while they are getting these weapons out of the trunk? This call was for a "man with a gun". When somebody is threatening to use a gun on you do you want to wait for the first responding officers to get out a taser from the trunk.

Now what happens when the pepper spray or bean bag bullet doesn't work? I've seen several drug users just lick the spray off of their face and keep going as if nothing happened. In the meantime he has continued toward the police or the public. When the bean bag misses it's target and the perp continues toward his victim, then what? Precious time has been lost.

With all of that being said...I do feel that this was a terrible incident. This guy didn't deserve to die at the hands of the police. A family has lost a son and nothing can change that but some some people base their criticism of the police on too many episodes of NYPD Blue and too many Hollywood movies.

guvna

ParadeRest wrote: The police shoot to "stop the threat." They do not shoot to disarm, disable, or kill. Shots will be fired until the "perp" no longer poses a threat. This threat could be with a firearm, edged weapon, or blunt object. Even after receiving a fatal wound the perp could put up a fight for another seven seconds. How long would it take him to squeeze off a round or swing a knife.

There are many published studies regarding safe distances for police officers from a person with an edged weapon or blunt object. The minumun distance needed to discharge a weapon and move out of the perps line of attack is 21 ft. by most studies. That does not include drawing the firearm and aiming at the target. That distance assumes that the officer recognizes the threat and has already taken aim. A determined perp could cover that 21 ft in 3 seconds.

This "victim" from 590 Gates proclaimed that he had a gun. When police arrived and entered his apt. he approaced them with a butcher knife in each hand. He's also a robbery recidivist. He was ordered to stop by police. He disregarded thier commands and continued to advance towards them. After hearing the perp state that he had a gun and after approaching police with two knifes the officers had a fear for thier safety and the safety of the public.

There are many critics who say that the police need better training in dealing with the emotionally disturbed. These critics think the police should be able to "talk down" these disturbed individuals. How long should the police spend "talking down" this person when he is believed to be armed (with either a knife or firearm)and headed towards the public? Maybe they should have continued to back up until he was in the street or on the sidewalk and attacking pedestrians passing by. If he was armed and allowed to leave the scene what would the public outcry be like when he attacked an 80 grandmother walking home from the grocery store?

Where are the police supposed to carry rubber bullet guns and other less than lethal weapons? In their sock? Police already carry pepper spray, expandable batons and "night sticks" as less than lethal options. Keep in mind that these alternate levels of force do at times also kill. There have been people killed by tasers and pepper spray. There was somebody a few years ago that lost an eye in the Kingsboro Houses after being pepper sprayed. The law also takes into account escalating levels of force. Police are not expected by lawmakers to go hand to hand or knife to knife. A fist gets matched with spray or a stick. A knife, gun or other weapon with often be met with a firearm.

If the police had another option available to them in their car what would happen while they are getting these weapons out of the trunk? This call was for a "man with a gun". When somebody is threatening to use a gun on you do you want to wait for the first responding officers to get out a taser from the trunk.

Now what happens when the pepper spray or bean bag bullet doesn't work? I've seen several drug users just lick the spray off of their face and keep going as if nothing happened. In the meantime he has continued toward the police or the public. When the bean bag misses it's target and the perp continues toward his victim, then what? Precious time has been lost.

With all of that being said...I do feel that this was a terrible incident. This guy didn't deserve to die at the hands of the police. A family has lost a son and nothing can change that but some some people base their criticism of the police on too many episodes of NYPD Blue and too many Hollywood movies.

What a load of useless info. 20 shots cannot be explained away by any of this. Can someone, anyone, tell me why weeks or months of training cannot educate these officers that 20 shots is excessive? Stopping the threat? Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

they reacted very well to the threat of two big knives. The reaction that I cannot accept is the 20 shots for a hair brush. Even if he had a gun, how many shots does it take to "stop the threat"? Is he The Terminator for crying out loud? It all points to poor training, at a minimum.

paraderest

Twenty rounds were fired by 5 officers but how many struck the victim? I'm hearing ten hits. Ten rounds fired or even twenty is not at all too many. During the gun battle in the 77 over the summer there were over 100 rounds discharged by police with only a few hits. The fatal wound didn't occur until officers were literally on top of the perp and his was still firing. If he is still advancing and the officers believe he is armed(whether or not the officers are mistaken about a weapon) then he is still a threat. These 20 rounds could be discharged within seconds.

In some instances it may be possible to designate a cover officer and a contact officer. In tactical entry situations where there is a pre-plan this may also be determined before hand. Unfortunately it is not always possible to do this. From the time this guy came through the window till the time the officers discharged their weapons was probably less than a minute.

We aren't talking about a protracted stand off, barricaded perp or hostage situation that could go on for hours. We are talking about a suicidal man who was not behaving rationally and unfortunately was considered a credible threat to life by the officers on the scene.

Guvna, I'm not pulling anything. I don't really care if you think that this was excessive. Officers don't go to work everyday saying,"I'm gonna shoot somebody today." They go to work hoping that they won't have to pull their weapon, that they won't have to defend their life, that they will go home at the end of the night. I don't know a cop who wouldn't mind never having to draw their weapon again.