Shoot to hurt, pol urges cops

Daily News Exclusive

BY JOE MAHONEY
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

ALBANY - Sen. David Paterson is pushing a bill that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force - drawing outrage from officers.

The bill also would create a new provision for second-degree manslaughter that would be reserved specifically for an officer who "uses more than the minimal amount necessary" to stop a crime suspect.

Paterson, who is on Eliot Spitzer's ticket as lieutenant governor, has reintroduced the bill twice since first sponsoring it in 2001, refusing to let it die.

In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: "There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective."

Current law gives cops a wide berth to use deadly force when a suspect presents a danger to another person's life.

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try toshoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

"This bill shows absolutely no understanding of just how difficult it is for a police officer when they get into situations requiring the use of deadly force," John Grebert, director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, told the Daily News.

His sentiment was echoed by Dan DeFedericis, president of the New York State Troopers PBA, who said: "We are definitely opposed to this bill ... and we strongly believe it could endanger the lives of police officers and innocent civilians."

While Spitzer already has the endorsement of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, that group's Albany lobbyist, John Poklemba, said, "This bill is very ill conceived. I can't imagine any police agencies not being opposed to it."

Paterson told The News last night that his bill would safeguard the public. He explained that he wrote the bill in response to the acquittal of four NYPD officers charged in the 1999 shooting death of the unarmed Amadou Diallo in the Bronx.

"Many people were surprised the officers weren't guilty of something, criminally negligent homicide or something that involved some negligence," he said. "I thought I was writing the bill that really mirrored what the department rules are."

A Spitzer spokesman declined to comment.

Originally published on February 23, 2006

...This is not just bad legislation it's plain stupid. It would probably change the way officers qualify on the range as well since they'd have to show greater proficiency.

I think it would have the opposite effect. No one would qualify much over the bare minimum. If you qualify expert then the question is How could you have "missed" and "accidently" shot the guy twice in the chest AND once in the head?

I understand this goes on in MN for qualifications, but that was many years ago.

Mostly-

saw this over on THR. I was just flabbergasted by this Senator's remarks. I did a quick google on him.He's black, legally blind, and pretty much grew up in Harlem. Y'all can make the logical assumptions from there.

I can understand the "shoot to wound" concept by a LEO. It does makes sense. However, is it practical?? The bigger picture (IMHO) is take take a violent suspect down and protect other people in the vicinity. If that means killing them, so be it. TTousi, yes, I had read that over on THR. And there are a couple of other incidents where excessive gunfire erupted, endangering nearby citizens. The one that comes most easily to mind is the traffic stop where the police fired approximately 120 rounds into a vehicle and only hit the perp a few times, killing him (I think I recall twice, but it may have been as many as four times)