Monday night, an 18-year-old man was shot dead by New York City Police officers responding to a call from the man’s mother that her son, whom she had attempted to have committed to a psychiatric facility earlier that day, had threatened to kill her. Five NYPD officers responded to the call and ended up shooting the man when he refused officer’s commands and brandished what later turned out to be a hairbrush.
Five different officers fired 20 rounds – 13 struck the man – killing an allegedly mentally unstable individual.
While many may be quick to judge, everyone should take a step back and allow the investigation to uncover all of the facts, statements from the officers involved, witness accounts and forensic evidence.
In the past, the NYPD has gone great lengths to protect itself from heightened scrutiny, but those days are long gone. Being a police officer involved in a shooting in one of the nation’s largest cities, especially under the glaring eye of the New York media which is constantly eye-balling police activities – does wonders to insure any wrong-doing on the part of officers is not only uncovered, but also that such guilty parties are rooted out and removed from the ranks of the NYPD.
Harsh judgments of police officers in such a case are quick to come, considering they are supposed to be trained in the use of deadly force. Taking a life is not a rash decision. No officer wants to shoot anyone, and though the NYPD may be deemed "trigger-happy," they also have to patrol one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
Officers who are responding to pleas for help do not always have the liberty of assessing every single factor in the situation. Domestic violence calls, as was the one that led to the Brooklyn man’s death, involve people in heightened emotional states who are liable to go one way or the other when it comes to reacting to police intervention. The young man in New York opted to go toe-to-toe whilst taunting officers who had merely wanted to help him. The outcome resulted because of a suspect’s unwillingness, or even inability, to comply with the officers’ instructions.
Officers are not at the ready with an itchy trigger finger hoping for a Western-style shootout so that they may fire as many bullets as possible. A situation arises and the officers react based on the how the elements in the equation appear from their perspective. It is easy to second-guess police action when one is far removed from the shooting. Being able to sit in one’s easy chair reading a newspaper article affords a person time to ponder the situation and how he would react if faced with a hostile subject. Such a luxury is one not afforded to police officers when facing down a man who might be armed. If an officer second-guesses himself on the street, he could end up dead.
If an officer suspects an individual is not only carrying a weapon but intends to use it, then the option for deadly force comes into the picture. It is an option of last resort and one not employed at mere whim. An officer will fire only in a situation where the officer’s life, or the lives of those around him, is in danger. The five NYPD officers reacted based on what they saw and heard, and to fault them at this point in the investigation is a premature indictment.
The citizens of New York can rest assure they are still being protected and served by some of the finest to wear a badge.
With the media watching the NYPD so closely, all of the facts will come to light. Until every facet of the shooting is revealed – indicating whether police comply with deadly force guidelines or not – the public should hold its tongue. There will be plenty of time later to praise the officers involved or even hold rallies against rogue cops, depending on what the findings show.
Lopez, an English senior, can be reached via [email protected]
