THE ISSUE: An Assembly bill requiring police officers to shoot to wound, not kill, criminals.
***
I was furious at learning that Brooklyn Assembly members Annette Robinson and Darryl Towns are sponsoring a bill that requires police officers to wound, but not kill, an assailant during a furious gun battle (“A Cop-Killing Bill,” Editorial, May 26).
As an officer who was involved in more than one split-second scenario during my years in the police department, I can say that what they’re proposing is something one would expect to see in a John Wayne movie.
No one on Earth would want to live with the memory of taking another’s life, especially every police officer I’ve ever worked with.
George Najarian
Brooklyn
***
Do the Assembly members have any brains at all? They must think that the person who is aiming the gun at a cop is probably an outstanding member of society with no criminal past.
I can’t wait to pay more taxes to cover the inevitable lawsuits and house more prisoners.
Bob Allen
Manhattan
***
Why do people who obviously have no knowledge of a subject get to make up the rules?
Our current governor once proposed a similar law, but reason ruled, and it never was enacted.
Perhaps a few nights spent riding with the NYPD might enlighten Robinson and Towns. I can’t imagine them telling the officers “just shoot to wound” while they are ducking a hail of bullets.
Floyd Moon
LaFayette
***
The proposed bill is a sham. Towns will be the first to scream to the media when an errant shot is fired and an innocent bystander is struck by a bullet meant for a criminal’s arm or leg.
“Center body mass” is a hard-enough target to hit under such stressful conditions as a gun fight.
Pass the bill, but insist that all criminals fight under the same rules of engagement.
Robert McKenna
Staten Island
***
The Assembly is true to form — theory takes precedence over logic.
If an assailant is aiming a gun at a police officer and is shot in the arm or leg, he still might be able to return fire and aim to kill the policeman, not wound him.
But if the officer has to take a split second longer to choose to respond by shooting the same limb or a different limb, that extra second may cost him his life.
The legislators don’t have to walk the streets to figure this one out.
Carl Rosenberg
Great Neck
***
Give it up to New York City’s liberal, Democratic politicians to provide armed criminals with a leg up in violent shootouts against the police.
Why not just remove their weapons and provide officers with short, wooden truncheons and whistles?
Lee Anthony Nieves
Charlotte, NC
***
As the father of a 25-year-old NYC police officer, I am appalled that elected officials would sponsor a bill to limit the ability of our police to protect themselves in life or death situations.
Criminals, knowing that the police cannot use deadly force, will become more brazen and willing to challenge a police officer who can only shoot to wound.
We should be protecting the brave men and women who protect us rather than the criminals who disregard the rules of civilized society.
Frank A. Pellegrino
Yonkers
***
Robinson and Towns have been busy watching too many TV shows and movies.
Assembly members probably wish cops had no guns and that hoodlums infesting their neighborhoods could run free.
Cops need more freedom to use deadly force and not to be second-guessed by Albany.
Again, the Democrats are blazing a trail to stupidity instead of supporting the police.
Glen Benjamin
Airmont
***
As a retired NYC police officer, these idiots have no idea what goes through the mind of a cop during a shooting.
This isn’t “NYPD Blue” or any other cop show coming out of Hollywood. This is the real deal.
John Rogers
Staten Island
