Hide BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to check out our fundraiser »

NYPD Officers Shot Innocent Bystanders, Fellow Cop Chasing Down A Fare Jumper

from the shouldn't-be-trusted-with-a-badge,-much-less-a-gun dept

I don’t know why the press feels the need to provide cover for law enforcement officers who screw up so badly they injure innocent people and their own coworkers. But they do. It’s not even the “view from nowhere.” It’s the “view mostly likely to exonerate cops by the end of the headline.” And since most people will only read headlines and (perhaps) a couple of paragraphs, the further you bury the lede, the better.

For example, here’s how CBS News first presented this story before being shamed into publishing a more accurate headline:

If you can’t read or see the embed, the original CBS headline was:

NYPD officer wounded in shooting with armed suspect at Brooklyn train station

The implication, of course, is that the officer was wounded by the “armed suspect” who (the headline implies further) participated in the shooting, presumably with bullets of his own.

But that’s definitely not what happened. The original reporting has since been edited, but here’s what it said when the news first broke on September 15.

The New York City Police Department responded after shots were fired at a subway station in Brooklyn on Sunday afternoon.

Police say the shooting was reported around 3:20 p.m. at the Sutter Avenue station in Brownsville.

Four people — three civilians and one police officer — were hospitalized, according to the FDNY. Interim Police Commissioner Tom Donlon said the wounded officer “is in good spirits and is expected to make a full recovery.”

Not a bit of this original reporting was true, which probably means the only source CBS used to compose this report was the NYPD itself.

That article has since been rewritten, with no note appended explaining that the original “reporting” was highly misleading. It also has a more honest headline:

NYPD officer, 2 bystanders shot on Brooklyn subway platform when police fire on armed suspect, authorities say

And the opening paragraphs now more accurately portray what actually happened on September 15.

An NYPD officer and two bystanders were wounded when police opened fire on a man armed with a knife at an L train subway station in Brooklyn, authorities said. 

Police said the gunfire was reported just after 3 p.m. Sunday at the Sutter Avenue station in Brownsville.

Four people — one police officer, two civilians and the suspect — were hospitalized, according to the FDNY. Interim Police Commissioner Tom Donlon said the wounded officer, who was shot in the chest area below his left armpit, is at Brookdale Hospital and “is in good spirits and is expected to make a full recovery.”

That’s much better. But it still doesn’t explain — even with the release of the body cam footage five days after the shooting — why these officers felt it was a good idea to open fire into a rail car containing other passengers. The two bystanders shot by these officers suffered serious wounds. One was hit in the head and is still in critical condition. And the other has had her wound minimized by city officials and the NYPD’s talking heads.

A 26-year-old woman who was wounded when New York City police officers shot a knife-wielding man at a Brooklyn subway station was not “grazed” by gunfire as officials have said, according to a lawyer for her family. Instead, the lawyer said on Saturday, she has a bullet lodged in her leg and is unable to walk.

This scene was investigated fully, one assumes. The NYPD had to know exactly how injured Kerry Gahalal was because all of that would need to go into the report. To say otherwise in public statements is lying, the ultimate form of government self-service. This is another PR black eye for the PD, but apparently officials believed they could convince residents it wasn’t by applying a bit of makeup to the self-inflicted wound by pretending one person was, at best, barely wounded and repeatedly reassuring the public that the cop shot by another cop was making a full recovery.

The claim in support of moving to deadly force rests on this, taken from the New York Times’ description of the body cam footage:

The officers fire their Tasers, which fail to subdue Mr. Mickles.

Seems logical the next step would be something more lethal, but if you watch the video, it appears the officers were no better at aiming their Tasers than they were at aiming their guns. This is wasn’t a failure of the Tasers. This was a failure by the officers deploying them — a failure they would repeat moments later but with actual guns and bullets this time.

While it’s true there will occasionally be times where crossfire is inevitable, this doesn’t appear to be one of those situations where deadly force was the only option, especially when other people were in the area and, apparently, just as likely to be shot as the person the officers were pursuing. But that’s just how these things go: cops believe it’s their right to escalate situations in the direction of deadly force and deploy that force the moment they feel comfortable doing so. Every non-cop is acceptable collateral damage… you know, in the interest of public safety.

But when cops do stuff like this, the very least journalists can do is demand more information. And they definitely shouldn’t be absolving officers before the facts are in. This doesn’t help anyone but cops seeking to shore up a narrative before the actual facts come out.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NYPD Officers Shot Innocent Bystanders, Fellow Cop Chasing Down A Fare Jumper”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
53 Comments
David says:

Re:

And who knows how the fare-jumper claim will hold up. Maybe the charge will end up being a shirt not tucked in orderly so that it may have concealed a weapon.

Our policemen risk their lives daily (actually fewer die on the job than garbage collectors but then garbage collectors don’t get qualified immunity for shooting at any driver that gets too close for comfort). So we cannot have slobs with unorderly shirts make them fear for their lives.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I’m a copyright fan. I believe everyone should be able to claim copyright over their created works, for a period of 20 years from the date of the publication. Corporations, as they cannot create anything, do not get copyright protection. Under contract, individuals can assign enforcement of their copyright to a corporation for the duration of the copyright. After copyright expires, the work enters the public domain.

I’m not a fan of whatever the US has turned copyright into (or software patents).

I could also be convinced to agree with copyright administered the same way that trade marks are done, where you need to actively claim the right to have the protections, and have to apply for protection to be able to have the government serve penalties. But that has downsides in that it prefers corporations over individuals.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

A 26-year-old woman who was wounded when New York City police officers shot a knife-wielding man at a Brooklyn subway station was not “grazed” by gunfire as officials have said, according to a lawyer for her family. Instead, the lawyer said on Saturday, she has a bullet lodged in her leg and is unable to walk.

It sounds like if the say “and was released from the hospitable”, you have to carefully check if they mean “to the morgue”, or “And is still alive”

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MathFox says:

Well trained officers...

My suggestion is to revoke the officers’ firearms and tasers until they’ve received a satisfactory result on their shooting-range training for both firearms and taser. As a bonus, they would need to pass a retest on firearms safety, especially the “safety for bystanders” module.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

My suggestion is to charge them with reckless endangerment and bar them from ever being able to own or use a firearm or being employed as an officer of the law. This isn’t something you can retest for. They proved they’re not trustworthy or capable of handling the responsibility of wielding lethal force.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You’d have to have all participants be part of the downrange team.

Best solution would be: pop-up targets at both end of the range, with a pair of officers, one at each end. Instructor first instructs the participants to observe all training, and then tells them to release the safety and get the highest score possible.

The guns are loaded with blanks, and any officer who releases the safety before requesting the officer at the other end leave the range has to re-do the training. Any officer who actively fires their gun has their gun license revoked with no chance for re-licensing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Remember when the media used to hold the powerful to account?

Now they are terrified that if they don’t they won’t get the tips or assistance they want.
The media could stop reporting on police fairy tales until the real story is finally revealed, but they also fear someone else getting a scoop (even if the scoop is parroting police claims that the bullet was fired by a ninja who promptly vanished leaving the poor halpless cop to take the blame) and run with it.

The other reason might be the big reason they won’t hold trump to account… they are terrified the base of supporters might kill them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Why fire *anything*?

If you are an NYPD officer, then you should be able to easily subdue someone armed only with a knife using your bare hands. This is basic hand-to-hand combat training that ought to be a required: any NYPD trainee who can’t successfully take a knife away from a 6’4″ 230 pound adult man 9 times out of 10 should be failed out of the program.

Of course this takes intelligence, practice, diligence, and dedication – qualities completely missing from the ignorant thugs who staff the NYPD.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

any NYPD trainee who can’t successfully take a knife away from a 6’4″ 230 pound adult man 9 times out of 10 should be failed out of the program.

Sweet fucking mother of pearl.

Have YOU tried to do so? With your standards in full contact safety gear and training knives or a suitable substitute?

Again, this has nothing to do with the thugs in blue (hell, they SHOULD have that training at least) but asking ANYONE to be able to disarm a knife-wielding maniac at least 9 times out of ten is hard, even for trained professionals.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No, it’s not an easy skill to learn or practice or master. Neither is landing a passenger airliner in a crosswind or doing CPR on an open-chest patient or a thousand other things that we expect professionals to be able to do because they’re professionals and they get paid to be able to do these things.

The problem isn’t that this skill is too hard; the problem is that our standards are too low. Of course every NYPD officer should be highly proficient in close-quarters unarmed combat: why would even consider anything else?

And BTW this isn’t an exotic martial arts skill like some kind of reverse flying kick: it’s pretty basic. Literally basic, as in “basic training”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Agreed. I’ve had the same training for knife disarmament that officers get. And the best technique is to never have to use it, because 9 times out of 10, if you DO attempt to use it, something unexpected will happen and someone will get hurt.

Better solution for fare jumpers is to monitor them and pick them up as they leave their destination station, two officers stepping in from each side as one approaches from the front. No bystanders, minimal risk of knife wielding.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

The media is so glib about people being “merely” wounded by gunfire. In many cases these are life-changing injuries and many lead to premature death and/or permanent disability, but if the person didn’t die the same day it’s too hard to count so we aren’t going to.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“which this site didn’t see fit to cover ”

I was unaware this website considered itself to be a news outlet. I looked at the main page for TD and did not find any instance of news outlet claims.

I had thought TD was a tech blog, but I could be wrong – wouldn’t be the first time.

Not sure why anyone would expect TD to cover all the major stories one might find online, perhaps you’re bored with all the tripe you see on x-twit, truth_BS and other magaBS.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

was unaware this website considered itself to be a news outlet. I looked at the main page for TD and did not find any instance of news outlet claims.

I had thought TD was a tech blog, but I could be wrong – wouldn’t be the first time.

So why the fuck is TD covering cops shooting a criminal Nigger in NYC?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Was the cop who got shot by his colleague a criminal nigger? That explains a lot, I assume all the cops involved were criminals then.

Brrr, I don’t know what came over me but I just felt the need to descend to your level of intelligence for a brief moment.

Those of us that actually possess a level of intelligence above yours with the accompanying reading comprehension read an article about how a cop shot two innocent bystanders and a colleague in pursuit of a fare jumper.

If it is too difficult for you to understand things like this, ask someone who is smarter than you to explain it in simple terms you understand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

in pursuit of a fare jumper.

…a fare jumper armed with an edged weapon who likely would’ve murdered everyone inside that train car.

While it’s unfortunate that both civilians and law enforcement suffered GSWs during the use of force incident, one less criminal nigger roams the streets (at least temporarily).

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

…a fare jumper armed with an edged weapon who likely would’ve murdered everyone inside that train car.

You have no evidence to prove this. Watch the video. It seems like the suspect was mostly just a threat to the cops. And it looks like (and is actually proven by the result that) the cops were a bigger danger to themselves and to bystanders.

While it’s unfortunate that both civilians and law enforcement suffered GSWs during the use of force incident

Classic neutral phrasing from a bootlicker. Cops shot innocent people who are in critical condition. That’s not unfortunate. That’s reckless endangerment. And if one of them dies, it’s manslaughter. That’s homicidal incompetence.

The ends didn’t justify the means here. Your pretzel-twisting attempt at justifying it only shows your obsequiousness to violent authoritarians.

Anonymous Coward says:

Does the knife even matter?

From what a quick online search turned up, New York has a number of restrictions on knives (I presume they either have been upheld in court or have yet to be challenged), but I’ve yet to find anything saying it’s illegal to have a [legal] knife on one’s person while riding the subway. Is it? If it’s legal, was the suspect brandishing the knife or something or did he just have it on his person?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

So basically the cops should have cleared the cars of bystanders instead of trying to confront an armed suspect in the midst of innocent people. They also shouldn’t have stood there and let him go through the exit in the first place. They should have tased him while he was alone on the platform before the next train showed up.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech needs your support! Get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...