NYC - Bystander who grabbed wounded cops gun to fire back at robbers won't be charged

[RamboLiberal]

A school safety agent grabbed the gun from a wounded cop and exchanged fire with thieves trying to rob a Brooklyn auto parts store Saturday, law enforcement sources said.

-----

Five robbers ordered the group onto the ground and began rifling through their pockets. Presley, an MTA Bridges and Tunnels officer who was off duty, pulled his pistol, stood up, identified himself as a cop and told the robbers to stand down, police said.

Presley was shot in the shoulder during the close-quarters gunfight that ensued, police said.

The unidentified school safety agent grabbed the Glock that Presley dropped when he was shot, sources said, and chased the five bandits, firing back after at least one robber shot at him.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/04/18/2011-04-18_2nd_hero_joined_cop_in_bklyn_gun_battle.html#ixzz1JuvLtEmG

In the story it says cause Presley wasn't licensed to carry he could be charged. If NYC is that stupid I'd certainly be willing to contribute to this guy's defense fund.

On edit won't be charged.

A school safety agent who grabbed a gun from a wounded cop and fired at thieves in Brooklyn will not be charged, authorities said Monday.

Eugene Pitts, 50, of Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, is not licensed to carry a gun and has been under law enforcement scrutiny for his role in the dramatic gun battle inside a Bedford-Stuyvesant auto shop on Sunday.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's office said Monday that he won't face criminal charges.

But others have hailed him as a hero.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/04/18/2011-04-18_no_charges_for_school_safety_agent_who_fired_at_thieves_in_brooklyn_gun_battle.html#ixzz1Juw2VN6O

[MyrnaLoy]

1. according to

many in the gun forums that cop was under no obligation to protect those people yet he took a bullet. Next time one of you guys post that stupid shit about cops not being under any obligation to protect individuals remember this cop.

[TPaine7]

4. The real stupidity is assuming that because someone does something, it implies they had a DUTY to

do so.

Many civilians have risked their lives to help police in trouble. Does that mean they had a duty to do so?!

Is there a special irony school where gun control extremists learn anti-logic and how to combine it with the implication that their logical opponents are stupid?

Really. It happens so much...

[MyrnaLoy]

5. I see where you're coming from

he was a dumb ass for taking a bullet for anyone right?

[TPaine7]

6. Taking the bullet wasn't dumb, warning armed robbers was.

He felt a duty to act, that does not mean that he had any legal duty to act. I would feel a moral duty to stop the rape of a child if I could; that in no way implies that I could be sued if I refused to take the risk.

What gun rights proponents mean is that there is no LEGAL duty for the state or any of its operatives to protect you--as a general rule. A police officer could watch you being raped, tortured, killed, cooked and eaten--and your next of kin would not have a legal case against the officer or the city. Regardless of whether she could have easily stopped it. Neither the police nor the state have any duty to protect you personally, as a general rule.

Now, why don't you answer my question?

"Many civilians have risked their lives to help police in trouble. Does that mean they had a duty to do so?!"

Why do you think your questions deserve to be answered but no one else's questions deserve the same respect? It seems that someone with a strong, logical position could afford to answer questions as well as ask them.

[oneshooter]

8. He/she/it wwill not reply. People like that duck and run for cover when asked questions. n/t

[RSillsbee]

9. He was dumbass for warning a group of bad guys

Open fire w/out warning or do nothing

[chibajoe]

10. Did you miss the part where they mention that he was a cop?

They don't have the same ROE as we do.

[RSillsbee]

11. No, their ROE are much less stringent than ours

The cop wasn't obligated to give the bad guys a chance to surrender he was out numbered 5 to 1 well past reasonable fearof losing his life.

I wouldn't expect a group of crooks to just give up because someone points a gun at them.

Actually I wouldn't take on 5 to one odds unless I had no other option and if I did I'd just open up

[AtheistCrusader]

17. In my state, the opposite is true.

The legal bar for a 'Justifiable' or 'Excusable' homicide is higher for a police officer, than it is for joe schmoe.

[chibajoe]

18. Same here. In my state, if you're going to act as a cop, you have to clearly identify yourself

as a cop.

[RSillsbee]

20. In Colorado

I can only draw a gun if I am in reasonable fear of losing my life a cop can do so to enforce compliance w/ his commands and ,obviously, can shoot you if you don't comply.

If the ROE dictated that this guy had to give the crooks an even break he could have done nothing and not been faulted for it

[chibajoe]

21. That's not entirely true. According to C.R.S. §18-1-707:

A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
b. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:
1. Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or
2. Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or
3. Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay. (The Denver Police Department policy on use of deadly force in this situation is more restrictive than state law – see OMS 105.05(5).

So, no, even in Colorado the police can't just pull out a gun to "enforce compliance", although they can to stop someone from running away from a felonious crime, which you as a citizen probably couldn't do.

[RSillsbee]

22. Ok I see your point

but,again, he could have done nothing and not been at fault

[YllwFvr]

24. Not so in pa nt

[PavePusher]

12. Play stupid, much? n/t

[oneshooter]

15. As consistent as he/she/it is it may not be play. n/t

[Remmah2]

19. The right of self-preservation.

Apparently the police officer was in the wrong place at the right time. It seems he was acting in his own defense as well. Why is the police officer afforded the resources to act in his own self defense and not the other citizens in the store? NYC laws restricts the rights of the individual to posess firearms. Had the officer not acted, he would not have been held liable.

Five robbers entered the store against one firearm. An overpowering case to justify high capacity magazines. Did the officer have one? In NYC only police are allowed to own them as well. Having formerly lived in NYC my best guess is the off duty gun was a 9mm Glock with a 15 round double stacked "magazine". (Not a high capacity ammo clip.)

So it seems that the police officer, the store staff and customers were saved by a civilian with a fundamental knowledge of firearms with quite possibly a magazine that some people don't want civilians to own.

.......and the laws were written that the civivian could have been charged......

Had the cop suceeded in subduing the robbers he would have been a hero.

NYC firearms and self defense laws are twisted.

[rl6214]

26. You are assuming he was taking a bullet for someone

He was shot at, he shot back. That's what he is trained to do to stop a crook that shoots at him.

[aikoaiko]

14. Most pro-rkba folks support and appreciate the police and efforts to protect and serve.

but that's not the same thing as having a legal or civil obligation to take the bullet for a civilian.

Stupid is conflating the two.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. You seem to have a problem with the definition of 'legal duty' or 'obligation'.

He had neither. Good on him for doing so. He was not required by law to do so. He was not required as a term of employment to do so.

Also, HIS life was at risk, not just the other 4 people.

So. False equivalency much?

[YllwFvr]

23. Its personal choice

He can choose not to act. If he felt that lives were in imminent danger that may be why he chose to act. A risk he was willing to take. I cant put myself in his shoes without more information. Unless I thought for sure they would hurt someone I doubt I would. But I cant say for sure unless it happened to me. I know an officer who said he would for sure, he has a very strong sense of duty and said he would feel compelled to act.

[rl6214]

25. A applaud him for the job he has to do and for his bravery

but who says he was protecting anyone other than himself? He was being shot at, he shot back. He was responding to a robbery.

[YllwFvr]

27. Thats not how I read it

He didnt respond, he was already there off duty. He was protecting people. He confronted them rather than let them continue. He could have been quiet and let them rob the place

[TPaine7]

2. Sometimes even NYC gun control fanatics exhibit political common sense.

It's not decency, morality or humanity that precipitated this decision--neither is it the faintest respect for the Constitution. No, it's the certain knowledge that picking a fight on this case would hasten their political and legal annihilation.

I wish the fanatics in NYC were just a little bit more stupid...

(Not that I would want the "illegally carrying" guy to go through their BS, mind you.)

[slackmaster]

3. How magnanamous of them

They should give him a diamond-studded solid gold key to the city, or whatever.

[onehandle]

7. It's a good thing to help out a peace officer in rare situations.

Emphasis on Rare.

Doesn't mean we need streets full of Charles Bronson wannabes.

[PavePusher]

13. We don't have that. n/t

[lawodevolution]

28. NYC and state laws are so stupid they don't even enforce them

I've read about this type of thing in dc and Chicago where the laws are selectively enforced based on the opinion of the cops, so the laws are so bad that the cops act as judges rather than enforcing the law. I'd rather not live in such a fascist shithole. I'd bet bribes help determine how these gun laws are enforced