MC1 - from what I understand from a cop I know (not a Schenectady cop) who was actually in that type of situation, the "hail of bullets" rather than one or two shots is because 1) cops are scared in a gunfight, as anyone would be 2) they are running on pure adrenalin at that point, they can't help that
3) nobody is that good of a shot. Bullets fly everywhere, bystanders have as much chance of being hit as the intended target. Those crack snipers like the Navy Seals use against pirates have time to carefully set up their shot. That's why it is way better not to use a gun, if it can be helped at all. Better training for cops could help a little, I guess, but it is much better IMO to try anything and everything possible to prevent these situations from arising in the first place. Cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't in that neighborhood.
We have a lot of people living in that area with an extreme sense of entitlement and the rule of law as it applies to how police and others have to behave towards them, but no such sense when it comes to what, if anything, they and others from that stratum of society owe the rest of us.
Wouldn't it be nice if these people who care so much about the guy now had shown more interest in his welfare before it got to this? And wouldn't it be nice if all the time, money and energy expended by us getting our police department at least functional could have been spent on making it a top flight
organization instead? Maybe things wouldn't be this bad.

Madam X hits the nail on the head. I have relatives in law enforcement and that's how they've described it to me. When someone points a gun at you, you protect yourself as if they intend to kill you. And if anybody thinks that at that point a taser is a better option, then they've never had someone shoot at them. It ain't fun when the bullets are cracking around your head. The guy was a felon with a gun!!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Until a complete investigation is conducted and its results made public - there is nothing gained by making any comments on the incident.

Yes, as someone mentioned, you said the same thing about the McClellan St fire.

If you go to city hall so much, tell us what was the outcome of that investigation?   Never been made public, huh.


By the way, have your dem buddies gone after Popolizio to get the taxpayers' money back for the cost of demolition?  

Whose investigation? Will the investigation tell us what we are supposed to think, or will we be allowed to discuss it amongst ourselves at that point? I myself find that I am getting a better understanding of what happened as a result of discussion on this site. The article from the paper can't give enough points of view, which I find helpful.

Quoted from mikechristine1

I am also concerned about the day coming when cops will no longer be able to carry guns, but the criminals will.

don't worry about this ever happening. We are almost a military state now!!!! There are cameras on street corners. The government knows every move we make...from tracking phone calls, to what tv shows we watch, to purchases (w/cards), to blood types, to dental records, to ss#'s, to medical records...........and you think they will take guns away from law enforcement someday? NOT A CHANCE!!!!!

One has to wonder why the police even have tazers if they cannot be effectively used in this type of situation. Would the situation have been worse forthe other residents if the police hadn't been called, or about the same?

Tasers are generally used when deadly force isn't deemed necessary. In this case a felon with a handgun placed the officers in a situation where deadly force was needed. Did they want to kill him? Absolutely not, but they had to protect themselves.

Quoted Text

Would the situation have been worse for the other residents if the police hadn't been called, or about the same?

Not sure what you mean here. A felon with a handgun who was probably on the way to avenge the previous nights assault was a danger to everyone. Had the police not been called and intervened the possibility of someone else being killed or injured was probably pretty high.

Quoted from mikechristine1

I am also concerned about the day coming when cops will no longer be able to carry guns, but the criminals will.

They are arming up better than most of the armies around the globe, so don't ever worry about that. The battlefield-massive firepower and force doctrine of their training is to blame. Armored cars, Hummers, post mounted machine guns, bazookas, grenades, fully auto military spec armaments, the whole remuda. Your cares on that are misplaced. In twenty years it will be tanks, until they become a standing, nationwide army, and no one wlll notice as it occurs. It is tough to blame the cop on the street. Blame the political higher ups and the politicians. You will need to pass through military checkpoints from town to town, not to mention state to state someday. It will be "for the kids."

this is why I could never be a police officer.....taser shoot taser shoot taser shoot........

Graphic and foul language

Quoted Text

Claims that cops shot man in back weighed
DA looking at eyewitness accounts as part of probe into cops' use of weapons
By PAUL NELSON Staff writer
Published 12:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 16, 2011

SCHENECTADY -- Despite his assertions that three police officers were justified in fatally shooting an armed man, the police chief said the department's ongoing investigation will look into claims from some eyewitnesses that Luis Rivera may have been shot in the back.

So far authorities have refused to release the results of Saturday's autopsy, including how many times -- and where -- the 32-year-old was struck by gunfire.

Asked about those witness claims of Friday's deadly encounter, Chief Mark Chaires said "that will all be covered in the investigation" and urged any eyewitnesses to contact police.

He said once the internal probe is done, the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney's office for review and possible grand jury action.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Philip W. Mueller said Monday that eyewitness accounts that seem to dispute the police version are but one of the factors in what he described as a "dynamic" situation, where the three officers who collectively fired 14 shots were forced into making a split-second decision.

At a Friday night news conference, Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett said the incident unfolded that afternoon shortly before 4:30 p.m. when officers responded to a report of a man with a gun and attempted to apprehend Rivera. He took off, then reached into his pocket for a 9mm semiautomatic pistol and turned toward officers, Bennett said. Rivera ignored repeated warnings to stop, and Sgt. William Fennell, Officer Kevin Raybal and Officer Michael Wood opened fire after Rivera tried to draw the handgun on them, according to the commissioner.

The preliminary finding, which shows the officers followed department policy, is largely based on eyewitness statements and evidence from police-car video, said Chaires.

The three officers, who remain out on paid leave, as well as fellow cops who responded to the scene and police dispatchers are receiving assistance from the department's peer-support group, according to Lt. Eric Clifford.

Authorities said Rivera had a long criminal history, including a conviction for an illegal gun offense.

Speaking in general terms, Mueller said a fleeing suspect would have his back turned to the officers. The veteran prosecutor noted that it's also possible Rivera could have turned his back to avoid police after they drew their weapons or his body could have twisted or turned after the first bullet hit him.

"We try not to attach undue significance to exactly where a person's bullet wound is," Mueller said, "We have to be careful of drawing a conclusion from one fact when there are so many variables."

Mueller said state law permits police to use "deadly physical force" against a fleeing suspect for several reasons, including preventing or attempting to stop someone from escaping if they believe that person committed an offense or might use physical force against officers or another person. When discharging their weapon, police officers are trained to shoot to kill.

Mueller said he was unaware of eyewitness accounts that Rivera had ditched his gun prior to being shot, the prosecutor confirmed that the weapon, a 9 mm handgun, was recovered near Rivera's body.

"I assume from that he dropped it or tossed it, but again, it doesn't tell you when in the sequence of events, that occurred," Mueller said. "Once you get all the facts, you have to try to picture it as it occurred.

Rivera's sister Noelia Rivera said Monday at her Albany apartment that she was making funeral arrangements and couldn't talk about her brother.

"I'm just trying to hold my family together," she said.

Acting Mayor Gary McCarthy, who went to the scene soon after the shooting, said police must withhold evidence from the public while conducting interviews for the investigation.

"All the things will be made available," McCarthy said Monday. "It just won't happen as quickly as people would like. You have to sort all of it out first."

McCarthy said the information he has been given at the scene showed the situation was "consistent with the application of deadly physical force."

"It's always unfortunate when someone dies," McCarthy said. "But people cannot walk around the streets with guns."............................>>>>.......................>>>>...............Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/loca.....68.php#ixzz1VBkprzOI

Alias, what I mean is the result was a not so innocent person dead, with bystanders put at risk was the result here, and without the police the outcome likely would've been similar. I wouldn't want the cops job myself.

Sorry for the redundancy in my last post. I try not to blame the particular cops at the scene in any case.

Quoted from 1251

Not sure what you mean here. A felon with a handgun who was probably on the way to avenge the previous nights assault was a danger to everyone. Had the police not been called and intervened the possibility of someone else being killed or injured was probably pretty high.

This statement reads like Minority Report with Tom Cruise.  You are justifying a killing because the "possibility" of somebody being killed or injured?  Is every citizen with a felony and in possession of a handgun a homicidal maniac?  People watch too much TV and sensationalized news reports, and sees the world through the filter of Cop Dramas on T.V.  

I believe that police have all the right to protect themselves in life threatening situations.  What I don't believe, is that police preemptively kill a fleeing suspect because they believe the suspect COULD, POSSIBLY kill or injure a bystander.  Taking somebody’s life based on a predicting the future isn’t a good enough reason for me.