NYPD getting TASERs

[XD 45]

What were NYPD officers doing in Jamacia?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[AgentX]

What were NYPD officers doing in Jamacia?

That's really funny...I hope... (Jamaica is a neighborhood in Queens, NY if you weren't joking.)

As far as sympathetic fire (AKA 'contagious shooting'), it is real and it can be a problem. When I was training as a LEO, I came from a military background. When a fellow trainee opened fire in a room-clearing exercise, I fired through an object concealing his target from me to help him put down the threat.

Turns out he was firing mistakenly. What I did wasn't wrong for a Marine in a war zone, but would DEFINITELY be wrong for a law enforcement officer. I'm glad I learned a lesson in a shoothouse rather than on the street. One of the drawbacks of being the good guy is having to accept some risk. LEOs (and armed civilians) should NOT be shooting at a target that they cannot positively identify as a lethal force threat.

Whether this was the case in the Bell situation or not is another story, but LEOs are and should be beholden to a high standard in the use of deadly force. Not saying they (we) shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt in situations that warrant split-second decisions in changing, confusing, threatening circumstances...however, firing just because someone else is firing crosses the line. It's a pretty natural human reaction, however, and you need some training to overcome it.

Edit: This is quite different than 10 officers all firing at someone that they can simultaneously identify as a threat. Although that's probably not *tactically* the best idea, there's no more legal or moral concern with it than with a single officer firing legitimately. Sympathetic fire refers to firing automatically/instinctively when a comrade fires, without an independent assessment of the situation and target.

[64zebra]

LEOs (and armed civilians) should NOT be shooting at a target that they can positively identify as a lethal force threat.

did you mean to have a "NOT" inserted between 'can' and 'positively'
(meaning it should read 'target that they can not postively identify'

if not, then it doesn't make sense

[AgentX]

did you mean to have a "NOT" inserted between 'can' and 'positively'
(meaning it should read 'target that they can not postively identify'

if not, then it doesn't make sense

Hah, yeah, sorry...bad editing there...will fix. Thanks.