Police

NYPD Shooting of Unarmed Bystander During Gun Sting in Neighboring Town Won't Be Investigated by New York Attorney General

State AG just got the authority to investigate such shootings last month.

|

ABC7

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) tooted their own horns a couple of months ago after the governor gave the attorney general the authority to take over investigations of incidents where police kill "civilians." That authority, it appears, will be used sparingly. 

Schneiderman won't be investigating the fatal shooting last week of Felix Kumi, a 61-year-old unarmed bystander, by a New York City undercover police officer in Mt. Vernon to purchase guns from suspects in a an "illegal gun" operation. Mt. Vernon police say "went awry."  

One of two suspects allegedly pointed what turned out to be a replica gun at the officer when the cop fired several rounds, hitting the suspect in the torso, the window of a nearby home, two cars, and an auto body shop. A second suspect was caught after a chase. Police say they had previously bought guns from one of the suspects. 

Schneiderman will leave the investigation to the Westchester County district attorney. The New York City police commissioner expressed "sorrow and sympathy" in a statement about the shooting. The attorney general's decision is likely driven by the apparent belief by authorities the shooting was accidental. But that suggests a limited application of Schneiderman's "special prosecutor" power. 

Even as an accidental shooting, the incident, which involved police in one city trying to buy guns in another city and then shooting at a suspect with a replica gun in a manner that killed one bystander and could've killed more, deserves scrutiny by the state. These are the kinds of police operations that create the conditions in which preventable shootings like this occur. To borrow the rhetoric of gun control advocates like Schneiderman, if it saves one life, authorities should consider what kind of law enforcement requires the application of gun violence by cops. 

NEXT: Watch Anthony L. Fisher on FNC's Red Eye with Tom Shillue, Tonight 3a ET/12a PT

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, it’s OK because the “Nothing to See Here, Move Along” statute is ALSO still in effect, so….

    1. I’m just glad the DA didn’t get uppity about any personal convictions of people killing one another and decide prosecute these officers for showing up and doing the job they were paid to do BY LAW!

      1. They didn’t do the job they were paid to do. They fucked up. And so did you. AGAIN.

        Keep tryin’ l’il feller!

        1. What part of ‘No Investigation Necessary’ do you not understand?

          Job well done, nothing to see here, move along.

  2. Isn’t it illegal to accidentally shoot someone to death, too?

    1. Yes. Which is why the person arrested will be charged with the murder…

      1. It’s amazing to me that any juror goes along with such tortured logic.

        1. The reasoning is that the arrestee created the dangerous situation that resulted in another’s death. It’s not tortured if you assume cops who would never use excessive force to arrest someone… which most jurors are hard-wired to assume.

  3. …the incident, which involved police in one city trying to buy guns in another city and then shooting at a suspect with a replica gun in a manner that killed one bystander and could’ve killed more, deserves scrutiny by the state.

    I don’t know. That sounds pretty by-the-book to me.

    1. could’ve killed more

      Now I see the problem.

  4. For the past 30-40 years cops have been chipping away at the concept of jurisdiction, and the out-of-control NYPD is a perfect example of where that leads. Whether it’s laws that cops outside of their jurisdiction can actually arrest people if they observe a felony, or that all current and former LEOs have basically a nation-wide concealed carry permit for life, to not punishing them for running operations outside of their jurisdiction; all this shit is basically designed to continually push the idea that *all* cops are a special class at all times, even when they’re not on duty or even in their jurisdiction.

    It’s really not a good thing. But it’s certainly something they want.

    1. Are you trying to tell me that off duty cops on a Pedal Pub don’t have the fucking right to beat down on some punks spraying passengers with squirt guns?

      http://www.citypages.com/news/…..eo-7394451

      I don’t want to live in your Somalia

    2. all current and former LEOs have basically a nation-wide concealed carry permit for life

      That gives me an idea… for lots of us it might be easier to go through cop-school and quit on day 1 in order to get your hands on a legal gun than to go thru the little-person channels. If I was a little younger…

      1. You have to be retired. Can’t quit.

        1. By Rick Deckard? That seems a little harsh, even for cops.

        2. Five years service or retired.

    3. The NYPD under Bloomberg operated OUT OF STATE. It pissed a lot of other agencies off.

  5. What do you mean the case won’t be investigated by the AG? He investigated it and decided it was none of his business.

  6. My nuts are becoming numb. Punch away.

  7. If the story is true, then the cop absolutely was in the right to fire at the suspect holding the replica (which he could not be expected to know was not real). The number of rounds fired (at least 5) was certainly very questionable though, and may open up room for reckless endangerment charges.

    1. Agreed. I’m a CC holder and if someone waves around something that looks like a real gun, I’m defending myself. I don’t care if later on it’s found to be a toy or replica. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      However, my concern is the accuracy. Are NYPD not sent to the range except for initial qualification? Or maybe some bean counter ran the numbers and figured that since they use their sidearms such a small amount of the time that a wiser use of funds would be to decrease range time for officers? This concern of mine is in addition to my reservations about the capabilities of many officers. My personal sightings of the most slovenly, grossly overweight, sloppy members of the NYPD doesn’t inspire much respect and admiration for them. Are there no physical fitness standards and testing?

      1. If they do not get paid to go to the range or pass any sort of physical fitness test, than of course not.

      2. Agreed. I’m a CC holder and if someone waves around something that looks like a real gun, I’m defending myself. I don’t care if later on it’s found to be a toy or replica. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

        I’ll bet the cops, the courts and the survivors of the guy with a toy gun that you plug will care enough to bankrupt you and put you in the slammer.

    2. The NYPD never should have been there in the first place. They, and they alone, created the dangerous situation by going fishing beyond NYC.

  8. So, if a mere prole, acting in unquestioned self-defense, accidentally shoots some bystander, will that just get waved off with expressions of sympathy?

    Why do I doubt this? Why do I expect that the prole might get off for killing the perp, but is going to catch some kind of low-level manslaughter (at a minimum) for killing someone he had no right to kill?

    What’s the defense for the cop, here? He killed somebody. That person was no a violent felon, fleeing arrest, no aggression against the cop or anyone else. What’s the legal theory, the legal justification for this killing?

    1. Even if he kills only the perp, there’s a (good) chance you’ll face charges.

    2. That cops are a special class with special privileges?

      1. And not special like you’re special. They’re special-special.

        1. I just want cake. They want to shoot dogs and people.

    3. What’s the defense for the cop, here? What’s the legal theory, the legal justification for this killing?

      Defense? He’s not being prosecuted, so no defense needed.

      If you mean moral justification, good luck finding a government that cares about such things.

      I assume the deceased’s estate doesn’t even have any chance of a civil suit since police are of the highest caste and therefore immune to lawsuits.

      1. He’s not being prosecuted, so no defense needed.

        Ordinarily, when someone is lying dead of a bullet wound and the shooter is known, the DA gives a reason for not prosecuting, like “self-defense”.

        Here, the prosecutor is just saying “I’ll pass”, with no reason given.

        1. We all know exactly what the reason is.

          1. The standard FYTW, of course.

      2. The defense is that if cops aren’t allowed to fumigate the area w bullets any time they’re threatened, nobody will want to be a cop.

    4. Just grabbing at straws here, but maybe the cop defense is something like the following. Ordinary citizens are expected to avoid violent situations as much as possible and so if they shoot an innocent person it should be highly scrutinized. On the other hand, cops are expected to put themselves in violent situations all the time and are expected to use violence. Therefore it’s more likely that a cop will accidentally shoot an innocent person at some point and so they are given more slack.

  9. What’s the legal theory, the legal justification for this killing?

    OFFICER SAFETY
    duh.

  10. What’s the legal theory, the legal justification for this killing?

    Probably the same one Saddam Hussein used for years.

    I can’t see why the Iraqis wouldn’t go for this type of system.

  11. The NYPD really needs to get their people to the gun range every once in awhile.

    1. Their qualification requirements are laughable. Last time I was told what it was by an actual NYPD officer, it was something like an incredibly easy marksmanship test that only has to be done once a year or once every two years, and even then, if an officer keeps putting it off, no one really gives a shit.

      It explains some things.

      1. I do know they require a heavy trigger pull, too, which from my understanding would require a good deal of practice to be accurate with.

        I would think their firearms standards would get them sued in some capacity, but maybe I am just being naive.

        1. If shooting bystanders doesn’t get the shit sued out of them, this won’t.

          The officer who told me about the qualifications basically said that you can go and practice all you want–and some cops do–but if you don’t want to bother, you don’t have to do jack shit. This of course was directly tied into the NYPD attitude that since they are basically the only people authorized to legally carry guns in NYC, they somehow have some magical proficiency with firearms. It’s a completely idiotic but very real attitude.

          1. the NYPD attitude that since they are basically the only people authorized to legally carry guns in NYC, they somehow have some magical proficiency with firearms. It’s a completely idiotic but very real attitude.

            Yes, I know this to be true as well.

            A few weekends ago there was a story that a Pennsylvania State Trooper firearms trainer was not given much prison time (two weeks, maybe?), after shooting and killing a trooper during a demonstration on their new pistol. He failed to clear the pistol, I believe. That led to some googling (scroll down for a link collection), and the reason they received new pistols is because they had too many accidental discharges with their Glocks, which also resulted in deaths. And no one was charged, so I should not be surprised.

            1. I don’t get it though. You would think a bunch of tacticool losers pretending to be soldiers fighting on the frontlines would want as much range time as possible, even if for no other reason then to play with their fancy toys.

              Perhaps I have the wrong assumption on why people become cops.

              1. As I said above, some of them do take advantage of free range time. There was a case like 10+ years back where a disgruntled constituent or employee came to City Hall or another city building and pulled a gun on a crowded floor to shoot whoever they were disgruntled with. By chance, a cop was present who was a guy that spent a shitload of time at the range and was a known excellent shot. He shot the shooter without (I believe) hitting anyone else or even missing the shooter.

                But that guy is not the norm. He is the aberration. Most of them are cops for the power. It’s almost more of an expression of power to not know how to shoot your gun properly. Because you still get to have it, and almost no one else does.

                1. Plainclothes cop. And he was on the floor of city hall, and the gunman was on the balcony, some distance away. He hit him 5 times of of 6 shots

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07…..-hall.html

                  1. That’s the one. I remember other stories talking about the fact that the officer was known for practicing constantly.

                2. If I had free range time I’d be there every weekend. Oh, wait. I live in the country and shoot in my backyard every weekend. Never mind.

                3. I hear them shooting frequently at Rodman’s Neck; the sound carries a long way. But I understand most don’t, just the gun nuts among them, & they enjoy the facility.

            2. The story about the Pennsylvania State Trooper in question. Yes, he was sentenced to two weeks in jail, though there is a slap on the wrist… er… house arrest as well.

        2. They have a heavy trigger pull because the stupid cops kept shooting themselves in the nuts.

          Frankly they should have left the factory trigger pull and sanitized the gene pool.

      2. A few months ago I watched a Barney Miller episode where Barney reminds Fish once or twice he has to take the gun test. And he was really just matter-of-fact about it, more of a nag because he was being nagged than actually giving a shit about Fish’s gun skills.

        The obvious takeaway is that the test is so easy even a fossil like Abe Vigoda can pass it.

        1. Contrast this with the Homicide episodes where Giardello won’t let Frank return from brain trauma until he can pass the gun test. Basically, the only way you can fail is if you have vertigo.

        2. It’s nothing personal, just business.

  12. I guess I watched too many cop TV shows as a kid where cops practiced at a range and fired tight patters. I thought they could at least shoot straight! With this cop shooting through the windows of a nearby house, auto body shop, etc it’s a wonder more bystanders weren’t killed. It kinda defies belief they let such a terrible shot even carry a gun.

    1. Even Adam-12, where Malloy and Reed bet a soda on their results.

  13. http://www.courthousenews.com/…..police.htm

    Supervisor cop shoots subordinate 9 times for not showing up to a meeting.

    An Albuquerque police detective’s own supervisor shot him nine times on a drug bust, because the lieutenant hadn’t attended the planning meeting for the operation, the detective claims in court.

    1. “He claims that Brachle made a point of shooting him as thoroughly as possible, firing two shots into the center of his body, then repositioning himself and shooting him seven more times as Grant tried to crawl away, asking his boss to “please stop shooting.””

      1. The boss will be given 1 demerit and ordered to re-qualify at the range

      2. That fucking story sounds like the lieutenant was just going to execute a arrestee because he felt like it, and the only reason we even know about it is that he’s so fucking stupid and incompetent that he shot one of his own undercover men.

        I mean, the news story doesn’t even *try* to delve into “why the fuck did he shoot an already-arrested person? On top of that, why so many times?”

  14. Next month a law will go into effect that allows anyone here in Maine who would otherwise qualify for a CCW to carry a concealed weapon without one. Constitutional carry they call it. Of course the leftists are predicting a blood bath, but we all know it won’t come to that. We peasants know that we are responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel, and for everything that gets hit, intended or not. So the average peasant is more careful than most cops when they shoot, because we don’t have FYTW on our side.

  15. And they wonder why so many REJOICE every time some stupid punk cop gets clipped in the line of duty.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  16. What’s the legal theory, the legal justification for this killing?

    Probably the same one Saddam Hussein used for years.

    I can’t see why the Iraqis wouldn’t go for this type of system.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.