Police Abuse

New York Attorney General Using Authority on Police Shootings To Investigate an Off-Duty Cop

Road rage incident ends with off-duty cop killing another motorist

|

Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom

New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, says he will use his authority to investigate police-involved shootings to investigate the road rage-related shooting of Delrawn Small by off-duty police officer Wayne Isaacs. Anonymous sources tell the New York Daily News that Small left his car after being cut off by Isaacs and reached into Isaacs' car to punch him repeatedly before being shot by Smith. Police did not make an arrest at the time. Surveillance video of the incident exists but police have not released it.

Schneiderman asked for, and last year received, the authority from Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to investigate and prosecute police officers who kill in the course of performing their duties. On its face it would seem the Small shooting does not qualify, but Schneiderman has said it does and is taking over the investigation.

New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in the country although, as in most jurisdictions, police officers are exempt from those restrictions even when off-duty or retired. When New York state scrambled in 2013 to pass anti-gun legislation in the wake of the Newtown massacre in Connecticut, they forgot to include an exemption for retired cops and had to carve one out for them later.

A source the Daily News described as a "high-ranking police source" told the paper they believe the shooting was "absolutely" justified, questioning why Isaacs would retreat. The source also appears to have leaked Small's police record to the Daily News.

Members of Small's family have threatened to bring Isaacs "to justice" if the state doesn't. "It's not over for you," Small's niece Zoe Dempsey told reporters while addressing Isaacs. "You're not going to walk away from this. We'll find you."

NEXT: Horatio Hornblower, with dragons: The Temeraire series concludes with the excellent League of Dragons

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. Was Schneiderman the AG when Eric Garner was killed? Is there anything to make me believe this isn’t just political opportunism?

    1. The NY AG didn’t have the explicit authority to take over such cases at the time of the Garner shooting.

      There was a case within the last year where the local authorities rushed the exoneration through the grand jury precisely so the AG couldn’t take the case.

      Ah, this is it, I think.

  2. Who is this mystery man Smith?

    1. I bet he’s the same scoundrel who set up the private email server and mismatched my socks.

      I think he’s also known as Goldstein.

      1. The Family Circus knows him as Not Me.

        1. Family Circus. Now there is some wholesome entertainment.

    2. *AG Schneiderman subpoenas Krayewski for the whereabouts of alleged second shooter known to Ed by the alias “Smith”*

    3. I don’t know but if he was in the car with Issacs that was a justified clean shoot for a “civilian”, much less an off-duty cop.

      1. I don’t think you get to shoot someone for punching someone.

          1. Well, the video is out and it doesn’t look like he punched anyone.

            https://goo.gl/muWz6v

  3. Little early in the thread for OT, but the hag gets another ‘probe’:
    “State Department reopens Clinton emails probe”
    […]
    “The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton’s private server to be “top secret.” It was suspended in April so as not to interfere with the FBI’s inquiry. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the probe is restarting after the Justice Department’s announcement Wednesday that it won’t bring any criminal charges.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/…..ar-BBu26Su

    1. “Can’t comment because it’s an ongoing investigation.”

      and State will stay quiet for the rest of the election.

      1. Dunno.
        This was pretty much a dead issue and the Dept. could have easily let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe the wish is the father of the thought, but someone there might just be angry enough to NOT let her skate one more time.

        1. What can State do to her now that the FBI has issued its FYTW?

          1. Good question; someone I spoke with said it could deny her access to classified material. Which would make being Prez rather difficult.
            And I’m not sure a sitting Prez could ‘pardon’ that limitation.

            1. And I’m not sure a sitting Prez could ‘pardon’ that limitation.

              I can’t imagine the SCOTUS declaring a sitting US president as being subject to such a limitation.

              1. Could be, but you’re presuming she’d be in office prior to the action.

          2. “What can State do to her now that the FBI has issued its FYTW?”

            Also, while the FBI declined to press for prosecution, does that prevent the Dept form doing so? It’s not like she’s being subject to double jeopardy.

          3. I’m guessing there are some career people at State that want it on the record that they had nothing to do with what was going on with Hillary’s e-mail server.

  4. Are we trying for a police shooting hat trick?

        1. That story hit the SF Chron, but it wasn’t until the last paragraph that the ‘unmarked car’ was mentioned. Really slimy ‘journalism’.

          1. I saw another article that failed to mention that it occurred on a cul de sac.

            U-TURN ON A CUL DE SAC? HOLY SHIT SHOOT THAT GUY!

            Did they expect him to back out or something?

      1. So then Reason is just running up the score.

  5. Small’s niece Zoe Dempsey told reporters while addressing Isaacs. “You’re not going to walk away from this. We’ll find you.”

    Kinda woodchipper-y for NY to let go.

    1. Should have gone for a softer, if less succinct threat: “You’re not going to walk away from this without going to court first. We’ll hire a process server to find you for deposition in the lawsuit against the city.

  6. Guess who got his account back. Thanks, Reason!

    1. Huh. Just a mistake? Didn’t have anything to do with the violence suggested by your handle? Racism? Calling Robby a Cosmo?

      1. I always worried that the handle might be too much. It’s actually a reference to how Marxists argue. “I’m just saying you may be a racist, but let’s not dwell on that. Anyways, back to the original argument.” A straffinrun.

        1. We had a commenter here with the handle “Old Man with Candy”. He did it to prove a point, and he was right.

          He’s just a Renegade Jew now. So boring.

          1. I’m not clever enough to be offensive. It’s how my DNA has reproduced for millennia.

          2. That’s who (((((((renegade)))))))) is? And straffinrun is returned. It’s like wrapping up a crappily developed tv series in the last 20 minutes of the season finale.

            1. Now that’s funny.

      2. If you’re going to call him a cosmo spell it “Robbie”. Every little microaggression helps.

        1. Thanks for the pro tip.

    2. Hey, can you explain briefly?
      I’m a donor, and this sort of thing concerns me.

      If you don’t want to make it public, email me at my throw away:
      heckeljohn@yahoo.com

      1. The explanation I got was a misapplied spam program. So it was anything too sinister on Reason’s part.

        1. AFAIK, they don’t have a spam program that will go back and unperson you.

          I helped work out some kinks in the new Reason website. Never got my free subscription. But I don’t care about that. I care about heavy handedness, and it seems like it might be in play here.

          1. “Misapplied anti-spam measure” was the explanation I got. I can’t come up with a conspiracy given they restored all my old comments.

          2. I helped work out some kinks in the new Reason website.

            Clearly not.

            1. Yeah, good job, Playa…

            2. You have no idea how bad it was.

              1. So we’ll go with a low bar?

                1. It just flat out didn’t work with mobile devices.

                  The proprietary commenting system is surprisingly difficult to maintain. I commend Reason for not switching.

                  1. I’ve had a crappy windows phone due over a year, just got an Android. No site worked with the windows browser, and every browser that you could download used the built in browser underneath, so nothing worked.
                    But Reason and real clear were two of the worst.

                    1. And yeah, I don’t really want an edit button, and I sure as hell don’t want them to start using Disquss.

        2. We don’t cotton to foreign IPs around these parts.

          *spits into spittoon*

          1. Thanks.. I nice to see you, too.

            1. Tha fuck? Is that kid even old enough to drive, much less buy tobacco?

              1. Mr. Johnson, his ag teacher, just said don’t let nobody see it. Keep it to yourself. And if someone has a problem, you know, fuckem’.

            2. Welcome back, straffinrun!

          2. *frowns fiercely, wipes off face*

          3. Isn’t anywhere you spit pretty much going to be spittoon?

        3. So that “report spam” button actually does work. Now, who to target next…

          1. * raises hand and bounces up and down in tiny chair/ desk combo*
            ooh ooh me!

          2. So that “report spam” button actually does work.

            was that there… like, the whole time? because somehow my brain never acknowledged its existence.

              1. LIGHTNING BOLT

            1. Within the last few months, I think?

        4. Ok, I admit, whenever I saw one of your posts, I clicked “report spam” just like I do with Playa Manhattan.

          1. I thought for sure this post, the last one I had made, was the one that got me bumped. Supposed to be a swords-into-ploughshares type of joke, but I thought someone may have misinterpreted it.

            1. That comment isn’t even a wet fart on the Reason richter scale.

            2. Really? It’s not like you mentioned the Sheep Fucker Who Shall Not Be Named or anything.

          2. I’m untouchable motherfucker

            1. That’s what your wife told me.

              1. Not for lack of trying. I double wrap it to punish her.

  7. So, the “victim” left his vehicle and assaulted someone, then was shot? How is this a problem?

    1. The part where you can just drive away.

      Have you never taken a CCW course? Every situation you enter is potentially lethal because YOU are bringing a gun into it.

      Guns are not tools to “win” arguments.

      1. Guns are not tools to “win” arguments.

        It’s clear you’ve never taken a police officer course.

      2. Shooting someone who is physically attacking you in your car is just commonsense self defense.

        Road rage rules:

        !. Never get out of your car

        2. Don’t change your itinerary to follow anyone

        3. If the other asshole gets out of his car drive away

        4. If the asshole gets out of his car and begins attacking you in your car use all force necessary to stop the attack.

        1. Small became irate after Isaacs cut him off and got out of his car at a stoplight.

          The video supports the account that Small attacked Isaacs first ? and Isaacs never left his car until the shooting was over.

          This is justifiable homicide in any US state, particularly if Isaacs was stuck in traffic at the stoplight.

    2. Yeah, I’m pretty anti-cop, but even pigs have the right to defend themselves. That’s the other problem with Black lives matter: they tend to focus on cases where the “victim” was a thug, like what’s his ass that started the whole BLM movement.

      1. OK, rethinking after reading Playa’s comment. He could have drove away.

        1. You might remember the Marissa Alexander case. She was given twenty years for, as the media widely circulated it, “firing a warning shot” at her abusive husband. Lost in the (unreported) details is that, after an argument, she retrieved the weapon from her vehicle and returned to the house to confront her husband.

          1. So she had to tell him twice?

  8. Obama = So Racist

    Robby be shdh. He thought O was woke.

    1. Why is Congress stalling on common-sense police control?

      1. everyone is waiting for a slow news-cycle to throw up their hands and blame the other party for getting in the way.

        its not unlike guns. no one actually wants to pass legislation unless its actually just toothless/symbolic; but they love ‘churning’ the issue simply to point fingers at each other.

        (even if its really expensive and stupid and ends up hurting people for no reason – obviously. Like the “No fly” list, which only affects ~1000 or so people)

        At the root of it, though, anything to do with “Cops” is ultimately a local thing. they get some federal money, and they have some regulations imposed, but if the feds ever really start fucking with them, they buck hard and they buck serious. Until you get a group of Governors to agree on some new nationwide “model” for law enforcement, there’s little likelihood of any significant change to the way cops use force.

        1. At the root of it, though, anything to do with “Cops” is ultimately a local thing. they get some federal money, and they have some regulations imposed, but if the feds ever really start fucking with them, they buck hard and they buck serious. Until you get a group of Governors to agree on some new nationwide “model” for law enforcement, there’s little likelihood of any significant change to the way cops use force.

          Very true. But at the least, the feds could stop with the MRAP giveaways.

          1. Sure, and then how are they going to get rid of military hardware and need to buy some more? Then those working for the military-industrial-surveillance industry won’t have jobs, and won’t be able to feed their children.
            Why do you hate the children HM? Why?

            1. Why do you hate the children HM? Why?

              Some people, like Plopper, are pedophiles. I, however, am a pedophobe.

              1. Yet you have offspring?

                1. And that scares the shit out of me.

                  1. My exact reaction when the lady informed me of the news, HM (albeit phrased only slightly differently in my mind).

                    1. Holy shit, bitch, you’re what?!?

      2. CA’s response:

        “Push for police transparency laws gets stuck in Sacramento”
        […]
        “SACRAMENTO ? A swath of bills dealing with California’s stringent laws protecting the privacy of police officers and the release of information to the public has failed to garner support, leaving the state at a standstill on a troubling public issue that exploded anew this week.”
        http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay…..ate-result

        CA law-makers are paid by the CA unions; the taxpayer money is just icing on the cake.

    2. He read my comment from the other day demanding he knock it off with the ‘Trayvon coulda looked like my son’ nonsense and start acting like a statesman for all Americans on this issue.

      Do the right thing, bra.

  9. 1) Is this a good development?
    2) RE exemptions. Retired and off-duty cops get to keep their guns but does it extend to retired and ex-military?

    1. No and no

      1. Am I wrong to assert #2 is strange?

        1. I’m sure their training is presumed to justify that, but by the evidence, their training looks like ‘cops and robbers on TV’.

        2. Well, it is from our point of view. But, there are millions of retired and honorably retired military, and that would open the door too big. It’s not a privilege of everybody has it. Especially the rednecks who join the military.

          1. Honorably discharged, of course.

  10. Unlike the Sterling and Castile shootings, I think this one is justified. If you get out of your car to go start a fight, you deserve it.

    1. At least in this case the guy who was shot wasn’t lying prostrate upon the ground.

    2. So you get to shoot anyone who takes a swing at you?

      1. If they keep swinging.

        1. So driving away is REALLY HARD, right?

          1. Why should assault victims be required to retreat?

            1. “Why should assault victims be required to retreat?”

              You want non-sequiturs? OK:
              Why should assholes pull guns when they can drive off?

              1. How is it a non-sequitur?

              2. RTFA

                The victim was at a stoplight, in New York, when the thug attacked him without provocation.

        2. Oh, and you have manual windows, so rolling them up is tougher than reaching for a gun?

          1. You have no duty to retreat. It is prudent to assume anyone who would get out of his car and begin striking you in your car would not be deterred by a rolled up window.

            1. SIV|7.7.16 @ 10:35PM|#
              “You have no duty to retreat.”
              You pretty much have a duty not to blow someone’s head off, at least those of us who are civilized would think so.

              “It is prudent to assume anyone who would get out of his car and begin striking you in your car would not be deterred by a rolled up window.:
              It is stupid to make such a statement, but then it;s SIV.

              1. You have a duty to only blow someone’s head off if they’re attacking you

                There. Fixed that for you. Turned it into sanity when it was raving lunacy.

  11. Two police officers apparently shot at a protest in Dallas. Reported on FOX News.

    Something tells me this won’t end well for anyone. Especially the additional people to be shot by cops using this as justification.

    1. It would be nice if this triggered some self-reflection among their fellow officers, but I think we all know that won’t happen. This will just further ingrain the siege mentality.

    2. That’s not how you post a link, youngster.

      1. Hmm, I guess that’s the way either. Do twits need a different tag? Oh, I bet I left the mobile part in the link. try again

        1. OK, I give up. Use your Google, people.

      1. Show off

  12. OT and cool: Homebuilt pickups and trailer hitches: How underage teens skirt the law to drive in Sweden.

    Some of the most interesting cars that Sweden has to offer are hiding in small, rural towns, not in museums. That’s because 16-year-olds are allowed to drive virtually any type of car if it’s been converted into a two-seater pickup, and modified to top out at about 20 MPH.

    Many amusing photos.

    1. You had me at “underage Swedish teens”

    2. What’s swedish for “El Camino”

      1. Bork bork bork.

        1. Damnit, I was trying to figure out how to reference the Swedish chef. Well done, xir, well done.

    3. Car culture may be dying out in some places, but it looks like it’s alive and well in rural Sweden.

  13. New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, says he will use his authority to investigate police-involved shootings to investigate the road rage-related shooting of Delrawn Small by off-duty police officer Wayne Isaacs.

    A jew, a negro, and a cowboy go into a bar…

    Sorry, that’s in bad taste, but the names (i could be wrong) just scream this out.

  14. What White America Fails to See – NYTimes.com – mobile.nytimes.com
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016…..=

    1. Isn’t “the Grey Lady” racist?

    2. Something the NYT rarely lets slip through its carefully cultivated comment forums = an indication that rich liberals HATE to be lectured by black intellectuals.

      If you remember when the BLM people interrupted bernie… a lot of NYT liberals went ballistic over that. Basically, a sort of “AFTER ALL WE’VE DONE FOR YOU!!”-attitude.

      But if you scan through the comments, and see who got the most “recommended” votes? =

      CarouxSeattle
      I am offended by this column. The “You” is offensive because you, Mr Dyson, assume to know about me. You do not. This is lazy rage framed for a NYT audience. Rage needs to be more precise — not a club but a real sword. If you are going to take the risk of writing from rage, your tools must be sharper. To risk an imprecise attack — a scattershot, trumpish attack — is to risk alienating the very people who will lay down everything they’ve got to make the change you want for black people, for young people, for all our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

      The upper west siders love the kumbaya racial-stuff, but they don’t dig the whole “EVERYTHING IS WHITE PEOPLE FAULT”-rhetoric that the younger progs think is so de rigeur and virtue-signaling. NYT editors often risk mixing signals when they try to pander to both audiences.

  15. Someone recently recommended to me that I should carry a small fire extinguisher in the car. It can be used to squirt any asshole that tries to hijack the car, punch me, etc. and it is perfectly legal and useful to carry a fire extinguisher.
    Any of the commentariat doing this?

    1. Sounds like a good idea.

    2. Also, hitting somebody upside the head with a fire extinguisher can be effective.
      I’m sure there’s a cool video I could link, but, you know, booze and pot makes DenverJ lazy.

    3. Shit, just use bear mace if you don’t want to kill ’em

      1. A 2008 “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska” study stated:

        “Red pepper spray stopped bears’ undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears.

        1. And, that’s why there are no pollar bears in New Mexico

          1. Not since climate change forced the glaciers to retreat.

  16. investigate and prosecute police officers who kill in the course of performing their duties.

    Since even off-the-clock a police officer is protected by myriad privileges and immunities – he’s always a cop, on duty, off, or even retired – then it seems entirely appropriate to treat the whole of their activities as those of a cop.

    You want the protections and other goodies that come with the uniform 24/7, then you get the scrutiny 24/7.

    1. Like I said, this would be a “good shoot” for a “civilian”

  17. So, windows 10 has now been installed on The Machine. Very preliminary findings: I like it, the feel and user interface is beautiful. Where did all my programs go? I found a few, sure I’ll find the rest.
    Restart is even faster than windows 7.
    I talk a lot of crap about windows, but, preliminary of course, I think I like win 10

    1. Oh, some caveats: don’t do standard install. That means Microsoft becomes Google and hoovers your info; lower left corner during install you can change the default settings. Default is really bad for privacy.

      1. Also, I’m teaching myself AutoCAD, so it was already installed on Windows 7, and was the most resource intensive program I could think of off the top of my head: I did not need to reinstall, and it loaded like 4x faster on Windows 10.
        I think this is a good OS.

    2. I upgraded my laptop from 8 to 10, and 10 definitely sucks less. Of course, I hated 8, so that was a low bar to clear. My only real beef is the automatic updating, and that’s mostly just a matter of principle. Finding stuff is a little tricky at first, but not too bad once you get used to it. And yeah, I tweaked the settings a bit to keep privacy from getting completely hosed. Restarts seem to take forever for me, but that may be partially due to the relatively low-powered hardware.

      No plans to upgrade my other two Windoze boxes, though. My single biggest gripe with 10 is that MS finally killed Media Center completely. My media machine will be staying on 7, since it was basically built to run Media Center and would be all but useless without it.

  18. So a guy killed his attacker and I’m supposed to have sympathy for the attacker just because the guy is a cop?

    nope.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.