Dubious Shooting

To the Editor:

Police Officer Raphael Lora may have had a reason for shooting at Fermin Arzu, but the possibility (not a reasonable likelihood) that Arzu was reaching for a gun in his glove compartment is not a justifiable reason. The only way a man reaching into a glove compartment could possibly justify the officer's shooting him five times would be if the officer reasonably believed that Arzu was armed and dangerous. An auto accident will not ordinarily provide a justification to shoot. Arzu was not suspected of anything more than causing an accident (with no injuries).

Some police officers carry the saying, "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six," too far. What some police officers don't want to accept is that in some situations, a suspect may get off the first shot, and no amount of training can eliminate all risk. A cop who doesn't want to accept this risk doesn't belong on the job. Cops, like Officer Lora, who voluntarily place themselves at risk have an even greater duty to use restraint than cops who are ordered or assigned to jobs and have little or no discretion (i.e., the case of the shooting of Gidone Busch).

It's time for Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly to show that preserving the constitutional rights of police officers involved in questionable shootings, and making sure the public has confidence in its police officers, are not mutually exclusive objectives. It's not a matter of giving police officers the benefit of the doubt; it's a matter of finding out the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.

MICHAEL J. GORMAN