THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

Sometimes Cops Must Wait

To the Editor:

Retired Det. Richard Ferro takes issue (June 26 letter) with what I said (June 12 letter) regarding a police officer confronting an armed individual who is not posing an imminent threat to that officer.

Apparently, Detective Ferro must believe that there are times when a police officer should fire his weapon at an armed individual (who is not an imminent threat to him) even before he knows what the situation is. That's just wrong and is contrary to what has been taught at the Firearms Range and in the Police Academy.

Let's look at an all-too-common scenario that I'm familiar with that took place in the 23rd and 25th Precincts in the '70s and early '80s. Officers hear shots fired and see two or more guys behind cars shooting at each other from across the street. There are no bystanders on the street, so it appears there is not an immediate threat to anyone else.

The shooters don't respond to police commands to "Stop" or "Freeze," but keep on firing at each other. Are the officers supposed to shoot one or both of the shooters without any knowledge of who, why, etc.? Sometimes police officers are forced into a position where they have to wait and watch until they can assist victim(s) and arrest the perpetrator(s).

As cops, we want to stop the criminal from injuring or killing the innocent citizen, but it's better to take no action except to wait, watch, and finally to aid and apprehend, than to kill the innocent citizen, whether or not he's a police officer.

MICHAEL J. GORMAN Editor's note: The writer is a retired NYPD Lieutenant and an attorney.