NYPD has Ability to Take Down Aircraft

[jayhalsey 6]

Does the law, as it relates to the justifiable use of deadly physical force take into account whether it's an automobile headed toward a crowd of kindergartners or an airplane flying over populated communities?

I wouldnt think it would by the letter of the law, but I am not a cop or a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. I would think there would be an emotional difference for the person that has to shoot down a plane over a crowded community vs. taking an automobile out. Potential for a big difference in the loss of life there.

[16fire5 693]

Yes, really. Nobody brought any legal facts except the reference to NYS PL Article 35. If your referring to your own post, you merely brought a quote. While it may be entirely accurate, and I suspect it is, it is only tangentially related to the topic. Your article discusses not who might be doing the actually shooting down, rather who is giving the orders.

DOD has been quoted in the media numerous times in the last couple of days citing the same policy.

And I didn't see anyone from Law Enforcement state "this does not apply to them." (Could you point that post out to us?)

Authority for the military to take such action would have to come from the President but we're not talking about the military so I don't think Congress has any jurisdiction.

The NYPD has the authority to protect its citizens within NYC so I'm not sure what all the hype is about.

Who has to give the NYPD the authority to do anything besides the Mayor and City Council?

Thank you for making the effort to cite something to support these statements. However, in context, this statement is referring to the authority for military assets to take such action. It doesn't speak to the use of force by law enforcement or other federal agencies.

Your source is also an article, not a law or regulation so it still has not been established that there is a law prohibiting the NYPD from taking such action.

[calhobs 110]

Lets refer back to the post by our good friend and respected memeber efdcapt115, the link to the Daily News and someone else posted the same to the Post. States that NYPD has most likely the capability to shoot down a crop duster NOT a commerical airliner. So all the reference to the DoD and all claimed legal responses to shooting a aircraft refer to Commercial airlines not private owned aircraft.

[helicopper 1,050]

DOD has been quoted in the media numerous times in the last couple of days citing the same policy.

DOD has stated that the authority for the military to shoot down an aircraft comes from established chain of command and is vested in the President. It doesn't say that they are the only one's empowered to do so or that others are prohibited from it. Therein lies my point.

I stand by my position that nobody has produced a law or regulation prohibting the NYPD from doing this and the existing use of force laws in NYS make no distinction between an airplane or any other conveyance.

[peterose313 345]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/09/28/report-feds-have-stinger-missiles-in-nyc/ A new/recent article with NYPD Commish Kelly vaguely commenting on it.

[INIT915 1,119]

DOD has been quoted in the media numerous times in the last couple of days citing the same policy.

Those posts of helicopper which you seem to suggest he says these don't apply to him are hardly that. In the first one you cite, he clearly attributes the decision to the President. In the second, he asks who needs to give the city authorization. And in the third, he points out, correctly, that no one has cited any specific laws governing these types of actions. (And, still no one has to this point.)

[16fire5 693]

Few would argue that defense from airborne attacks is the responsiblity of the federal government. Rightfully so the Police Commissioner is concerned with federal ability to protect NYC and response times. The facts actually support this thinking. Two of the closest bases that flew fighters on 9/11/01 no longer do. Syracuse's 174th now flys drones (was F-16s) and Otis AFB (on the cape) no longer flys combat jets (scrambled 2 F-15s on 9/11). I really think more pressue should have been put on the federal government to have closer capabilities to intercept hijacked airliners or other terrorist planes. To the best of my knowledge the closest resources are in NJ Air Guard F-16s out of Egg Harbor, NJ. But that's an air guard base and I'm not sure they are in constant readiness. Seems to me that Washington has done a good job of making sure Washington is protected from this threat.

[helicopper 1,050]

Few would argue that defense from airborne attacks is the responsiblity of the federal government. Rightfully so the Police Commissioner is concerned with federal ability to protect NYC and response times. The facts actually support this thinking. Two of the closest bases that flew fighters on 9/11/01 no longer do. Syracuse's 174th now flys drones (was F-16s) and Otis AFB (on the cape) no longer flys combat jets (scrambled 2 F-15s on 9/11). I really think more pressue should have been put on the federal government to have closer capabilities to intercept hijacked airliners or other terrorist planes. To the best of my knowledge the closest resources are in NJ Air Guard F-16s out of Egg Harbor, NJ. But that's an air guard base and I'm not sure they are in constant readiness. Seems to me that Washington has done a good job of making sure Washington is protected from this threat.

Likewise it can be argued that protecting the nation's borders are a federal responsibility but the border states (at least the Mexican border states) shoulder an enormous burden because of federal inaction or inadequate resources. Some argue that it is not the state's job and that they lack the authority to enforce immigration violations and that is still an unresolved legal dispute.

While the traditional "air defense" has been against military actions launched from abroad, the type of threat that NYPD is defending against is homegrown or at least locally launched primarily using small general aviation aircraft. It would be virtually impossible for the federal government to offer the protection that NYC deems necessary and appropriate hence their position.

In one of the subsequent articles posted in this thread, the city acknowledges coordination between the NYPD, NYC Mayor and federal government. That seems to support the argument that there is no prohibition in the law or regulations against what the NYPD is doing. Should it be there primary responsibilty? Of course not.

And you're absolutely right. There are multiple federal agencies (both military and law enforcement) in the DC metro area providing immediate and decisive protection. That is not true of any other US city. Hmmm... Another interesting point to discuss.

[ny10570 745]

Few would argue that defense from airborne attacks is the responsiblity of the federal government. Rightfully so the Police Commissioner is concerned with federal ability to protect NYC and response times. The facts actually support this thinking. Two of the closest bases that flew fighters on 9/11/01 no longer do. Syracuse's 174th now flys drones (was F-16s) and Otis AFB (on the cape) no longer flys combat jets (scrambled 2 F-15s on 9/11). I really think more pressue should have been put on the federal government to have closer capabilities to intercept hijacked airliners or other terrorist planes. To the best of my knowledge the closest resources are in NJ Air Guard F-16s out of Egg Harbor, NJ. But that's an air guard base and I'm not sure they are in constant readiness. Seems to me that Washington has done a good job of making sure Washington is protected from this threat.

The air defenses are not concentrated around DC. Otis was given to the Coast Guard and the fighter wing moved out to Westfield. For a time during the move air cover was coming out of Burlington, but I believe they're no longer participating in Noble Eagle. Westfield Mass is not a significant change in response time from Otis for an F-15. The Egg Harbor wing is part of this NORAD program in which there are 18 different locations across the country with aircraft on "alert status". This includes Andrews, Barnes in Westfield and Atlantic City in Egg Harbor.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Federal authorities today arrested and charged a 26-year-old Ashland man with plotting to damage the Pentagon and US Capitol with a remote-controlled aircraft filled with C-4 plastic explosives.

In recorded conversations beginning in January, Ferdaus allegedly also told a cooperating witness that he planned to attack the Pentagon using aircraft similar to “small drone airplanes” laden with explosives and guided by GPS devices.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/09/feds-agents-charge-ashland-man-with-targeting-pentagon-capitol-with-aerial-explosives/ECftBKY6IX6HQif2DlDiNN/index.html