"why the officer didn't shoot an arm or leg rather than going for center mass" (because he could get away with it in court)

Above is an archive at http://www.webcitation.org/6CESkz8dM dated November 17, 2012 taken of http://lists.plattsburgh.edu/pipermail/firearm-instructor/2010-March/000017.html

I'd reported several problems with dirty cop Matthew A. Griffin to SUNY Police Commissioner R. Bruce McBride. I'd reported the above to him in an e-mail with the subject line "SUNY Police firearm policy insubordination & integrity concerns?" on November 20, 2012 at 12:31:46 PM EST, in relevant part:

Accuracy with firearms versus personal liability concerns

The Oath of Office in SUNY Police Manual §10.01 is an oath to "faithfully discharge the duties of the position of ... according to the best of [one's] ability." §10.02 makes reference to "the highest possible standards of professionalism" and 10.11 to a "high level of knowledge and competence that is essential." Among the "Core Values" (page 3) are references to "quality" and "a high standard"; the "Policy Statement" (page 2) also refers to "quality."

Addendum 1, with respect to accuracy with firearms, refers to "a program that meets or exceeds" [emphasis added] requirements and to "evaluating the officer's ability to fire the weapon accurately." It states, "This policy does not prohibit a campus from training its officers above and beyond the established standard" [emphasis added].

For SUNY policy to chose to do "pass/fail" examinations of accuracy with firearms because (from what they've expressed below) they're more concerned about their personal liability in civil lawsuits than their ability to do their jobs to the best of their ability and according to the highest possible standards, levels, and requirements strikes me as worrisome. What's particularly troubling is the reference to shooting someone in the "center mass" (certainly the torso, possibly the head?) which would tend to be deadly force given the presence of vital organs, as opposed to "an arm or leg", and the apparent desire to be free to shoot the "center mass" by refusing to record officers' actual accuracy with firearms that might establish they could in fact use a firearm in a non-lethal way rather than with deadly force.

To prefer to be free to shoot the "center mass" without exposing oneself to liability by establishing one might have been able to chose to shoot an "arm or leg" seems inconsistent with §10.07 regarding "use of force," § 45.09 regarding "use of physical force," and § 45.10 regarding "deadly physical force," namely that "All members will employ minimum force necessary" and "only with the greatest restraint" and that members "will refrain from applying the unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment of any person"; that "physical force must be limited to only what is necessary"; that deadly force be used only when "necessary" and "as a last resort." Those sections may require that officers train with firearms to obtain the sort of accuracy that would permit them to fire with non-lethal force whenever possible, and to go for the "center mass" only when absolutely necessary.

"Same in Alfred...pass/fail only...liability reasons Lt. Scott Bingham NYS University Police Alfred, NY"

Sun Mar 21 12:34:36 EDT 2010

"We went to pass/fail a few years ago. We still score the target togauge performance, but don't record the score. This was done after welearned that some attorneys in civil cases following police shootings would look at the officer's score and, if high enough would go into aline of questioning about being an expert marksman and asking why theofficer didn't shoot an arm or leg rather than going for center mass.Further, pass/fail discourages target shooting.Inv. Matt Griffin UAlbany"

Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:07 AM

"Just doing a quick poll to see which departments are logging an actualscore to qualify and which are just recording pass/fail. Your responsewould be greatly appreciated.Thanks, Lt. Tim Ludden SUNY Delhi"

Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:05 AM

http://lists.plattsburgh.edu/pipermail/firearm-instructor/2010-March/000017.html

SUNY attitude towards "health and safety of students, faculty, staff and visitors"?

To conclude this e-mail, SUNY Police Manual § 45.10 states in relevant part "In using a firearm or other weapon, the officer is responsible for his or her acts and will be required to justify such actions in court and administrative hearings." Nearly the same is stated in § 75.16, "In considering the use of a firearm, university police officers must keep in mind that the officer alone is responsible for his or her acts and that he or she may be required to justify them in administrative hearings and courts of law."

How responsible would you judge these officers to have been for their acts; how able do you believe they would be to justify their acts?

Matthew A. Griffin should have been removed as a police officer, but insteead the http://lists.plattsburgh.edu/pipermail/firearm-instructor/2010-March/000017.html webpage was removed sometime after I'd reported Matthew A. Griffin's public admission there that UAlbany Police (if not SUNY Police in general?) stopped recording officers' scores so that UAlbany Police (if not SUNY Police in general?) would be free to shoot people in the "center mass' (i.e. fatally) and get away with it if civil cases arose.