From the cries of outrage on social media, you would have believed that two NYPD officers shot a man because he failed to pay the subway fare. The problem was that the man, Derrell Mickles, not only tried to beat the fare, twice, but had a knife in his hand which he refused to drop when the cops commanded he do so. That little detail was omitted by those trying to whip up outrage over the shooting.

[A longer video is available as well.]

There remains a pervasive sense by some, including members of the New York City Council like Tiffany Caban, that the subways should be free for poor people and people of color, thereby obviating any reason to enforce annoying little details like fare beating. After all, how could it be bad to beat a fare they don’t believe should exist? Nonetheless, the fare remains and failing to pay it remains a crime, which the police enforce because it’s an easy target.

Extrapolating from this, the police engagement with Mickles began with his farebeating, and thus, the argument goes, everything that flowed from that basis for initiation relies on that offense for justification. What happened between the farebeating and the shooting is irrelevant, since nothing would have happened had the cops not initiated engagement for farebeating.

But whether you accept that proposition or not, the fact that Mickles had a knife in his hand, and the fact that Mickles refused to drop it despite multiple commands that he do so, is still a fact. And facts still matter.

The graphic footage, captured by cameras worn by the two officers and other cameras in the station and on a subway car, shows a confrontation that began with a man entering the system without paying and two officers forcing him to leave.

That initial encounter ended with the man, Derrell Mickles, going out through the turnstile while holding what appears to be an open folding knife in his right hand while the officers follow him at a short distance, the video shows. A second encounter that began about 10 minutes later ended with Mr. Mickles, an officer and the two bystanders wounded.

After he refused to comply with commands to drop the knife, the cops tried to subdue Mickles with tasers to no avail. Did they have to shoot? Were there any other options? The police could have rushed Mickles in an effort to disarm him, but were they obliged to risk being stabbed by a guy with a knife? It didn’t appear that Mickles had any intention of attacking the cops, but rather sought to get away. In response to their commands to drop the knife, Mickles said “leave me alone.” Was that an option, walk away from a farebeater openly holding a knife on a subway?

What elevated this shooting from the usual “cops shoot black man over $2.90” outrage was that the officers not only shot Mickles in the stomach, but one of the cops was shot, a woman was grazed with a bullet and a 49-year-old city hospital worker was shot in the head.

But critics have accused the police of overreacting in a dangerous way and escalating what began as the enforcement of the minor offense of fare evasion into unnecessary violence. Those critics include the family of the man who was shot in the head, Gregory Delpeche.

The family of Delpeche was, as one would certainly expect, outraged by the shooting of an innocent bystander. Had the cops not enforced this minor violation, Delpeche would not have been shot, suffering grievous injury. And, indeed, there is no excuse for the shooting of an innocent bystander, whether for a minor violation or any other offense. The cops aren’t supposed to shoot bystanders, which seems to be de rigor for NYPD officers who shoot very infrequently and practice at the range even less.

Indeed, the problem with New York’s “Finest” shooting innocent bystanders gave rise to their buying Glocks with 12 pound trigger pulls (rather than the normal 5 pound) to reduce inadvertent firing. The unfortunate collateral consequence was that it made their aim even worse.

Adding fuel to the fire, NYC Mayor Eric Adams, a former NYPD police captain and founder of 100 Blacks In Law Enforcement, praised the two cops for their “restraint” and neglected to speak to the innocent bystanders or their families.

Could the shooting have been avoided? Sure, had Mickles not jumped the turnstyle in the first place, not held a knife in his hand or dropped the knife upon command. Was there a viable alternative to the cops shooting Mickles, such as waiting him out assuming they could prevent him from fleeing to just letting him go rather than opening fire for the petty violation of farebeating and less petty crime of threatening cops with a knife? Not likely.

And none of this explains or justifies why Police Officers Edmund Mays and Alex Wong, standing at point blank range, couldn’t manage to shoot without hitting bystanders and, firing only three rounds, Officer Wong hitting Officer Mays. Regardless of whether the level of force was justified against Mickles, the inability of NYPD officers to do their job without shooting the innocent by “accident” suggests that they can be just as, if not more, dangerous to the public than the criminals. That’s unsustainable.