Fifty Shots

[Squeek]

There's a lot of outrage in New York today over an acquittal (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/25/sean.bell.trial/index.html) in case involving a police shooting where the officers involved fired fifty shots at a man they say was attacking them with his car.

Fifty is too much, and I think it's a travesty that none of the police officers involved will be punished. I'm all for supporting police and giving them the benefit of the doubt, but this is just too hard to swallow.

One evening around this past Christmas, my wife and I were returning from the harbor near our home where we had just viewed a boat parade when we noticed an ambulance and three or four police cars at a local gas station. We wondered what had happened.

About a week later I bumped into a police officer at a local coffee shop and asked him about it. He said it was just someone who thought he could get tough with the police, and then he looked me in the eye and continued, "They were wrong."

I took that to be an odd and ominous kind of warning, one that I didn't need or like. Apparently, the officer didn't like me asking about it.

This shooting reminds me of what I imagine may have happened at that gas station near my home. I don't know what happened to that guy in the ambulance, but this poor guy was killed on his wedding day, and that stinks.

[Corwin]

Hey it's America!! We see more than 50 shots being fired at cars all the time on TV and in the movies, so why should RL be any different!! Am I being totally cynical? Of course, but it's the sort of behaviour (and result ) we've come to consider as 'normal'. I agree with you that 50 shots is 'overkill', but that seems to be SOP!!

[Prime Junta]

One thing that struck me when I was in Montana was the general attitude towards the police. They were, basically, avoided and distrusted. The folks I was hanging out with may not have been the solidest pillars of society, but neither were they delinquents or criminals -- they were all working jobs, making a living, that sort of thing. If something went wrong and there was the problem, the reflex would be to try to do everything possible *not* to have to call the cops, the assumption being that they'd probably just lock up everybody to be on the safe side, plus do a search of the premises that may or may not turn up a bag of weed and then *really* lock up everyone.

I have no idea whether the cops actually deserve that kind of distrust, but it certainly was there, and it's very different from what I'm used to.

[curiously undead]

police should never be allowed lethal force; we need better technology which would nulify the inevitable 'mistakes' that will always occur, some more horendous than others. not to mention the penal system seriously needs to reform its racists/class roots.

[Remus]

.....About a week later I bumped into a police officer at a local coffee shop and asked him about it. He said it was just someone who thought he could get tough with the police, and then he looked me in the eye and continued, "They were wrong."

While saying that, did he looked at you like Clint Eastwood would?;)

[zahratustra]

I know that you have to have different approach when the person you stop might pull a gun on you but it always struck me how different police USUALLY behave in Europe and in the US. I also admit that my observations of US police behaviour is not based on the first hand experience but I am under the impression that they are much more aggresive and confontational than in EU.
In short the difference seems to be that here police force is more of a service and in US they act more as enforcers.
Am I widely off base?

P.S I also wonder how many psychos join police force (and army for that matter) solely for the possibility of being able to kill somebody and get away with it?

[Squeek]

I think Corwin's comment probably hit the nail on the head as far as how well anyone outside the US is really able to evaluate police in the US. But the thing is, we're not much better off ourselves. Police are like some sort of fraternity where you're either in or you're out, and nearly all of us are out.

It's too easy for this sort of thing to happen, and it's way too easy for the facts surrounding this sort of thing to be concealed.

[dteowner]

Well, clearly the police suffered from a mob mentality on this one. After the first shot, everyone went crazy.

The police are really in a no-win situation. They get slammed for not dealing with crime and they get slammed for "over-exuberance" (I'm not referrring this particular case, since this clearly is a bit beyond "over-exuberance). I think that they also suffer a bit from looking in the eye of evil, as it were. After you spend a few years seeing nothing but scumbags, you're bound to see everyone as a scumbag. Since we're all guilty of something, whether it be mass murder or serial jaywalking, it makes it easier for the police to justify that attitude.

The situation that troubles me, which hits the news pretty regularly, is when some dirtbag spends 3 hours running from an arrest (sometimes including using violence/guns to escape) and then complains about excessive force because he was tackled and roughly cuffed. If I chase after some clown for 3 hours, you can bet I'm going to bodyslam him when I finally catch him. I don't know how that could surprise anybody, and I don't understand how easily it gets lost that the bozo ran from authorities in the first place.

[JDR13]

Of course it doesn't help when you have Al Sharpton trying to fan the flames as much as possible.

[zahratustra]

Of course it doesn't help when none of the alleged perps was armed and one of those cops needed to reload his gun....twice....

[woges]

Recent events regarding this hit the bbc news here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7369470.stm)

[JDR13]

Of course it doesn't help when none of the alleged perps was armed and one of those cops needed to reload his gun....twice....


Not sure if you read the full story, but the perp\victim was behind the wheel of a car and allegedly sped right towards the officers in an apparent attempt to run them down. I'm not saying the amount of gunfire was 100% justified, but in that situation the perp certainly cannot be considered unarmed.

[skavenhorde]

Am I in the minority here by thinking that cops get a bad rap? They have one of the hardest jobs on the face of the planet, next to being a soldier. Where you go into work everyday and there is a chance you will be killed. Many of us go to work and the only thing we have to deal with is our boss and meeting deadlines, but cops go into work and have to always be on guard when pulling someone over or responding to 911 calls, if they're not on guard they could be killed or get their partner killed. They deal with the worst humanity has to offer on a daily basis.

I think that there is a fine line between abusive authority and protecting the peace, but when your life is threatened logic goes out the window and self preservation kicks in. I mean if someone was trying to run me down with a car and I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to try to kill that person with as many bullets as I could to keep myself alive. So 50 bullets doesn't sound like such a big number when someone is trying to kill you, whether it's with a car, gun or other weapon.

[woges]

Funny, the bbc report says he hit an unmarked car on the shin. I don't remember the law allowing me to blow somebody away because they hit my car. It's not justifiable to allow police to kill people because they have a 'tough' job - when a warning shot would have probably done the job.

[dteowner]

Now, woges, wouldn't it have been easier for those guys to just stop? Let's not lose sight of that. Do you think there would have been any gunfire whatsoever if they had complied with police commands?

[Kendrik]

To echo the above commets Police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. On one hand a victim of crime will be up in arms if the police don't respond in 3 milliseconds to their allegation of assault by arresting the offender and remanding them to jail (no matter the evidence) but the same person will deride the police for over the top response when they themselves are accused of a crime.

Don't get me started on speeding. It kills more people than drink driving (and for that matter Crime) yet the police are critised for stopping speeding motorists (often with the phrase "shouldn't you be catching real criminals?) Do you know the best way to avoid speedtraps and the like? It a secret all police are taught when they join up. DON'T SPEED. Same with drugs. Don't have drugs and you won't be caught with them.

I will admit some police officers go over the top but I honestly believe that is rare. Problem is Police are seen as the enemy by many in the public and the press and therefore suffer constant tirades based on not reacting enough/overreacting or not using their powers/abusing their powers.

What people forget Police Officers are people too, they are just doing a demanding job that is dangerous (both in the US and outside). The good work they do is taken for granted and any mistakes are blown out of proportion. This post is talking about officers deploying firearms against a man driving a car at them. OMG they used 50 bullets. Do you know how many they should have used? As many as is takes to stop the nutter trying to kill them. And until anybody has been in the situation where their life was threatened like that I cannot see how they can judge a person who has.

/Rant off :)

....... and relax. Apologies for that but I feel strongly about this.

[V7]

Without commenting on the current case (about which I know little) I don’t think the 'they're only human' argument flies. The police are professionals and should act and be treated as such, all the more so because they may be required to use lethal force in the line of duty. I doubt, for example, you’d excuse a surgeon leaving a surgical instrument inside you after an operation (which happens). It may be a cultural thing but I don’t think and of the police offers I know would make an excuse like that or appreciate someone making it for them. Then again I can’t recall a scandal involving the police gunning down someone here – the ones involving fatalities usually relate to someone getting trigger happy with a taser on someone with a medical condition or poor decisions in high speed chases.

And just to be clear I have no problem with the appropriate use of force to continue Dte’s example if they had to tackle the suspect to arrest him that’s expected, but if they put him in hospital because they got frustrated then there’s something wrong with their superiors.

[Kendrik]

Without commenting on the current case (about which I know little) I don’t think the 'they're only human' argument flies. The police are professionals and should act and be treated as such, all the more so because they may be required to use lethal force in the line of duty. I doubt, for example, you’d excuse a surgeon leaving a surgical instrument inside you after an operation (which happens). It may be a cultural thing but I don’t think and of the police offers I know would make an excuse like that or appreciate someone making it for them. Then again I can’t recall a scandal involving the police gunning down someone here – the ones involving fatalities usually relate to someone getting trigger happy with a taser on someone with a medical condition or poor decisions in high speed chases.

And just to be clear I have no problem with the appropriate use of force to continue Dte’s example if they had to tackle the suspect to arrest him that’s expected, but if they put him in hospital because they got frustrated then there’s something wrong with their superiors.

I didn't use the phrase "They're only human" on purpose. What I said was police officers are people. This often seems to be forgotten. Very few seek to actively get involved in fights or injure people as that is not their job. Their job is to protect others and that is what they do. What I did say that is until somebody has been in a position where thay have had to protect themselves or others from the threat of seriuos harm then I don't think they can understand what goes through a persons mind and therefore what reasonable force is. Should an officer wait for an armed man to take the first shot (a shot that may kill them or their colleagues)?

You are absolutely right in that if excessive force is used or force is used through frustration then yes that officer needs to be held accountable. However what classes as excessive force is often judged by what the offender states happened or what the press report. Certainly in the UK every time force is used police officers must fill out a form justifying it (or at least note down their justification).

I'm not trying to excuse bad coppers and yes, to coin a phrase, "with great power come great responsability" but if we are to judge descision made by polocie officers then don't simply read what is in the papers or in the news but consider what the officers were facing and thinking at the time.

[dteowner]

Well said, Kendrik. We get in a big hurry to find a victim and the media circus makes it extremely easy to ignore the events leading up to the incident. If a cop has his hand on his gun, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to be doing exactly what he tells me. I just don't have a great deal of sympathy for folks that choose not to exercise common sense such as that.

[Corwin]

While I basically agree with Kendrik and Dte, what about the person who is not quite in their 'right mind' through drugs or alcohol? Yes, I know they can kill a cop just as easily as anyone else, but they are. at least temporarily, unable to respond rationally to a police directive. Is that reason to kill them? Don't we need a way to incapacitate them as our first priority? Your professional thoughts Kendrik!!

[zahratustra]

but if we are to judge descision made by polocie officers then don't simply read what is in the papers or in the news but consider what the officers were facing and thinking at the time.

Errrr.... we have no way of knowing what those officers were facing and thinking at the time only what they said SAID they were facing and thinking while trying to explain away why they fired 50 shots at 3 unarmed men.

[dteowner]

Did those guys comply with the police directives, zahratsustra? According to the story, they did not. There's not much more to say. They didn't deserve to catch 50 bullets, but they certainly didn't use much common sense, either.

@corwin- if you're so trashed that you can't think sensibly when staring down a service revolver, I guess I won't shed a tear. Admittedly, I have very little sympathy for that excuse, though.

[Prime Junta]

Did those guys comply with the police directives, zahratsustra? According to the story, they did not. There's not much more to say. They didn't deserve to catch 50 bullets, but they certainly didn't use much common sense, either.

Yup. Lawful Neutral. :nod:

[zahratustra]

They didn't deserve to catch 50 bullets, but they certainly didn't use much common sense, either.
They were young and (most probably) drunk so nope, not much common sense. Still, not much of capital offence either.

BTW did you know that average sex ratio at birth is 1.7 male births per one female birth (1.6 in developed world)? Of course it gets equalised as time go by because of highier male mortality ratio.
So let' just call it a part of natural process and we all can sleep easily.....

[dteowner]

*queue classic joke*
Why do married men die before their wives? Because they want to.
*my apologies*

PJ, I'd like to dig a little deeper into that lawful neutral evaluation, but I'll move it to the appropriate thread. It might be a while before I get there, though.

[blatantninja]

After hearing all about the case, as well as hearing some 'inside stuff' from a guy I know that is an NYPD officer, I'm not surprised by the verdict. Not saying they should have gotten off completely, and the guy that fired thirty one shots should never hold a weapon again, but it really does seem like the prosecution failed to prove their case. The witnesses they put up where often not credible and showed a lot of disrespect towards the NYPD as a whole and the justice system as a whole. With some of their comments, I would have had a hard time believing them 100%.

I just hope that the feds keep their nose out of it. The founding fathers were against double jeopardy for very good reasons, and the end arounds that our legal system has exploited make me sick.

[Kendrik]

Drink and drugs.

Bah ..... lets get one thing straight - you choose to get high or drunk. (very few people get administered substances against their will - I'm talking about drugs that get you high - not date rape drugs)

You also choose to carry a gun/knife.

If you choose to do both (all three) then you must take responsabilty for either your actions or the conseqences. If police are faced with a high/drunk person attacking another person that action needs to be taken. The vast majority of police officer will not "go for the kill" but that person needs to be incapacitated whilst minimising further harm to others.

Consider if you will a drug crazed gunman shooting random shots. What should the police do? Shout to passers-by "Don't worry he's not in control of his actions?" or consider delivering the death message to the family of the innocent bystanders (or police officer). "sorry your loved one was killed but the suspect was not in control of his actions because of a self induced drug frenzy so we didn't want to hurt him".

Bottom line if you are a real and imediate danger to the general public then you need to be dealt with. Officer will consider all the options and use the most appropriate response that a) uses minimum force b) does not expose the public to further risk and c) Does not expose the officer to further risk. Point C) is always the one people don't get. Mad Drugs man is shooting randomly why the hell should a police officer risk his own life to get close enough to wrestle him and cuff him simply because the offender was stupid enough to take enough drugs and lose control whilst being in possesion of a gun. Simply he/she shouldn't, They do risk their lives already everyday they are identified as police so please don't suggest they should risk themselves ever further because of someone elses selfish stupidity.

One more thing most police also have the suspect's welfare in mind when doing things as well it just in their minds it rightfully comes under the protection of others and themsleves on the list of priorities

/and relax. Sorry tough day at work

[skavenhorde]

Drink and drugs.

Bah ..... lets get one thing straight - you choose to get high or drunk. (very few people get administered substances against their will - I'm talking about drugs that get you high - not date rape drugs)

You also choose to carry a gun/knife.

If you choose to do both (all three) then you must take responsabilty for either your actions or the conseqences. If police are faced with a high/drunk person attacking another person that action needs to be taken. The vast majority of police officer will not "go for the kill" but that person needs to be incapacitated whilst minimising further harm to others.

Consider if you will a drug crazed gunman shooting random shots. What should the police do? Shout to passers-by "Don't worry he's not in control of his actions?" or consider delivering the death message to the family of the innocent bystanders (or police officer). "sorry your loved one was killed but the suspect was not in control of his actions because of a self induced drug frenzy so we didn't want to hurt him".

Bottom line if you are a real and imediate danger to the general public then you need to be dealt with. Officer will consider all the options and use the most appropriate response that a) uses minimum force b) does not expose the public to further risk and c) Does not expose the officer to further risk. Point C) is always the one people don't get. Mad Drugs man is shooting randomly why the hell should a police officer risk his own life to get close enough to wrestle him and cuff him simply because the offender was stupid enough to take enough drugs and lose control whilst being in possesion of a gun. Simply he/she shouldn't, They do risk their lives already everyday they are identified as police so please don't suggest they should risk themselves ever further because of someone elses selfish stupidity.

One more thing most police also have the suspect's welfare in mind when doing things as well it just in their minds it rightfully comes under the protection of others and themsleves on the list of priorities

/and relax. Sorry tough day at work

Well said.

I have absolutely nothing to add (and I tried) but everything I typed up you had already said. Other than that the cops aren't supermen and women. Their trained humans to deal with these situations whether lethal force is called for or a night stick or a verbal warning. They are trained to know and then the media comes in second guessing their job by saying oh poor bad guy. Now if it is a story about corruption or excessive force (which it isn't a car is still a lethal weapon) then I would say blow the lid off the story, maybe.

True Neutral in case anyone was wondering ;) Maybe Neutral Evil, but I don't consider myself Evil lol.

[magerette]

Kendrik, I understand where you're coming from and I agree with many of your points, but this is a very racially polarized case in a sequence of "police vs African Americans" explosions here ( starting with Rodney King and going on and on) and you have to see it in context.

It's a culture clash in my eyes--Sean Bell was living in his culture(and as far as I can tell from a quick read, at the time the police entered the picture wasn't actually carrying a gun, committing a crime or basically any more hopped up than any other guy having a bachelor party at a strip club) and the cops were living in theirs.

There are things wrong with both cultures--mostly in this instance coming down to a bunch of tough-talking machismo on the one hand , and the "be awed by my big gun" stuff on the other in my female opinion--but there's not much doubt to me that this was way over-reacting on the cop end at the time of occurrence, and now it's way over-reacting on the media end, and among the black community, it's a knee-jerk outrage response with police brutality real or perceived being a kind of gunpowdery issue for a lot of deeper problems that stem out of the race conundrum here.

Hope that makes it a little clearer--though of course I should add, that's my personal view only and my facts may need to be corrected by those more up on the story. :)

Edit: Hi, skavenhorde--posted on top of you. Excuse my chaotic good interjection;)

[woges]

Five of the seven officers investigating the club were involved in the shooting. Detective Paul Headley fired one round, Officer Michael Carey fired three, Officer Marc Cooper fired four, Officer Gescard Isnora fired eleven, and veteran officer Michael Oliver emptied two full magazines, firing 31 shots from a 9mm handgun and pausing to reload at least once.[13]Officer Michael Oliver fired thirty one times. [23][24][25]

An autopsy showed Bell was struck four times in the neck and torso.[26] Guzman, 31, was shot 19 times[27] and Benefield, 23, who was in the back seat, was hit three times. Both men were taken to Mary Immaculate Hospital; at the time of admission Guzman was listed in critical condition and Benefield was in stable condition. Guzman and Benefield would ultimately survive the shooting.[13] Benefield was released from the hospital on 5 December 2006,[28] while Guzman was released on 25 January 2007.[29] Surveillance cameras at the Port Authority's Jamaica AirTrain station a half block away from the shooting site recorded one of the bullets fired by the officers shattering through the station's glass window and narrowly missing a civilian and two Port Authority patrolmen who were standing on the station's elevated platform.

Obviously some officers are more professional than others. I'll be bailing out on this note because I'm not deluded enough to believe anyone will change their opinion on this. To each their own.

[dteowner]

@magerette- kinda hard to play the race card when 2 of the 3 defendants (cops) were also black.

[magerette]

Not really. Everyone else seems to be doing it without any problems. ;)

EDIT: Oops-forgot I needed to suck up to you and get you to go out next week and pretend you're a Democrat(I know--it's degrading...) and vote for Obama (or Hopey, as the Wonkettes call him)--he needs your Hoosierness badly and you know the chance to vote 'gainst Ms Inevitable might never otherwise come your way.

[Kendrik]

Kendrik, I understand where you're coming from and I agree with many of your points, but this is a very racially polarized case in a sequence of "police vs African Americans" explosions here ( starting with Rodney King and going on and on) and you have to see it in context.

It's a culture clash in my eyes--Sean Bell was living in his culture(and as far as I can tell from a quick read, at the time the police entered the picture wasn't actually carrying a gun, committing a crime or basically any more hopped up than any other guy having a bachelor party at a strip club) and the cops were living in theirs.

There are things wrong with both cultures--mostly in this instance coming down to a bunch of tough-talking machismo on the one hand , and the "be awed by my big gun" stuff on the other in my female opinion--but there's not much doubt to me that this was way over-reacting on the cop end at the time of occurrence, and now it's way over-reacting on the media end, and among the black community, it's a knee-jerk outrage response with police brutality real or perceived being a kind of gunpowdery issue for a lot of deeper problems that stem out of the race conundrum here.

Hope that makes it a little clearer--though of course I should add, that's my personal view only and my facts may need to be corrected by those more up on the story. :)

Edit: Hi, skavenhorde--posted on top of you. Excuse my chaotic good interjection;)

And I will not try to defend any police officer (or person) who is racist. I am not niave enough to know that Racism isn't still alive and well in all sectors of the community (police included) and if there is any racial motivation in a police officers actions then they should by thrown from the force without a pension. However there are certain members of various ethnic communities who claim any police action against black people (for example) is racist. We must remember that just as there are racist police officers there are also black criminals. (again just using black as an example). Again the media are quick to highlight possible racially motivated police action but very slow to point out measure taken to build trust in ethnic communities.

I do thinkthe police have a lot of bidges to build in terms of gaining trust in these communities and hopefully racist elements in the police are being hounded out.

Another poster mentioned "unarmed men" - do not make the mistake that just because a person doesn't have a gun or knife they are unarmed. A car is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands and can kill youas surely as a gun. I didn't really want to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of that particular case (then why did you post I hear you all cry) but more wanted to comment on the general perceptions of the police and how easy it is to make comment whilst sitting on the outside looking in.

One extreme example of this is when police officers are trained in self defence they are taught to shout "Stay Back" and never "Back Off" .... the reason..... "Back Off" sounds too much like "F**k off" and if a police officer was heard shouting that it would be all over the press in minutes (at least in the UK).

[dteowner]

EDIT: Oops-forgot I needed to suck up to you and get you to go out next week and pretend you're a Democrat(I know--it's degrading...) and vote for Obama (or Hopey, as the Wonkettes call him)--he needs your Hoosierness badly and you know the chance to vote 'gainst Ms Inevitable might never otherwise come your way.Sorry, can't help you out. Us heartless rightwingers in Indiana aren't allowed to participate in the Democratic primary. With all the campaign bloodletting we've discussed elsewhere, I'm starting to think the Republicans might actually have a chance to win. If that's really the case, I'd rather face the Ice Queen, to be honest.

[magerette]

Sorry, can't help you out. Us heartless rightwingers in Indiana aren't allowed to participate in the Democratic primary. With all the campaign bloodletting we've discussed elsewhere, I'm starting to think the Republicans might actually have a chance to win. If that's really the case, I'd rather face the Ice Queen, to be honest.

So I suppose dressing up the dog is out of the question?

I don't know--I think she's morphing into a Republican personally--(though it's hard to see the tentacles under the flowing pantsuit jacket.) And if the Rev Wright keeps on hallelujahing along at the current rate, you/we probably will be facing her either in regal first place or as part of some nightmare ticket...well, my nightmare, anyway.

@Kendrik--again, I'm in agreement with you. Just wanted to try to point out a little context about why its hard for a lot of people to view the case objectively here.

[dteowner]

Well, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's new photo ID requirement today, so Pisspot might need a good shave (and more than a few pounds) to attempt it. And, of course, there's the whole "wake up" thing....

[magerette]

Yes, he's far from looking like the political activist type--or even the alive type. I'll just have to hope that all the Democrats in Indiana share your basic values under the surface. (If there are any--I read somewhere that the last Dem president that carried Indiana was FDR in 1936...)

Corwin I know I'm driving you crazy with the off topic, so I'll quit before you have to split off a thread about dogs impersonating voters. ;)

[dteowner]

Well, to kind of bring this back around so we don't get in trouble, Andy's really the ideal American voter and media "receiver". He's practically blind, nearly deaf, habitually lazy, averse to any sort of thinking, and willfully ignorant of the world beyond his various beds. Even though he's approaching 16 years old, he'll still demand handouts from the establishment, and if a cop ordered him to do anything except sleep, he'd probably end up full of bullets, too. Yep, Andy'd vote Democrat for you. ;)

[JDR13]

@magerette- kinda hard to play the race card when 2 of the 3 defendants (cops) were also black.



Not really. Everyone else seems to be doing it without any problems.


I gotta go with dteowner on this one. Of course whenever Al Sharpton is involved he'll do anything in his power to shift the focus on race.

[JDR13]

However there are certain members of various ethnic communities who claim any police action against black people (for example) is racist.

See above post.



Another poster mentioned "unarmed men" - do not make the mistake that just because a person doesn't have a gun or knife they are unarmed. A car is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands and can kill youas surely as a gun. I didn't really want to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of that particular case (then why did you post I hear you all cry) but more wanted to comment on the general perceptions of the police and how easy it is to make comment whilst sitting on the outside looking in.


Exactly! It is indeed too easy to form an opinion when certain actions are being highlighted while others are hardly being talked about. So much focus was being directed by the media on the amount of shots that were fired, while the fact that the officer's lives were in danger almost seemed to be ignored.

Now I'm not going to pretend that I know for a fact that the officers were being 100% honest in their allegation that the men in the car were attempting to run them down. I do know this however, I'm going to take their word before the word of 2 intoxicated men who had been partying all night at a seedy stripclub that was already under investigation for "complaints of guns, drugs and prostitution".

[Squeek]

I do know this however, I'm going to take their word before the word of 2 intoxicated men who had been partying all night at a seedy stripclub that was already under investigation for "complaints of guns, drugs and prostitution".In fairness to the intoxicated black strip club patrons who were shot -- one of whom was killed on his wedding day -- I'd like to suggest that that may have also occurred to the police officers who fired the fifty shots.

[JDR13]

In fairness to the intoxicated black strip club patrons who were shot -- one of whom was killed on his wedding day -- I'd like to suggest that that may have also occurred to the police officers who fired the fifty shots.


I understand what you're trying to say Squeek, although I'm not sure if I agree with it. What I don't understand is your emphasis on "black strip club patrons", you didn't say "black" police officers despite the fact that 2\3 of them were African American as well.

I also don't see what a wedding day has anything to do with it. I feel bad for the bride and both of their families, but the fact that it was his wedding day was an unfortunate coincidence that had nothing to do with the actions taken by either side.

[blatantninja]

The question of the trial wasn't necessarily if the officers did everything by the book or how it would be done in a perfect scenario. The question was simply were their actions criminal.

[zahratustra]

I do know this however, I'm going to take their word before the word of 2 intoxicated men who had been partying all night at a seedy stripclub that was already under investigation for "complaints of guns, drugs and prostitution".

Than you are better man than me because I am taking their words as excuses of three guys who fucked up bady and are trying to save their hides and their pensions.

[JDR13]

Than you are better man than me because I am taking their words as excuses of three guys who fucked up bady and are trying to save their hides and their pensions.


That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is the crap-load of money those other 2 guys are trying to land in the lawsuit which they immediately filed.

[zahratustra]

I don't blame cops for that. They tried hard to kill the other 2 as well. Maybe they simply run out of bullets?

[Kendrik]

I don't blame cops for that. They tried hard to kill the other 2 as well. Maybe they simply run out of bullets?

Yeah that'll be it. Probably on the take too. Probably a Mob hit (and the police were on the pay roll) .... oh yeah and high .... and er.... probably in a stolen car and drunk.

Sarcasm begats sarcasm.

I still maintain the primary motivation in this case was one of protection of themselves and why shouldn't they be able to protect themselves? They did what was needed to stop these dangerous people. I wonder if we would be having this debate if the suspect had actually killed one of the cops by driving over them. I'll tell you what the headline would read - "Cops stand by as one of their own is killed". Of course that assumes that a cop dying would be important enough to make the news.

[zahratustra]

That's a nice straw man you build there Kendrick. Should I start wondering what debate we would have if the occupant of the car in question was a little girl dressed in red and carrying a basket of food for her ill grandmother?

Fifty shots. That's five and zero. I am still waiting for a plausible explanation for that.

[blatantninja]

It's pretty simple. Police are taught that when they are in mortal danger, as they claim to believe they were, you aim to kill and you don't stop until you've eliminated the danger.

31 shots were from ONE guy. It's obvious he didn't follow his training.

[vanedor]

While I basically agree with Kendrik and Dte, what about the person who is not quite in their 'right mind' through drugs or alcohol? Yes, I know they can kill a cop just as easily as anyone else, but they are. at least temporarily, unable to respond rationally to a police directive. Is that reason to kill them? Don't we need a way to incapacitate them as our first priority? Your professional thoughts Kendrik!!

That's why they invented tools such as the Taser to deal with this kind of situation. Unfortunately, it's getting really controversial because it did kill a few people(like that east-european guy in Vancouver last week) in situation where its use was totally unecessary, but for this I blame more the training than the tool itself. Hopefully, they won't impose a ban on its use. I believe the Taser has a great potential for saving lives. They count how many time they use it and how many time someone die after its use... but do they ever count how many times they use it in situation where they would have used a gun instead and shot down the person? That's something I would be curious to hear.

[Squeek]

Tasers come with their own issues and problems. In a sense, tasers have the potential to be even worse then regular guns. Misused, tasers are like instruments of torture instead of death.

Those who claim it's easy to understand how the police officers involved aren't to blame are forgetting that they were forced to stand trial. Obviously, someone felt a reasonable case could be made against them.

All we can do is try to imagine what must have happened, and I'm finding fifty shots hard to imagine.

[dteowner]

@Squeek- all that proves is that it was politically and legally expedient for the authorities to push it thru the courts. The courts are full of frivolous cases, so the fact that there was one really says next to nothing.

@zahratustra- you've already clearly stated your intention to assume that the police are guilty, so why don't we stuff the logical fallacy crap? Wrapping your argument in debate terminology doesn't prove anything if your foundation is garbage. You never did answer my question several posts back, which is rather pivotal to the discussion.

edit- here, I'll save you having to page back:
"Did those guys comply with the police directives, zahratsustra? According to the story, they did not."

[blatantninja]

The most influential reason that this was taken to trial was that independent of whether or not the case was winnable, if they had not, there would have been violent riots.

[Squeek]

@Squeek- all that proves is that it was politically and legally expedient for the authorities to push it thru the courts. The courts are full of frivolous cases, so the fact that there was one really says next to nothing.The frivolous cases jamming up courts are civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. That doesn't speak highly of your opinion of our criminal justice system, dte (and I'm surprised). I wonder how the prosecuters who were involved, not to mention the judge, would feel about your characterization of their work.

If anything, the bar is set too high for criminal prosecution. Look at the track records. Prosecutors tend to win a little too often, if you ask me.

[dteowner]

As our imbedded reporter BN affirms, political expediency, folks. ;)

It also will help the city defend against the pending lawsuit.

You know, we need a good whitey riot. I'm getting tired of the nation running scared because a certain community has a history of destroying things if they don't like the way something turns out. Anyone know something I can riot over? Preferably some deeply thoughtful cause near a Best Buy, cuz I'd like a hi-def widesreen.

[blatantninja]

I threatened to turn over a car for something a few months back, but I can't remember what it was and I doubt to many whitey's were going to join me!

And I for one am glad they did the show trial in this case. I live in Queens!

[dteowner]

The frivolous cases jamming up courts are civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. That doesn't speak highly of your opinion of our criminal justice system, dte (and I'm surprised). I wonder how the prosecuters who were involved, not to mention the judge, would feel about your characterization of their work.

If anything, the bar is set too high for criminal prosecution. Look at the track records. Prosecutors tend to win a little too often, if you ask me.I think you messed up your wording at the end, but I understand your point. You're right about the civil/criminal point. Actually, my poor opinion of the justice system stems from an overly generous treatment of criminals (as I think you expected), so it's not really applicable to this issue. Perhaps "full" was a bit of hyperbole, but I feel pretty safe in saying this isn't the only example of criminal charges being pursued simply for political expediency. I would expect the folks that worked this case weren't overly happy about it and might even agree with my complaint. That really doesn't question their professionalism--they're doing their job and presumably doing it well.

[Squeek]

I think you messed up your wording at the end, but I understand your point.The bar may be set too high, meaning prosecutors may only be prosecuting cases they know they have a good chance of winning. That's why their track records are so very good.

That's the opposite of the view that people get prosecuted all the time, just for political reasons, with no hope of ever being convicted. That's easy to imagine, but the numbers say otherwise.

[blatantninja]

That's part of the reason our system is flawed. Prosecutors are judged (job wise) on winning percentage, not on whether or not justice was served.

[dteowner]

I guess I didn't understand your point after all.

I've got no first-hand knowledge to dispute that thought, but perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the idea if we clarified it to "highly publicized cases"?

[Squeek]

The whole point of a trial is to get to the truth. Prosecuting someone you didn't think was guilty would be unethical. It would be a basis for disbarment, wouldn't it?

Can I imagine someone doing something unethical? Sure. But I think it's more than a little cynical to suggest that must be what happened here.

[zahratustra]

@zahratustra- you've already clearly stated your intention to assume that the police are guilty, so why don't we stuff the logical fallacy crap?
Because I haven't stated any such intention. I simply haven't assumed that those policemen are innocent. And sentences like "I do know this however, I'm going to take their word before the word of 2 intoxicated men" and "the cops aren't supermen and women" don't cut any ice with me. Not when the outcome is one dead, two severly injured and 50 bullets fired. If you still don't see that there is something seriously wrong with this picture than you never will.

And (BTW) Kendrick started building his stawmen back in post no.27: "Consider if you will a drug crazed gunman shooting random shots".... why would I want to consider such a scenario in this context?

You never did answer my question several posts back, which is rather pivotal to the discussion.

edit- here, I'll save you having to page back:
"Did those guys comply with the police directives, zahratsustra? According to the story, they did not."

They very well might have not but how many non-compliances result in one sided shooting spree?

[dteowner]

So your answer is to willfully assume that the reported story is false and that the officers were in no danger?

And since you brought in the racial hypothetical, I'll throw one out there as well. Would you still be so indignant if a single, lethal bullet had been fired? So that we get all 3 guys injured, let's say a grand total of 3 bullets were fired. 2 guys wounded, 1 guy dead. Are you still hopping mad?

I'm not being accusatory here. I'm trying to figure out if your heartburn is what happened or the bullet count.

[dteowner]

Errrr.... we have no way of knowing what those officers were facing and thinking at the time only what they said SAID they were facing and thinking while trying to explain away why they fired 50 shots at 3 unarmed men.Just so there's no question of your comment, since you seem to be distancing yourself from it.

[dteowner]

Than you are better man than me because I am taking their words as excuses of three guys who fucked up bady and are trying to save their hides and their pensions.Even better. Not much wiggle room in that statement.

[zahratustra]

So your answer is to willfully assume that the reported story is false and that the officers were in no danger?

And since you brought in the racial hypothetical, I'll throw one out there as well. Would you still be so indignant if a single, lethal bullet had been fired? So that we get all 3 guys injured, let's say a grand total of 3 bullets were fired. 2 guys wounded, 1 guy dead. Are you still hopping mad?

I'm not being accusatory here. I'm trying to figure out if your heartburn is what happened or the bullet count.

I can't say if those officers were or weren't in danger. What I insist on is that there was a gross overreaction. And, IMO, bulet count is inextricably tied to what has happened! So NO, if 3, 5, 10 or even 15 bullets were fired (even with the same outcome) I wouldn't be hopping mad and would be much more willing to believe policemen's story.

And there is no racial hypothetical in my posts at all! I would be as mad if passengers of the car were white, brown or yellow. You see ghosts where there are none....

[Corwin]

I think for most of us, the sticking point is the 50. Reasonable force is fine, but is 50 reasonable? I guess many of us think not!!

[dteowner]

So the end result is effectively immaterial, the circumstances leading to the incident are effectively immaterial, and the reality of the cops' intentions (genuine or not) is surprisingly secondary. It would seem to me that the bullet count would be the least important factor.

[Squeek]

It's the point, dte. The obvious one everyone sees (including you -- check your first post). It's hard to imagine how 50 shots could be necessary -- fifty gunshots.

[Corwin]

I'm not saying all those other issues aren't important Dte, they are. However, such incidents are fairly commonplace; we see them regularly on the news. What makes this incident standout from the norm IS the bullet count!!

[JDR13]

That's a nice straw man you build there Kendrick. Should I start wondering what debate we would have if the occupant of the car in question was a little girl dressed in red and carrying a basket of food for her ill grandmother?



Somehow I doubt that a little girl dressed in red and carrying a basket of food for her ill grandmother would have been drunk and attempting to run over 3 cops with her car.

[V7]

Somehow I doubt that a little girl dressed in red and carrying a basket of food for her ill grandmother would have been drunk and attempting to run over 3 cops with her car.

These kids today ;)

[Squeek]

"Shoot her one more time again, baby!" -- [Hey Joe by Jimi Hendrix]

[Kendrik]

And (BTW) Kendrick started building his stawmen back in post no.27: "Consider if you will a drug crazed gunman shooting random shots".... why would I want to consider such a scenario in this context?


Not really building a Strawman (I haven't heard that phrase in ages) but commenting on the wider use of police defense tactics rather than focusing on just this case. The reason for this is the criticism of the police was coming in more general terms rather than specifically about this case. The point I was making was that people would be still be complaining if it had been a drug crazed madman because the police "over-reacted" and I think you'll find I was responding to somebodies point about people who were high/drunk.

I have made my feelings clear on this matter and don't intend to repeat myself but your point about the little girl is somewhat moot as JDR13 stated it is unlikely that she would have been intentionally trying to run the police officers over.

At the end of the day the police officers have answered in a court of law and have been acquitted for there actions. A court that would have had a lot more information that we are working with hear. If you disagree with the courts findings then that is a separate issue to did the police do wrong? Do you thing the police officers should still be punished despite the court findings? If so what's the point of the trial? Or should we just have trial by media so we can ignore the evidence and just go with the current thinking of the day?

I wasn't their and I'm assuming none of us were. The idea that the police officer set out to either a)kill these men intentionally from the start or b) became gun crazes loons themselves just doesn't sit right with me. They were protecting themselves and others from harm and they did what was required in order to assure that this protection was effective.

[woges]

Ok, I'll bite one last time.

To my thinking even if the defendant wasn't spooked by out of uniform officers pointing gun/s at him and he was trying to injure said police officers what gives the police the right to fire wildly at a vehicle with passengers anyway? What's more, calling a car a lethal weapon really doesn't cut it as that would give the police the right to shoot, pretty much, anyone they wished (as a lot of people own cars in America I believe). Also, being drunk I hardly find a reasonable excuse for shooting someone (or on drugs for that matter). I suppose police officers never partake a sample of alcohol (or drugs for that matter)? As for the racial aspect, you think black people can't be racist or prejudice?

With such a large differential in number of shots fired by the officers something is certainly suspect to me. How many times do you need to shoot somebody in the neck to stop them from driving anyway? As for the courts well OJ Simpson springs to mind. If you have money and the know-how the courts will treat you differently they are far from perfect. I have no problem with anyone, be it police or otherwise, using force to protect themselves as long as the proportion of said force is the minimum required and that is certainly what I expect from the police. The fact that they even made up a 4th man that 'may' have fired a shot and 'got away' is rather suspect as well.

I really don't like guns, personally I'll keep them in my games thanks.

[JDR13]

To my thinking even if the defendant wasn't spooked by out of uniform officers pointing gun/s at him and he was trying to injure said police officers what gives the police the right to fire wildly at a vehicle with passengers anyway? What's more, calling a car a lethal weapon really doesn't cut it as that would give the police the right to shoot, pretty much, anyone they wished (as a lot of people own cars in America I believe).

Nonsense, saying that would give police the right for them to shoot anyone just because they own a car is ludicrous, they shot that particular man because he was trying to run them down.


Also, being drunk I hardly find a reasonable excuse for shooting someone (or on drugs for that matter).

No, but someone trying to run you over would be plenty excuse in my book.



As for the courts well OJ Simpson springs to mind. If you have money and the know-how the courts will treat you differently they are far from perfect.

Those cops only make about 40K a year. I highly doubt they could afford the best lawyers that money could buy, certainly not comparable with OJ Simpson.

[woges]

"Nonsense, saying that would give police the right for them to shoot anyone just because they own a car is ludicrous, they shot that particular man because he was trying to run them down."

They shot 3 men.

"Those cops only make about 40K a year. I highly doubt they could afford the best lawyers that money could buy, certainly not comparable with OJ Simpson."

Well I wonder what the defendants had in comparison? Certainly not as educated in the ways of the courts as the police.

"No, but someone trying to run you over would be plenty excuse in my book."

Yeah sure for the driver but they shot 3 men.

[dteowner]

The police were the defendants in those procedings, woges. The people that instigated the event were not on trial. That kinda puts a hole in your "impoverished victims" song.

As for 3 people getting shot, where were the police aiming? The guy in the back seat got hit 3 times. Doesn't sound much like a target to me. The guy in the passenger seat actually took the most damage, but where were the shots coming from? If the shooter was standing at the passenger window, it would be pretty tough to do a Matrix-esque bend on the bullet paths. Obviously, I don't know the directions of fire in this instance, but you're making a big, and possibly erroneous, assumption that the police were targetting all 3 people.

[woges]

The police were the defendants in those procedings, woges. The people that instigated the event were not on trial. That kinda puts a hole in your "impoverished victims" song.

As for 3 people getting shot, where were the police aiming? The guy in the back seat got hit 3 times. Doesn't sound much like a target to me. The guy in the passenger seat actually took the most damage, but where were the shots coming from? If the shooter was standing at the passenger window, it would be pretty tough to do a Matrix-esque bend on the bullet paths. Obviously, I don't know the directions of fire in this instance, but you're making a big, and possibly erroneous, assumption that the police were targetting all 3 people.

Well, that's just fine then. I'm sure I'd have gladly sat there and taken those bullets so you could have justly shot that other guy.

[Kendrik]

Well, that's just fine then. I'm sure I'd have gladly sat there and taken those bullets so you could have justly shot that other guy.

I don't think dte would be in a car with someone trying to run down a police officer.

[woges]

I don't think dte would be in a car with someone trying to run down a police officer.

That isn't the point and you know it.

[zahratustra]

Obviously, I don't know the directions of fire in this instance, but you're making a big, and possibly erroneous, assumption that the police were targetting all 3 people.
With 50 bulleys you don't have to be targetted. The only suprise it that two other car passengers survived.

"...Surveillance cameras at the Port Authority's Jamaica AirTrain station a half block away from the shooting site recorded one of the bullets fired by the officers shattering through the station's glass window and narrowly missing a civilian and two Port Authority patrolmen who were standing on the station's elevated platform..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell

So one more:
1- was it a driver of the car or all 3 occupants that policemen felt threatened by?
3- the question of the mystical "4th man" who was supposed to fire from the car and than vanish?
4- 50 bullets.

[Squeek]

Aren't police officers supposed to be carefully selected and trained before they're issued guns? Is it too much to expect them to exercise good judgment? Is it wrong to want them to be responsible?

Put away the microscopes, because there's no need to examine this closely. The authorities deserve our support but not to the point of ignoring something outrageous.

[dteowner]

I echo BN's comment from a few pages back that the 31-shot-officer should drive a desk for the rest of his career. There's clearly some judgement issues there.

BUT.....

In our rush to create a martyr or two and demonize the authorities while we're having so much fun, let us never lose sight of the cold hard fact that this incident never would have happened without the horrendous error in judgement of trying to drive over top of somebody with a gun, particularly a police officer that has undoubtedly told you to freeze (or some such). Now, the passengers in the car could claim innocence since they didn't directly attack the police, but their complaint should be with the driver that put them in danger. Root cause, folks, root cause.

[Kendrik]

Aren't police officers supposed to be carefully selected and trained before they're issued guns? Is it too much to expect them to exercise good judgment? Is it wrong to want them to be responsible?

Put away the microscopes, because there's no need to examine this closely. The authorities deserve our support but not to the point of ignoring something outrageous.

Exactly my point. Who decides if they did something wrong... how about a court? Oh yeah they did go to court and were acquitted if we start seconded guessing court decisions with only the media presented evidence then that way chaos lays.

That isn't the point and you know it.

... it is kinda the point - if you live a criminal lifestyle and hang around with criminals then don't complain when you are dragged into the consequences of their actions

[woges]

"... it is kinda the point - if you live a criminal lifestyle and hang around with criminals then don't complain when you are dragged into the consequences of their actions"

No I don't agree because that sets a precedent that it becomes acceptable to do that to anyone. Which it clearly is not.

[Kendrik]

"... it is kinda the point - if you live a criminal lifestyle and hang around with criminals then don't complain when you are dragged into the consequences of their actions"

No I don't agree because that sets a precedent that it becomes acceptable to do that to anyone. Which it clearly is not.

I don't think it does set that precedent. I agree that it's not OK to do that to anyone but in this case and similar cases where the cops life is in danger then they have a right to protect themselves.

[woges]

I don't think it does set that precedent. I agree that it's not OK to do that to anyone but in this case and similar cases where the cops life is in danger then they have a right to protect themselves.

I'm not even sure I believe that they were, however, 31 shots is not reasonable force. If you can stand there and reload and keep firing you're not in danger that's the kind of behaviour I expect from mobsters not the police.

[Squeek]

You do know there are two sides to this story, don't you, Kendrik? You know, the ones that were argued in court? And you're familiar with judicial review, aren't you? Maybe you've heard of rulings that were overturned?

Are you married, Kendrik? Did your friends throw you a bachelor party? Did that make you all a bunch of criminals?

[dteowner]

As Kendrik emphasized long ago, the officers were cleared of wrongdoing. Two sides of the story heard, judgement made. We're talking about it because certain folks weren't happy with said judgement.

And once again, we're glossing over root cause here. Bachelor party? Nope, irrelevant. Gangsta lifestyle? Nope. Racial tension? Keep trying. Drunk as a skunk? Not quite there yet. Trying to run over a cop? We have a winner.

Sympathy is all fine and dandy, but there's just no getting around the root cause, folks.

[Squeek]

The officers were acquitted of the crimes charged against them. That's all. And don't you mean there's no getting around your insistence of root cause? Because the other side claimed it never happened.

You're right that that depiction of the facts was accepted as the truth. It smells fishy to me.

[zahratustra]

Now, the passengers in the car could claim innocence since they didn't directly attack the police, but their complaint should be with the driver that put them in danger. Root cause, folks, root cause.
Now you are just being silly dte! If the stray policeman's bullet DID hit one of those people at Port Authority who should they blame? As for the root causes? In the case of survivors, the root causes were 19 gunshot wounds in one case and 3 in the other.

... it is kinda the point - if you live a criminal lifestyle and hang around with criminals then don't complain when you are dragged into the consequences of their actions
Ahhh yes Kendrick just keeps piling fallacy upon fallacy: and now for your delectation ladies and gentlemen a textbook example of "guilt by association". The fallacy especially sweet since none of car passengers were convicted criminals.

[dteowner]

I haven't used "delectation" in my life, but I can still identify using fancy words to gold plate bullshit.

By the way, since we're talking about the incident, wounds are not a cause. Wounds are an effect. If you can roll out "delectation", I think you should be able to keep that straight. Let's try a little problem solving technique, shall we? Yeah, I can be haughty, too. ;) This is called "5Y" for short, or, more appropriately, "Five Why's". While not as widely used in debate class, we make extensive use of it in the real world to solve real problems. The theory is that you can find root cause of any problem by digging thru causals 5 or less levels deep. Let's play!
Problem: 2 guys got shot
Why? The police shot the car they were in
Why? The police felt endangered.
Why? They were nearly run down by the car.
Why? The driver of said car didn't want to comply with police orders
Why? The driver chose not to.

You'll notice there's no mention of the officers after the 2nd "why". There's a reason for that--they're not part of the root cause.

Class dismissed.

[woges]

"Both Bloomberg and Kelly have also noted that the shooting was possibly in violation of department guidelines prohibiting shooting at a moving vehicle, even if the vehicle is being used as a weapon"

Class dismissed?

[zahratustra]

Smore and Mirrors dte. Smoke and Mirrors. And I am not playing until you answer question from my previous post : "If the stray policeman's bullet DID hit one of those people at Port Authority who should they blame?"

[JDR13]

I'm not even sure I believe that they were, however, 31 shots is not reasonable force. If you can stand there and reload and keep firing you're not in danger that's the kind of behaviour I expect from mobsters not the police.

You don't have a clue what kind of danger they were in because you weren't there.

Nuff said..

[zahratustra]

Neither have you since you weren't there either.

[JDR13]

Smore and Mirrors dte. Smoke and Mirrors. And I am not playing until you answer question from my previous post : "If the stray policeman's bullet DID hit one of those people at Port Authority who should they blame?"

I'll answer it for him because it's an easy question.

If the people in the car had complied with those officers in the first place instead of aiming their car at them... then no shots would have been fired to begin with.

[JDR13]

Neither have you since you weren't there either.

Maybe you're finally getting the point.

None of us were there, so why does everyone insist on speculations and accusations?

[dteowner]

@woges- We're going to declare the NYC mayor and an ex-governor experts on police procedures? Even if we do, note the word "possibly"--that's political hedging at its best.

@zahratustra- Barring gross negligence (as in- closing your eyes, spinning around, and pulling the trigger), any injuries stemming from the incident should be blamed on the cause of the incident, which would be the driver. No incident, no injuries.

@JDR- yep, you guessed it.

[Kendrik]

Ahhh yes Kendrick just keeps piling fallacy upon fallacy: and now for your delectation ladies and gentlemen a textbook example of "guilt by association". The fallacy especially sweet since none of car passengers were convicted criminals.

This "fallacy" is something none of us know enough about. There is more to living a criminal lifestyle than having convictions. Do we know what the men in the car were saying to the driver? Were they pleading with him to stop? Were they egging him on? I don't know and you don't know and more importantly the police officers didn't know and to be honest were probably more concerned with saving their own lives (shock horror how dare they) and the lives of others. However we do know that the detectives thought that at least one of the other men had a gun (or that there was a gun in the car


Smore and Mirrors dte. Smoke and Mirrors. And I am not playing until you answer question from my previous post : "If the stray policeman's bullet DID hit one of those people at Port Authority who should they blame?"

That would have been a tragic accident. And lets get one thing straight this was a tragic event as a person lost his life but how would any of us act if our lives were in danger? The concept of blame is an interesting one is it the person who fired the shot or the person who forced him to that is at fault?

[Squeek]

Class dismissed.That reminds me of another lesson:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5188/classle2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[dteowner]

Tell me no bullcrap, and I won't have to see perpetrators turned into victims, and then I can stop reminding you monkeys of reality over and over.

That the lesson you mean? :)

[Squeek]

By perpetrators, I assume you mean the three guys who were charged with crimes. That would be the three cops who stood trial for manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment, wouldn't it? Were any charges filed against anyone else?

This doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, does it?

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. The good guys deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I'm usually willing to give it to them. Not this time, I'm afraid. At the very least these three should be drummed out of the police department. This whole episode is a disgrace.

[JDR13]

By perpetrators, I assume you mean the three guys who were charged with crimes. That would be the three cops who stood trial for manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment, wouldn't it? Were any charges filed against anyone else?


Yes those three, the same three who stood trial and were found innocent by a jury of their peers.

[woges]

Tell me no bullcrap, and I won't have to see perpetrators turned into victims, and then I can stop reminding you monkeys of reality over and over.

That the lesson you mean? :)

Don't call people monkeys on the forums please - monkey.

[zahratustra]

Yes those three, the same three who stood trial and were found innocent by a jury of their peers.
You don't check your sources much are you JDR13? 3 policemen opted for Judicial Ruling. So no jury of their peers....

[dteowner]

Jeezuz, woges, if the tone of my post isn't painfully obvious, I don't know what to tell you. Feel free to dismount from the high horse and join the rest of us on Terra Firma.

To return to the discussion...

Well Squeek, unless you're now claiming that the police are victims, your twist doesn't hold water. We seem to be in a rush to declare people victims for making poor decisions, so I guess I'll let you declare the officers in question "victims" if you simply must. I didn't realize we were on the same side all along. ;)

@zahratustra- well, technically, the officers are representatives of the justice system which would make the bench review (done by representatives of the justice system) a peer review. I'm not certain that "jury" specifically excludes a panel of one, so JDR might actually be technically correct, if poorly worded. JDR got sloppy, but picking at peripheral somantics is often a sign of conceding the main point. I graciously accept your surrender. ;)

[Squeek]

Yes those three, the same three who stood trial and were found innocent by a jury of their peers.They were acquitted of the crimes charged against them. That's not the same thing as a pronouncement of innocence. They simply weren't convicted.

There were two very different sides to this story, but one thing both agreed on was that there were fifty shots fired. Defend and explain it all you want, but that fact will always be a source of shame for that police department and the city of New York.

[Kendrik]

Well this debate has been fun (in that kinda getting a bit too personal with many of the comments way). I guess as Squeek said we'll have to agree to disagree on the points. Some of us believe the police had a reason to act the way they did others don't but I think one important thing is to remember no matter the reasons or the blame someone has lost a life and therefore there is a family out there who has lost a son/brother/husband/father and that is always a tragedy and I hope you all agree with me when I say I wish them all the best and hope they get through this difficult time.

[JDR13]

They were acquitted of the crimes charged against them. That's not the same thing as a pronouncement of innocence. They simply weren't convicted..

But it's even further from a pronouncement of guilt, which is exactly what people like you have been trying to lay upon them,


There were two very different sides to this story, but one thing both agreed on was that there were fifty shots fired. Defend and explain it all you want, but that fact will always be a source of shame for that police department and the city of New York.

Really? I wasn't aware that you lived in New York, or knew exactly how everyone there feels about it.

[Squeek]

But it's even further from a pronouncement of guilt, which is exactly what people like you have been trying to lay upon them... Really? I wasn't aware that you lived in New York, or knew exactly how everyone there feels about it.I'll go ahead and accept that as the final comment on those points, JDR13.