Fifty Shots

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.

dteowner said:

@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?

Click to expand...

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?

dteowner said:

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."

Click to expand...

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

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.

zahratustra said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just so there's no question of your comment, since you seem to be distancing yourself from it.

zahratustra said:

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.

Click to expand...

Even better. Not much wiggle room in that statement.

dteowner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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....

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!!

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.

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.

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!!

zahratustra said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

JDR13 said:

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.

Click to expand...

These kids today

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

zahratustra said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

woges said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

woges said:

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

Click to expand...

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

woges said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

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.

dteowner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

woges said:

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.

Click to expand...

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