NYPD cops badly beaten by suspects during arrest

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
What the hell are "housing cops"?

They are New York City Police officers assigned to cover housing projects. They are similar to Transit Police which mostly work the subway system.

By 'work' you mean patrol. Or occupy inside their housing, like stairwells, lobbys, etc. Thats a little different from the "public" transit cops, imo.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

So if you were cop, you would just shoot everyone that gave you a startle?

Startle? That's what you call beating a police officer? good one
What authority do the police have if they let suspects beat them up with no fear of any reprisal?

Second question:

Why shouldn't the idiot that brings fists to a gunfight be susceptible to Darwin's theory?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: butcherguy

The attack happened as the unidentified housing cops were searching for a robbery suspect who was believed to be hiding in one of the buildings at the Marlboro Houses

What the hell are "housing cops"?

Are they like security wannabes? If so, maybe they were unarmed(?) I guess and got what they deserved then, maybe.

Roundups for questioning by weekend warriors at housing projects because they looked suspicious or whatever…

I'd maybe reprisal that bs, too. Or at least understand their oppressed response. Abuse is probably endemic there like some other 'Fergy' place I heard of.

Apparently housing cops are armed.
forums.officer.com

All kind of cops, lol.

Running up the budget, too…

2008 article

a reply to: butcherguy

Middle of the night in a stairway of a housing project and outnumbered 2 to 1? Public outcry be damned, if things go sideways under those circumstances, there would be shots fired. These cops just weren't careful enough. Stupid really. Could easily have been killed.

a reply to: butcherguy

Are There Defenses to Assault on a Police Officer?
Assault is illegal unless the force is justified. Most jurisdictions have affirmative defenses justifying the use of force. These defenses, however, are generally not available when applied to assaulting a police officer and/or interfering with an arrest. Nonetheless, actions amounting to assault against a police officer may be justified if used in self-defense.

When Is Self-Defense Justified?

Generally, where the arrest is lawful, the person being arrested has no right to resist. If, however, the police officer uses excessive force in the execution of a lawful arrest, then there may be conditions upon which an assault is justified by self-defense.

In most states, in order for self-defense to be available the person being arrested must:

be the one attacked by a police officer,
have reasonable ground to believe, and in good faith does believe, that his life is in danger,
or that s/he will suffer great bodily injury, and must only meet the attack with such reasonable force as necessary to save his own life and protect himself from great bodily injury -

See more at: www.legalmatch.com...

what the men did would be charged as battery/assault & resisting arrest. The penalty for that is not death. The penalty isn't getting shot.

who knows how the attempted arrest was even handled? and would it change the situation if the officers were using excessive force since they were outnumbered?

shoot first, ask questions later. not really the best method of law enforcement in my opinion.

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Sounds like you need to watch the dash cam video of a cop that gets punched out and executed with his own gun. I guess the sentence is death for doing a traffic stop?

originally posted by: [post=19099289]intrptr[/post
By 'work' you mean patrol. Or occupy inside their housing, like stairwells, lobbys, etc. Thats a little different from the "public" transit cops, imo.

They are public police officers. They are not private contractors and take them same training as every other NYPD officer.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

do i know how a taser works? seriously? that's your response...

maybe if they dropped two of them with tasers it would have made the situation easier to handle by disabling and temporarily paralyzing 2 out of the 4 people.

They officers most likely had non-lethal weapons and were still attacked, why would tazing two of them make a difference.

Just shaking my head at some of the comments here. Justifying the beating the suspects gave the cops because they were scared...C'MON that's bull#. How about it's because they are criminals and have no remorse of their actions. I'm glad the cops didn't kill these guys but I would have backed it if they did.

You can't tell me that any legally armed citizen wouldn't shoot if they were in the same boat. If that was me and I was being attacked...yes I would shoot, no I wouldn't shoot for the leg like soooooo many people claim that is possible.

a reply to: butcherguy

Why did they attempt to cuff them all when they were only looking for one suspect? I can see one person resisting, the cops going a bit overboard and the rest jumping in and it quickly getting out of control. Is it excusable? No, but in that scenario I can understand the why.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: butcherguy

Why did they attempt to cuff them all when they were only looking for one suspect? I can see one person resisting, the cops going a bit overboard and the rest jumping in and it quickly getting out of control. Is it excusable? No, but in that scenario I can understand the why.

It would be nice to have actually witnessed the event.
A lot of the time, we hear bits and pieces and important things get missed.
Like in the Tony Robinson shooting. Not once have I heard it mentioned in news reports that the police received two calls before they ever entered the apartment where he was shot.
Those two calls gave the police information that I don't hear in news reports.
-The police knew the name of the suspect and that he had assaulted someone.
-The second caller stated that Tony Robinson was in the specific apartment that the police went to.... and he was strangling someone.
That info is on the police scanner audio that is available online.

originally posted by: butcherguy

Police soon arrested four suspects, who were identified as William Rivera Sr., 46, and his son William Rivera Jr., 26, Noel Gonzalez-Colon, 28, and David Rivera, 44.

What a fine example Mr. Rivera was setting for his son huh?

If you attack a cop, you run the risk of getting shot. If you attack anyone and they have a gun, you run the risk of getting shot. If you don't attack or make any stupid moves that look as if you are going for a weapon, then I can't see them shooting.

The shooting in Madison, if the guy did not attack the cop he most likely would not have been shot. I see people demonstrating there because the cop shot him, what are we teaching our kids nowadays.

Cops should not be afraid of using their guns if attacked.

originally posted by: Bone75
originally posted by: butcherguy

Police soon arrested four suspects, who were identified as William Rivera Sr., 46, and his son William Rivera Jr., 26, Noel Gonzalez-Colon, 28, and David Rivera, 44.

What a fine example Mr. Rivera was setting for his son huh?

Yes, indeed.
And there is a point to see there. We have a generation of thugs raising thugs today, it is not just in the inner cities, but suburbia and in some cases rural areas.
I do have some compassion for the children that are raised to believe that criminal activity is 'ok', but not to the point that I would sacrifice my own or my loved ones safety for them.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Sounds like you need to watch the dash cam video of a cop that gets punched out and executed with his own gun. I guess the sentence is death for doing a traffic stop?

why do i need to watch a video of a cop getting killed with his own gun? so i feel bad for these cops and change my mind to think that they should have shot all 4 people in that apartment? Please.

just because a criminal somewhere kills a cop for doing his job, that doesn't give all police the right to drop to the CRIMINAL'S level and execute 4 people in a public housing complex for resisting arrest and fighting with their hands.

They are police, they are supposed to live and uphold the law and apply a different standard to themselves. The police, not a hit squad. And they are expected to act that way regardless of emotion. To not act on some vengeful impulse and arrest them so they can have a trial by their peers in a court of law. If they really thought that the four suspects were going to murder them ( the officers) in an apartment building hallway or showed some sign that murder was their intention I would feel different, but that wasn't the case. They just wanted to get away.

Also if they were just housing police maybe they don't have much experience with this sort of thing. Just a thought.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

do i know how a taser works? seriously? that's your response...

maybe if they dropped two of them with tasers it would have made the situation easier to handle by disabling and temporarily paralyzing 2 out of the 4 people.

They officers most likely had non-lethal weapons and were still attacked, why would tazing two of them make a difference.

potentially disabling 50% of your threat? you can't see how that might make a difference or change the tide to make things more manageable?

a reply to: butcherguy

Eh. This is the second time I've edited this. I think I'll just leave it with the fact that our relationship with law enforcement is sad and scary for all parties involved. We need to bring back the faith in both police and the average person. Things like this is only a symptom for the actual issue.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

potentially disabling 50% of your threat? you can't see how that might make a difference or change the tide to make things more manageable?

The suspects in question attacked them without the police even resorting to use of any of their weapons. Why would tazing two of them (and rendering their tasers unable to be applied to the remaining two suspects) compel the others to suddenly be compliant? They were willing to commit violent, felony assault on armed officers, why should we assume that their demeanor would suddenly change for the better?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn't say it would compel anyone to be compliant. I suggested that perhaps it would make the situation more manageable having 2 less people to deal with and thus allow more of a chance to detain to remaining two. So instead of having to fight 4 people into cuffs at once, each officer would only have to contend with one person at a time and then they could deal with suspects that were tasered and incapacitated.

Maybe there's a reason why the two cops didn't open fire in a public housing complex. Perhaps it's not because they didn't get the chance. Maybe it's because they knew better.

Perhaps they actually took into consideration the fact that if even just one of their potential bullets passed through a wall, a floor or a ceiling in the wrong manner then they would have collateral damage on their hands. Is the potential killing of an innocent resident of that apartment complex by accident worth it?

Or does it not matter anymore where cops spray their bullets as long as there is a good enough perceived justification?

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
I didn't say it would compel anyone to be compliant. I suggested that perhaps it would make the situation more manageable having 2 less people to deal with and thus allow more of a chance to detain to remaining two. So instead of having to fight 4 people into cuffs at once, each officer would only have to contend with one person at a time and then they could deal with suspects that were tasered and incapacitated.

Why would they want to engage them in close-quarters, hand to hand combat at that point? Their non-lethal weapons would have been useless after discharge. The suspects are fortunate they were not shot and/or killed.

Perhaps they actually took into consideration the fact that if even just one of their potential bullets passed through a wall, a floor or a ceiling in the wrong manner then they would have collateral damage on their hands. Is the potential killing of an innocent resident of that apartment complex by accident worth it?

Your knowledge of firearms is a bit lacking, the type of ammunition that police officers use is not designed to penetrate hard targets and would have been unlikely to travel through the fireproof masonry walls used in apartment complexes such as in the one they were located.

Didn't the housing police or whatever in NY just kill an unarmed man in a stairwell in one of these buildings?..seems like a preemptive strike(kidding..sort of)
I suspect the cops didn't get a chance to safley draw their weapons..or showed increadable restraint.
They lay the beatings usually so..meh, they walked away from it.