It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

N.Y. police kill groom near strip club

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
police officers are all bad people.

I also have heard lot of stories where people plagued and cursed all of them and they just go to hell.




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   


posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

This driver ran over a person ... didn't stop ... hit a police van ... still didn't stop ... backed up and hit the police van again. that's 1 maybe 2 felonies and 2 misdemeanors. I'm guessing he was shot to prevent someone else from being run over as he continued to try to flee the scene. It sounds like this all went down within a few seconds. Even without there being the possibility of weapons in the vehicle they would be justified in shooting a driver who just ran down someone and had 2 more accidents in an attempt to flee the scene of a felony.

It's easy to "Monday morning quarterback" events like this with all the knowledge of who and what was in the vehicle. The police on the scene have no idea if this was an intentional act or just some way drunken driver who doesn't have the sense to STOP once he hits a human being.

I find it annoying that the Yahoo article ends with 2 paragraphs about prior cases of police brutality. Gotta love the media - already drawing people to conclusions that these officers have done something wrong. What do those 2 cases have to do with this current shooting? [Edited by Don W]



“Ran over” are also words of art. One policeman stayed over night due to hypertension - conscience bothering him about killing an unarmed man - and the others were “treated and released” which could mean nothing was medically indicated to be done. It could be a department rule - to prevent later claims of injury - to have every person examined at the time of the occurrence.

Multiple felonies. The charge(s) would be or not be equal to a felony, but the person is not a felon until he is convicted. Of course in this case, it is a typical police reaction to accuse the deceased of as many crimes as possible to get the “shoot first” crowd on their “side” in the argument of excessive force. Like the unarmed man shot 43 times by 4 NYC cops.


I believe there should be a rule that an officer can only discharge his weapon in response to being fired on. This would slow but not stop the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

It should be a felony for a trained policemen to shoot anyone in the back! As in “fleeing” the scene. Unless the person is known to the shooter to be wanted for serious crimes, which is not hit and run. If the cop does not know who he is shooting at, then he should not shoot. That is like Bush43, Texas style, Justice West of the Pecos. We’ve had enough of that stuff for one lifetime.



[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
All i know is that being a UK armed Police Officer i would not and could not shot anyone in the back that is running away...I would have no justification for doing so and if i did would be up in court facing charges myself..



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I worked in the court system 17 years and encountered a fair number of police. I recall one fellow who stopped a drunk driver going the wrong way on a limited access roadway. On patrol alone, he successfully pulled the drunk from the car. In the process, his collar bone was broken and worse, he was bitten on the arm. Collar bones don’t count for much but a human bite can be fatal. His bite took 3 months to heal and was quite painful, he told me. My policeman friend never drew his pistol. I became acquainted with one of the Associate Chiefs who retired after 32 years and said to me he never drew his pistol in anger. He thought he was lucky. I think personality has a lot to do with drawing a pistol.

Policing is perhaps the hardest job we as a society have. We want only the best men and women to be police. Well educated, of high morals and of exemplary conduct. Yet, the job demands they deal with the worst of our society. The discards of society. Homeless. Drug addicted. Prostitutes. Every nefarious type you can imagine. Drug sellers. Pimps. Confidence men. Strong arm robbers. Kidnappers. Murderers. Terrorists. And all the time we want our police to look like us, act like us, and be straight and honest as we think we are. Then, of course, every policeman who takes actions will be subject to second guessing. I hope it is not so bad in the UK as here, but our media - like FOX - raise their Nielsen ratings by showing as much crime on the tube as they can get. The more violent the better. As a society, I'd give us a grade of F-.

I accept that every policeman or woman has a right to go home to his or her family after each shift. Every act of a cop must be judged in that light.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
None of us were there so we must use what the media reports to make a decision on what you think happened. Using the media as a source of info isn't perfect so let's go over what has been reported.

Fact: An undercover operation was underway at a location that is known for illegal activites and is one violation away from being shut down.

My opinion: Not a great place to have a bachelor party

Fact: The groom (Bell) was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. One of his friends made a reference to a gun.

Opinion: Alcohol makes people act without reason and if you are from the NYC area telling someone you are going to get a gun isn't anything new. If I was an undercover cop that overheard this I would be very cautious and have my weapon ready.

Fact: An undercover officer was hit by the car driven by Bell then Bell hit an undercover vehicle.

Opinion: Either Bell was drunk and/or looking to hit this guy and make an example out of him since he may have said something to make to anger them outside the club.

Fact: At some point, Bell backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time.

Opinion: Bell already hit an undercover cop and an undercover vehicle, he now backs up onto the sidewalk with a chance to hit someone else, he hits a building gate then drives forward striking the undercover vehicle a second time. Imagine what this would look like, a drunk reckless person smashing into everything in his way. If you were one of the undercover cops who just saw your coworker get hit and then watch Bell smash into other property what would you start to think? Remember, they are there on an undercover operation looking for illegal activities. Are these activities that they are now witnessing illegal? I think so.

Anything they report about this guys family is to build sympathy. Do not let that change the facts about what he did. Bell hit a cop with his car and was driving recklessly in a public area damaging property if it was in his way and not caring about public safety since he backed up onto the sidewalk hitting a gate and already hit a person. If Bell knew that the guy was an undercover cop do you think he would have hit him? What if he didn't care and wanted to have one last night out with the boys and didn't like how the undercover acted towards him?

This guy was a clear threat to the public and to the police. When you have someone in a vehicle driving recklessly with a chance to injure or kill more people how do you stop him? Remember, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. All the cops had were their guns. You can't expect the cops to shout at this guy and ask him to stop after he already hit one of them and had multiple accidents. Bell could have stopped his car after he hit the cop and ended it there, but he didn't. Why didn't he? The cops did not draw their weapons yet, so why would he want to flee the scene? What caused him to panic or was he affected by another substance such as alcohol or drugs?

The amount of bullets used to stop him is what many of you focus on. How many bullets would it take to stop a car that is being driven recklessly? I don't know, do you? How many clear shots did they have at Bell's car?

How many people were in the area when this happened? Isn't it a cops job to protect the public from dangerous people? You must first agree that Bell was dangerous since the facts we know about clearly make this point. If there was anyone in the area that could have been hurt by Bell's reckless actions wouldn't you want the cops to protect them by all means available? What would have happened if they did nothing and Bell killed someone with his car? I think they public would have cried about the police doing nothing to protect them during an event that clearly showed a danger to the public.

I also think the cops wouldn't have shot as his car if they knew the results of their actions would put the public at a bigger risk.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
This guy was a clear threat to the public and to the police. When you have someone in a vehicle driving recklessly with a chance to injure or kill more people how do you stop him? Remember, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. All the cops had were their guns. You can't expect the cops to shout at this guy and ask him to stop after he already hit one of them and had multiple accidents. Bell could have stopped his car after he hit the cop and ended it there, but he didn't. Why didn't he? The cops did not draw their weapons yet, so why would he want to flee the scene? What caused him to panic or was he affected by another substance such as alcohol or drugs?

The amount of bullets used to stop him is what many of you focus on. How many bullets would it take to stop a car that is being driven recklessly? I don't know, do you? How many clear shots did they have at Bell's car?

Clear threat or not, the "facts" do not dictate that anyone was placed into "harms way" on a level that would justify shooting someone. You see on the news all the time, "News Flash: high speed car chase"... but not a single one end in the police blowing holes in the vehicle. During said chase, there are running red lights, driving through yards, hitting other vehicles, hitting the police cars chasing him, or the proverbial "Oh my God, he nearly ran that woman over!" or "He just hit that mother with the baby!" and it still does not take them to the point of getting the car stopped and the cops banding together to shoot the perpetrator.

The amount of bullets used to stop him issue.... easy. None, zero, zilch, nada... should have been used. This is clearly an issue of police brutality, or an excessive use of force, or whatever wording you would like to use. As was mentioned in a post earlier by donwhite, they were not even proven to be "convicted felons".

Now, to clarify my thinking... I'm sure you all recall the incident where men armed with fully auto AK-47s were robbing a bank...... this is completely different situation. Now here... the public and police themselves were clearly in danger.

Even at the end of the video... the cops still don't fire upon them.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I agree, this was a an over reaction and I hope that there is a full investigation in to why 5 police officers decided to fire, repeatedly, without response, a total of 50 times. The outline of the incident says that at no point did the officers speak to the men, and no gun had been seen.

I am loathe to say that police should be put on trial for murder when events like this occur, as I feel that their job is an extremely difficult one. Yet, there has to be some way of making police realise that this is not an acceptable way for them to behave, for these men appear to have been guilty of no crime worthy of this punishment. If this means that criminal prosecution be brought against these officers, so be it. I wouldn't know where to begin, though.

It seems to me a disproportionate response from those who are trained to deal with these situations. I fail to see how this action can be defended and it makes a mockery of accountability when Michael Bloomberg can say;

"Officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it."

Perhaps, I am missing something, but I fail to see how this is anything but gross negligence. It is the remit of police officers to respond to any given situation with an appropriate action, but I feel they have acted irrationally and unnessarily.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   


posted by NJ Mooch

Let's go over what has been reported. Fact: An undercover operation was underway at a location that is known for illegal activities and is one violation away from being shut down. My opinion: Not a great place to have a bachelor party [Edited by Don W]



Absolutely! Why expose yourself to an environment over which you will have not control? Very poor judgment.



Fact: The groom (Bell) was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. One of his friends made a reference to a gun. Opinion: Alcohol makes people act without reason and if you are from the NYC area telling someone you are going to get a gun isn't anything new. If I was an undercover cop that overheard this I would be very cautious and have my weapon ready.



Yes. I’m not faulting the cops so much as I am this whole useless and worthless anti-drug thing which began under Pres. Nixon in 1973. And has seen the deaths of dozens of innocent people, not to speak of an equal number of undercover cops. There was one killed in my hometown of Louisville just before I moved to Florida in 2003. Uniforms came upon a sting and shot the cop who they thought was robbing the “buyer.”



Fact: An undercover officer was hit by the car driven by Bell then Bell hit an undercover vehicle. Opinion: Either Bell was drunk and/or looking to hit this guy and make an example out of him since he may have said something to make to anger them outside the club.



Yes BUT . . Trained cops are not supposed to participate in the escalation of an encounter but rather, to control and contain it. So while I agree this is most definitely provocative conduct it is not worthy of a instant death sentence. We don’t have 007s, do we? Yet?



Opinion: Imagine what this would look like, a drunk reckless person smashing into everything in his way. If you were one of the undercover cops who just saw your coworker get hit what would you start to think? Remember, they are there on an undercover operation looking for illegal activities. Are these activities that they are now witnessing illegal? I think so.



A fire truck would have been the better alterative to deadly force.



Bell hit a cop with his car and was driving recklessly in a public area damaging property If Bell knew that the guy was an undercover cop do you think he would have hit him? This guy was a clear threat to the public and to the police. When you have someone in a vehicle driving recklessly with a chance to kill more people how do you stop him? The amount of bullets used to stop him is what many of you focus on. How many bullets would it take to stop a car . . ?



Well, I guess the cops on the scene - how many shot at him - figured a .40 Glock was the only way. The only way. Kill or be killed. Hmm?



How many people were in the area when this happened? Isn't it a cops job to protect the public from dangerous people? I also think the cops wouldn't have shot as his car if they knew the results of their actions would put the public at a bigger risk.



We had one of these in Louisville, too. Cops chased a guy, he fled his car, hid in a house, then was flushed, but got back into his car, it got stuck in the mud, he was “rocking” it back and forth to get away, a cop on the drives side shot him through a window and ended the altercation. The man died at the scene. Good arrest or example of how not to enforce the law?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Clear threat or not, the "facts" do not dictate that anyone was placed into "harms way" on a level that would justify shooting someone. You see on the news all the time, "News Flash: high speed car chase"... but not a single one end in the police blowing holes in the vehicle. During said chase, there are running red lights, driving through yards, hitting other vehicles, hitting the police cars chasing him, or the proverbial "Oh my God, he nearly ran that woman over!" or "He just hit that mother with the baby!" and it still does not take them to the point of getting the car stopped and the cops banding together to shoot the perpetrator.

The amount of bullets used to stop him issue.... easy. None, zero, zilch, nada... should have been used. This is clearly an issue of police brutality, or an excessive use of force, or whatever wording you would like to use. As was mentioned in a post earlier by donwhite, they were not even proven to be "convicted felons".

Now, to clarify my thinking... I'm sure you all recall the incident where men armed with fully auto AK-47s were robbing a bank...... this is completely different situation. Now here... the public and police themselves were clearly in danger.

Even at the end of the video... the cops still don't fire upon them.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]


Driving a vehicle towards a person in an attempt to hit them, in most states, is considered an assault with a deadly weapon. It is considered justifible homicide to kill someone in order to protect your life. This guy hit an officer, hit a parked car, backed up hit a gate, drove forward hit a parked car and who knows what direction he was driving when the shooting finally started. I'm guessing he hadn't decided to stop by that point.

The point is we're spending minutes/hours discussing an event that occured within about 30 seconds, maybe less. Yes we know all the end facts ... like that the officer was treated and released (so probably minor injuries). Did the police on the scene know that ... had their comrade gotten up yet? Was he still lying on the ground somewhere? We're they shouting at the driver to stop as he continued to hit various objects? Without being there or having testimony from people who were there all we can do is "guess". I'll "guess" on the side of proper police shooting of an idiot who doesn't know how to stop after hitting a person and others can "guess" on evil police brutality.

I have seen plenty of videos of police officers shooting at vehicles at the end of a pursuit when the vehicle is driving towards them and they are on foot. You don't have to be a "convicted felon" to be shot at by the police. You do have to be comitting some crime and be a threat to someones life.

Also the BofA robbery in Hollywood had many shots fired by the police. The problem was that these guys were in full body armor and the shots had no effect other than to piss them off or draw fire a certain direction. The only effective shots were to the head and the distance they were at made that difficult. They ended up raiding a local gun store and all 4 bank robbers were killed ... the very last one after he drove away, car jacked a vehicle and continued to try to flee (he was shot in the head numerous times). Of course that event is an obvious case of proper police shooting. I think LA PD did an outstanding job in that situation, considering no citizens or police died and they managed to get all 4 of the criminals.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
Fact: One of his friends made a reference to a gun.


Not a fact. This is speculation. It could quite easily be a scared officer trying to justify his action. Equally, it could be true. I presume that there are surveillance tapes that can verify this.



Opinion: If I was an undercover cop that overheard this I would be very cautious and have my weapon ready.


Overheard what exactly? There is no report about what he has said. The word gun could have been used in a number of contexts


Fact: At some point, Bell backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time.


Not a fact, once again, this is a reported quote.


Opinion: Bell already hit an undercover cop and an undercover vehicle, he now backs up onto the sidewalk with a chance to hit someone else, he hits a building gate then drives forward striking the undercover vehicle a second time. Imagine what this would look like, a drunk reckless person smashing into everything in his way. If you were one of the undercover cops who just saw your coworker get hit and then watch Bell smash into other property what would you start to think? Remember, they are there on an undercover operation looking for illegal activities. Are these activities that they are now witnessing illegal? I think so.


You are, of course, right about the legality of the actions. Yet, do these actions warrant such reaction from the police? I will not excuse what the driver did, but this is a disproportionate response.


If Bell knew that the guy was an undercover cop do you think he would have hit him? What if he didn't care and wanted to have one last night out with the boys and didn't like how the undercover acted towards him?


Does it say how the undercover policeman acted towards Bell? Did the police identify themselves? It is speculation to say that they, perhaps, added to his careless actions, but so are your comments on the reasons for Bell's actions.


This guy was a clear threat to the public and to the police. All the cops had were their guns. You can't expect the cops to shout at this guy and ask him to stop after he already hit one of them and had multiple accidents. Bell could have stopped his car after he hit the cop and ended it there, but he didn't. Why didn't he? The cops did not draw their weapons yet, so why would he want to flee the scene? What caused him to panic or was he affected by another substance such as alcohol or drugs?


I'm sorry this entire paragraph is the worst sort of conjecture. I can find no reference to whether or not Bell stopped his car, but there is no suggestion that the police identified themselves. "It was unclear whether the shooters had identified themselves as police". So to use your use of the media reports: What would you do if you heard someone firing at your car? Wouldn't you try to escape. This is no better than your comment, sadly.

What makes this incident different is that there is no clear cause and effect from eye-witnesses. The police opened fire on a car, killing the driver and hospitalised the passengers. In hindsight, the police acted wrongly, but there must be some investigation in to whether or not, they should have acted differently.


[edit on 26-11-2006 by Woland]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Woland

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
Fact: One of his friends made a reference to a gun.


Not a fact. This is speculation. It could quite easily be a scared officer trying to justify his action. Equaly, it could be true. I presume that there are surveillance tapes that can verify this.



Opinion: If I was an undercover cop that overheard this I would be very cautious and have my weapon ready.


Overheard what exactly? There is no report about what he has said. The word gun could have beenused in a number of contexts


Fact: At some point, Bell backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time.


Not a fact, once again. This is a reported quote.


Opinion: Bell already hit an undercover cop and an undercover vehicle, he now backs up onto the sidewalk with a chance to hit someone else, he hits a building gate then drives forward striking the undercover vehicle a second time. Imagine what this would look like, a drunk reckless person smashing into everything in his way. If you were one of the undercover cops who just saw your coworker get hit and then watch Bell smash into other property what would you start to think? Remember, they are there on an undercover operation looking for illegal activities. Are these activities that they are now witnessing illegal? I think so.


You are, of course, right about the legality of the actions. Yet, do these actions warrant such reaction from the police? I will not excuse what the driver did, but this is disproportionate response.


If Bell knew that the guy was an undercover cop do you think he would have hit him? What if he didn't care and wanted to have one last night out with the boys and didn't like how the undercover acted towards him?


Does it say how the undercover policeman acted towards Bell? Did the police identify themselves? It is speculation to say that perhaps they added to his careless actions, but so are your comments on the reasons for Bell's actions.


This guy was a clear threat to the public and to the police. All the cops had were their guns. You can't expect the cops to shout at this guy and ask him to stop after he already hit one of them and had multiple accidents. Bell could have stopped his car after he hit the cop and ended it there, but he didn't. Why didn't he? The cops did not draw their weapons yet, so why would he want to flee the scene? What caused him to panic or was he affected by another substance such as alcohol or drugs?


I'm sorry this entire paragraph is the worst sort of conjecture. I can find no reference to whether or not Bell stop his car, but there is no suggestion that the police identified themselves. "It was unclear whether the shooters had identified themselves as police". So to use your use of the media reports: What would you do if you heard someone firing at your car? Wouldn't you try to escape. This is no better than your comment, sadly.

What makes this incident different is that there is no clear cause and effect from eye-witnesses. The police opened fire on a car, killing the driver and hospitalising the passengers. In hindsight, the police acted wrongly, but there must be some investigation in to whether or not, they should have acted differently.



Okay, you pick apart a post by saying that everything is speculation and media accounts and therefore not fact, including the report that he hit a person, a gate and the same vehicle twice. I'll agree with you on that but then using the same set of speculations and media accounts somehow you can manage to discern that this was an unjustified shooting.

I'm curious how you can use the media reports to reach a conlcusion of guilt but dismiss someone else using the media reports to reach a different conclusion.

We'll never all agree ... those who believe that all police are corrupt will always come to the conclusion that the officers are either lying about what happened or just shot someone for the fun of it. It reminds me of a local case here where police shot and killed a mentally disabled man in front of a 7-11 after he drew a sawed off shotgun from under a trench coat and pointed it at them as the PD was getting out of their vehicle. I believe the 2 officers shot him about 15 times. The family cried foul and the public was outraged because the gun was unloaded.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

Originally posted by Woland


I'm sorry this entire paragraph is the worst sort of conjecture. I can find no reference to whether or not Bell stop his car, but there is no suggestion that the police identified themselves. "It was unclear whether the shooters had identified themselves as police". So to use your use of the media reports: What would you do if you heard someone firing at your car? Wouldn't you try to escape. This is no better than your comment, sadly.

What makes this incident different is that there is no clear cause and effect from eye-witnesses. The police opened fire on a car, killing the driver and hospitalising the passengers. In hindsight, the police acted wrongly, but there must be some investigation in to whether or not, they should have acted differently.



Okay, you pick apart a post by saying that everything is speculation and media accounts and therefore not fact, including the report that he hit a person, a gate and the same vehicle twice. I'll agree with you on that but then using the same set of speculations and media accounts somehow you can manage to discern that this was an unjustified shooting.

I'm curious how you can use the media reports to reach a conlcusion of guilt but dismiss someone else using the media reports to reach a different conclusion.

W


I have requoted the last two paragraphs of my post, as I think you have unfairly assessed them. I say that it is the paucity of the eyewitness accounts that makes this case interesting. I think that from the simple facts, something is not right with this case. Police did fire 50 times at men in car that hit their vehicles.

I think that this following statement sums up my thoughts on the matter;


In hindsight, the police acted wrongly, but there must be some investigation in to whether or not, they should have acted differently.


When I say wrongly, I mean that the men were not armed, and that Bell's driving is not quoted as the reason why the police fired. Yet, I believe that we should not jump to the conclusion that the police acted incorrectly, and that an investigation must be carried out.

The point I was trying to make by using conjecture in my second post, was that it is easy to use the badly written Yahoo news story to twist the quotes either way.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
from what i read here this is my take on the article .guys went to bachelor party at strip club got very drunk. while leving they hit a car not knowing it was a unmarked car got scared and hauled butt outta there.cops got pissed off and opened fire because their buddy was hurt. even through it was an accident
they felt they had the right to shoot up the car and after the fact justify it by saying" we think they had a gun' . they better be glad that didn't happen around here they might have got as good as they gave.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Was his fiance a cop?


Sounds like excessive force.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Maybe I should have posted this instead:

A crime was committed, Bell hit a cop, a parked vehicle, and private property. These are all misdameanor charges since nobody was seriously hurt or killed. He was in the process of leaving the scene or does anyone here think he was going to park his car?

While he was trying to run from the scene was there a chance for anyone to get seriously hurt or killed? This is what the cops had to act on and none of us know the specifics of the area when this happened. If Bell would have seriously hurt or killed someone he would be charged with a felony.

Thik about this: Who's life is worth more, the guy driving the car recklessly or anyone who could have been hit by him in the process of leaving the scene of a crime? Remember he was the one who started this by hitting a cop and other property, the cops had to respond. How they responded is discussed next.

The police on scene had to make a decision. They only had seconds to react, not minutes or hours like everyone who reads this thread.

Put yourself in the cops shoes and think about what you are paid to do, protect and serve the public. You just saw a guy hit someone and other property and is in the process of leaving the scene. Would you try to stop him or just wave at him and call for backup knowing that you may not catch him? They made a decision to open fire on the car because of what they just saw, not what we think they saw.

I do not know the tactics/guidelines used by NYC police. I do know what I would do, open fire on the car to stop it from hurting/killing anyone else. You have to stop the criminals before they get away or is it ok to let them do what they want?

Could they have called for backup? Sure, but this all took place in a matter of seconds so backup wouldn't have been there that fast. So it goes back to the same question, would you let them get away?

How do you stop a reckless driver that already proved he has no care for human life? Disable him or his car. Firing 50 shots would make me think they were trying to disable his car. This is my opinion and I can understand if anyone else thinks they were trying to disable the driver.

Maybe this will give you guys a better idea of what I wanted to talk about.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
well we are all speculating

but 50 shots fired and no guns found is a big problemo for the police departmento



makes me wonder if the COPS DRINKING on there job doing UNDERCOVER work would effect there decision making in situations like these..hmmmm sounds like the stupidest rule to allow drinking while working as a cop unless we are to beleive that alchohol effects police officers different than the innocent until proven guilty that they shoot at




[edit on 26-11-2006 by cpdaman]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
o

[edit on 26-11-2006 by cpdaman]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The cops were just doing there job. One of the 'n-word's tried to run the cop over, so he blasted him in the head. And what kind of fiance is at a strip club known for prostituion, firearms sales and drugs at 4am, while his kids are home asleep. Some people just never grow up out of their high school mind state. Dumb 'n-word's.


To any of you trying to make the cops out ot be bad people, you have no idea what cops have to go through with these low life 'n-word's. 99% of them are jobless theiving crooks who sell drugs, carry firearms, and eat McDonalds for breakfast lunch and dinner.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I was interested when this event occured. In NYPD we as officers are very reluctant to just take out a gun and start shooting, expecially after the amadou diallo incident in the bronx, it is just easier to call for backup and do the Dog Pile on the Rabbit!. Remember we have 36000 officers in NY.

We had very retricted guide lines to using lethal force. We are taught that we can not use our firearms against a vehicle unless it is obvious that lethal force is intended by the operator. Such as he/she has a gun or the operator has been running from the undercover officer after he identified themselves, and after the operator hits the undercover and tries to keep going endangering other responding officers which are usually close by monitoring the undercover.

I would like to here more from my friends on the job before I have a personal opinion on this one. I would like to give the officers the benefit of doubt and see where it goes.

It is hard to make a Decision in a fraction of a second to save your life or your partners.

Remember the heroes of 9/11!
343 NY Bravest Killed
37 Port Authority Police Officers Killed
26 NYPD Officers Killed
Its a tough job.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   


The cops were just doing there job. One of the [clip] tried to run the cop over, so he blasted him in the head.


For 1 can you please refrain from using such a racist remark, it is disgusting, and you should know better. Or is that just showing how racist you really are?

From what I have read on fox, cnn, sky, bcc, an other news channels the firing of 50 bullets into the car, residential area, was way over excessive.

They also hit residential homes in an around that area, although no residents were shot in the incident.

Although I agree the guy in the car shouldnt have rammed, run ova, hurt anyone, the cops shouldnt have fired as many bullets a they did into that car and the surrounding area. Would have been a different story if there were more victims than the Groom.

Until it becomes clear, exactly what happened. Then there is going to be speculation.

Thinks it is another reason, the cops service ova in the USA needs to be looked @. I can gurantee you one thing, if that happened over here in the UK. The cops in question would be facing a criminal trial.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join