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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
They were using the car as a weapon to try and murder the Undercover Cop. The cop in trying to save his own life had to kill the driver. Basic human instrinct. Would you have been stupid enough to let these apes run you over?




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanebul
The cops were just doing there job. One of the ******* 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 *******.


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 ******. 99% of them are jobless theiving crooks who sell drugs, carry firearms, and eat McDonalds for breakfast lunch and dinner.



Originally posted by hanebul
They were using the car as a weapon to try and murder the Undercover Cop. The cop in trying to save his own life had to kill the driver. Basic human instrinct. Would you have been stupid enough to let these **** run you over?


There are a few offensive remarks made by yourself that are of no need in this thread, this forum, or this website in general.

Please review the Terms and Conditions


1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.


hanebul, I, as the author of this thread would respectfully request you review your posts, edit the offensive content out, and refrain from further offensive posts in the future. Next post seen and thought to be offensive will be reported to moderators and or administration.

Thank you.

[edit on 11/26/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanebul
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.


Are the racial epitaths REALLY necessary?
Did yopu REALLY prove a point?
Other than identifying yourself as a bigot, that is?
IF the cops were just doing their job, there would NOT be a man, who had from all accounts never been in trouble with the law before, who was "straight and narrow" would not now be dead.
You want to say what was he doing at that club? He was at a bachelor party.. Do we KNOW he knew it was known for illegal activities?
You say this man was a low life n###r, do you KNOW anything about him? You make a lot of specualtion on him based on his race, and so far, all of them are wrong, he was NOT a low life, he was NOT a jobless theiving crook, he was NOT, selling drugs, carrying a gun, and thank you for having a copy of the autopsy reports, and the private investigation report that shows what he ate, and when he ate it.
And if this guy was white, then what?
Does it make it OK, because he wasn't white?
How sad you are.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   


posted by bufordny

In NYPD we as officers are very reluctant to just take out a gun and start shooting, especially after the Amador Diallo incident, it is just easier to call for backup. Remember we have 36,000 officers in NY. We had very restricted 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. 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. It is hard to make a Decision in a fraction of a second to save your life or your partners. [Edited by Don W]



I believe it came out in the Diallo incident that there is a psychology to explain the firing of so many shots. The shooter in many cases of multiple discharge reported firing only one shot. The psychology is the shooter for either fear for himself or shock at actually firing at another human for the first time, blanks out and squeezes the trigger until it stops. The man may be unaware he is firing multiple times. Firing many shots may be more a reflex than a deliberate decision. Have you noticed this report?



[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
On hanebul, who's posts are on global ignore right now, lets ignore this idiot racist troll, all the sensible people here can feel free to continue our rational discussion.




Originally posted by Infoholic
In the original article posted by yahoo news, the term they used was hit. As you can see now, the term has been changed to "rammed".

I fail to see the siginifcant difference. They drove a car into a cop, and luckily it didn't give him any seriouos injuries. Then they hit a cop van, twice. Then shots got fired.

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, "rammed" and "hit" gives two different pictures in my mind.

Either way, its a person steering a moving vehicle into you.

the "facts" do not dictate that anyone was placed into "harms way" on a level that would justify shooting someone.

Of course they do. These guys were drunk and rowdy at a place with violent illegal acticity, screaming about getting their gun, they ran down a cop with their car, and then repeatedly smashed into another cop car, with cops in it. Of course shooting was justified. Their lives were in danger. If these kids didn't want to get shot, forget about 'not going to a place with illegal activities', how about 'not running down a cop and repatedly smashing into a car full of other cops'???

this is completely different situation. Now here... the public and police themselves were clearly in danger.

You are aware that being hit by a car can kill you, right???


harlemhottie
They were leaving.

After hitting a guy with their car and twice ramming into another car.

I think there's more to this story.

Definitly. There were short reports and hints that guzman was yelling that he was going to get his gun, or some such, before they got into the car. But the final report isn't out yet.


muhlis
police officers are all bad people.

Thats absolutely and completely false.


don white
I believe there should be a rule that an officer can only discharge his weapon in response to being fired on.

And not when someone is repeatedly raming a car into their car, after knocking down another cop with their car?
Odd rule.

My policeman friend never drew his pistol.

Interesting. Did the drunk driver also try to run him over, and smash repeatedly into his car while he was in it?


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

Not when they're using a car to try to kill people. And what if these cops had done nothing and these stupid yahoos ran down a couple of innocent bystanders as they fled?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   


posted by Nygdan

On hanebul, who's posts are on global ignore right now, lets ignore this idiot racist troll, all the sensible people here can feel free to continue our rational discussion.



don white

My policeman friend never drew his pistol.


Interesting. Did the drunk driver also try to run him over . . ?” [Edited by Don W]



I would like to see a Federal law, like the violation of civil rights law, establish an investigative force which would be on call, like the CAB plane crash investigators, to take charge ASAP in any case where a civilian is killed by police or dies in custody, automatically. Then to make a public report. Transparency and quality of investigative technique. This would help restore public confidence in our police which is now missing, and is absolutely an essential precursor if we are ever to regain control of our cities.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I would like to say that ignorance is no excuse for that behavior on the site.

I FEEL YOU SHOULD BE BANNED UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

Police brutality based on race is no longer tolorated by anyone I have had the honor of working with.

I am glad I never met you. I would drop you off in East New York in your your glory with a sign saying you hate *******.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The member has been dealt with according to what his actions merited.

Please... let's not let someone so ignorant disrupt this conversation.

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Then to make a public report. Transparency and quality of investigative technique.

A reasonable person can't really object to this. If anything, it'd help the cops, in cases like this, its being presented as if these were just a couple of nice fellows out for a late night jaunt, and then BLAM krazy kops shot the heckoutta them for kicks.

ALso, this is pretty different from diallo. Those cops took this guy, and abused the hell outta him for no reason. This is an instance of cops having reasonable concern for their own lives and shooting the people that appear to be trying to kill them.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I still dont buy this a groom on a wedding day died because a cop shot him.

This is sad.im crying right now.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Yahoo just reported that 21 bullets hit Bell's car, not all 50 that were shot. Then there is this little bit of info that I was waiting to read:

The police department's policy on shooting at moving vehicles states: "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

"By means other then a moving vehicle". For this situation we don't know of any other deadly force, so the cops were wrong if that is the case. What I don't understand is how a vehicle can not be considered deadly force or have it's own policy regarding the use of a vehicle as a weapon.

The police involved will have to prove that they saw or thought there was another deadly weapon at the scene. Maybe that is why they mentioned the 4th guy who fled the scene. Maybe he had the gun, but we don't know these facts and this is only my speculation as to why they would have fired.

I don't understand the NYC Police policy to not fire on a vehicle even if it is being used as deadly force against an officer or another person present. How are you supposed to stop the car? That makes me wonder why it was made policy, did something happen in the past that made this policy come about?

Anyways the police will have to prove that there was some other deadly weapon at the scene to clear themselves. Maybe the undercover officers weren't aware of this policy? Is that possible with all the policies they must know? How many do they have to be aware of? I only get more questions instead of answers from all this.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by muhlis
I still dont buy this a groom on a wedding day died because a cop shot him.

This is sad.im crying right now.


A groom is dead because he committed at least one felony and several misdemeanors and continued to try to flee. I feel more sorry for the passengers in the vehicle who may or may not have agreed with their drivers decision making process after hitting a person.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The reason I say almost is it is hard with scheduling to get 36000 officers trained in a one year period.

With Firearms this is done at the Firearm and Tactic Section at the Range in the Bronx. They also has a tactical simunition house For training.

Not all officers can attend due to court cases, Illness, Undercover ops. But this is also taught at the academy. We have 8 million + people in a crowded area. You dont want to hit junior or grandma if you miss. Use of firearms although most mentioned in the media, is really rare.
The department has the ability to get you backup very quickly most of the time. But if this Suspect/Operator was being yelled commands and refuses. Well I would not want to be in their shoes.

Remember that all of these incidents go before a grand jury, Even if they are cleared by the department. I guess its the city's way of covering its ass.

Firearm training is quite intense when I went there. Imagine 36000 officers shooting 300 rounds a piece? No wonder City Island complains about the noise.

They do it at 30 to 50 officers a clip with mandatory classroom and range training.
They always send a range officer to any shooting to see if the training can be improved or not.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   


posted by bufordny

I would like to say that ignorance is no excuse for that behavior on the site.

I FEEL YOU SHOULD BE BANNED UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER



Racism is rampant in the United States. We are making progress but it is slow and not always steady. Racism is exploited on the national level as well as state and local levels. Recall the Tennessee senate race? The good thing was 48% of Tennesseans voted NO to racism.





[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Infoholic
In the original article posted by yahoo news, the term they used was hit. As you can see now, the term has been changed to "rammed".

I fail to see the siginifcant difference. They drove a car into a cop, and luckily it didn't give him any seriouos injuries. Then they hit a cop van, twice. Then shots got fired.

Do you think maybe the vehicle was moving and the cop jumped out in front of them? Serves him right, if he did.


Nygdan

Infoholic
I don't know about anyone else, but to me, "rammed" and "hit" gives two different pictures in my mind.

Either way, its a person steering a moving vehicle into you.

I was meaning to direct that to a proper use of adjectives. To me, here, you are suggesting the cop standing still... and the kid driving the car swerved to make certain he hit the cop? Pure speculation, and unfair at that, IMO.


Nygden

Infoholic
the "facts" do not dictate that anyone was placed into "harms way" on a level that would justify shooting someone.

Of course they do. These guys were drunk and rowdy at a place with violent illegal acticity, screaming about getting their gun, they ran down a cop with their car, and then repeatedly smashed into another cop car, with cops in it. Of course shooting was justified. Their lives were in danger. If these kids didn't want to get shot, forget about 'not going to a place with illegal activities', how about 'not running down a cop and repatedly smashing into a car full of other cops'???

Again, speculation.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.



Nygden

Infoholic
this is completely different situation. Now here... the public and police themselves were clearly in danger.

You are aware that being hit by a car can kill you, right???

Well, sure.
But...

An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, the car drove forward — striking the officer and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.

Who's to say the vehicles weren't already in front of the one leaving? That hardly indicates to me or anyone else the ability to assume "running down" a cop and "ramming" into a parked car. Pure speculation.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Do you think maybe the vehicle was moving and the cop jumped out in front of them?

Yes, very likely. Perhaps the cops didn't even shoot, but rather, there was a gang of terrorists that threw the cop into the street, shot up the car, killed the groom, and then took the cop's families hostage and threatened to kill them if the cops didn't say that they were the ones that did the shooting. Notice that there's no official report yet? That might be because they are fighting the terrorists right now.
Indeed, this is proven by the fact that some of the cops might have families, who could be taken hostage.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
As far as I know, cops are no longer trained to fire their weapons at moving vehicles in order to stop them.

It's just not wise, generally, to shoot up a car in an effort to stop it. If you hit the driver, you don't necessarily stop the car.

Would I shoot at a car that was trying to run me over? Damn straight.

So, I understand, I just don't see how it complies with police procedure.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

harlemhottie
They were leaving.

After hitting a guy with their car and twice ramming into another car.

You missed my point.

If the groom and his friends were under suspicion for an altercation that hadn't even happened yet, you would think that leaving the venue would have lifted that suspicion. A reasonable person would have concluded that, since they were leaving the club, they weren't getting ready to shoot it up. Right?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
...or maybe they had a trunkful of narcotics and wanted to get out of there quick-like.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
The cops were there with the suspicion of narcotics, prostitution, and firearms... right? The club was being "checked out". With that being said....


Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.

Kelly said the confrontation stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.

An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, the car drove forward — striking the officer and a nearby undercover police vehicle, Kelly said.



If, by "reasonable suspicion", the victims were "believed" to be taking part in the "reasons" the cops were there at the club in the first place... why in the world would they be allowed to leave? "We're here to look for guns, drugs, etc... we've heard you talk about a gun, but go ahead and jump in your car to leave... I'll follow you. If you do try to leave, I'll shoot you."


What kind of crap is this!?! There was no reason for the cops to allow the situation to escalate to where it has now become. I understand cops have a hard job, and I am very respectful of them... however, the officers in question obviously and clearly "overreacted".

[edit on 11/27/2006 by Infoholic]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join