NY police kill man on wedding day (update: officers acquitted)

[PapaZeb]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

One begets the other.

Sequence of events, for those of you with made up minds that cops are picking on people...

Club deals drugs, arms, and whores.
NYPD sends 7 officers in undercover to investigate. Some inside club, most outside in a disguised vehicle.
Within earshot of an officer a gentleman in a bachelor party group proclaims he has a gun
Officer follows party to their car.
Car runs over officer, strikes police car.
Car gets shot to pieces.

If it were someplace other than NY with their specifics on firing on an automobile, any judge would likely see plausible deniability.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by PapaZeb

Sequence of events, for those of you with made up minds that cops are picking on people...

Club deals drugs, arms, and whores.
NYPD sends 7 officers in undercover to investigate. Some inside club, most outside in a disguised vehicle.
Within earshot of an officer a gentleman in a bachelor party group proclaims he has a gun
Officer follows party to their car.
Car runs over officer, strikes police car.
Car gets shot to pieces.

If it were someplace other than NY with their specifics on firing on an automobile, any judge would likely see plausible deniability.

I'm not so much of the opinion that cops are picking on people as I hate firearms and reckon they should be banned.

11 bullets in one guy who wasn't even driving the car.. that's what's called required force? :/

[PapaZeb]

Originally Posted by Stew

I have, and a fair point.

But I'd expect amed police officers to be trained to a pretty decent level before being let onto the street with a weapon.

Moving targets could be people running through a crowd with a bomb - they should be trained to a level where they are hitting it more than 50% of the time - which they didn't even manage here.

While TV would like you to think that police officers spend a few hours of their day at the shooting range, or running through specialized "breaking down doors and shooting at cardboard thugs" training sequences, the sad fact of budgeting has it down to periodic renewing of marksmanship tests - which is an officer in a closed shooting range taking shots at a paper target.

As for shooting into crowds - that one's a BIG no-no. If there are crowd situations and guns are needed (say a hostage situation), then you see SWAT called in...and SWAT snipers are a whole other breed of human that do nothing but train 7 days a week with specialized camps and whatnot..they mebbe work 2-3 days a week, 30mins here, 72hour stretch there, but they're the best at what they do (I used to read waaay too many military/police biographies)

Originally Posted by Stew

I'm not so much of the opinion that cops are picking on people as I hate firearms and reckon they should be banned.

11 bullets in one guy who wasn't even driving the car.. that's what's called required force? :/

And I wasn't responding to you, but to the generalized closed-mindedness that passes for debate around here sometimes.
"Oh it was cops - they abused their position"
"Oh it was a black victim. Must have been racial profiling"...profiling..*scoff* - isn't that the same closed minded way of looking at a story and going "Man, all cops racially profile so of course they're guilty" ?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by PapaZeb

And I wasn't responding to you, but to the generalized closed-mindedness that passes for debate around here sometimes.
"Oh it was cops - they abused their position"
"Oh it was a black victim. Must have been racial profiling"...profiling..*scoff* - isn't that the same closed minded way of looking at a story and going "Man, all cops racially profile so of course they're guilty" ?

Yeah, they really screwed themselves with that one.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by Stew

Yeah, they really screwed themselves with that one.

If you play it in reverse, they help him up and send him on his way. You're only looking at this from one point of view here.

[Stew]

Update on this story just came up if you guys are at all interested then I can tell you the NYPD officers were acquitted:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Three New York Police Department detectives involved in the shooting death of an unarmed man in a 50-bullet barrage, hours before he was to be married, learn their fate Friday morning.

1 of 3 Detectives Michael Oliver and Gescard Isnora were tried on charges of manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment in the death of Sean Bell, 23, and the wounding of two of his friends.

Detective Marc Cooper was tried on a charge of reckless endangerment.

Justice Arthur Cooperman has said he will issue his verdict in the bench trial at 9 a.m. Friday. There is no jury.

The Rev. Al Sharpton called for calm Wednesday in anticipation of the verdict. He was accompanied by the victim's fiancee and other supporters on the steps of City Hall.

Bell, 23, was killed just before dawn on his wedding day, November 25, 2006. He and several friends were winding up an all-night bachelor party at the Kalua Club in Queens, a strip club that was under investigation by a NYPD undercover unit looking into complaints of guns, drugs and prostitution.

Undercover detectives were inside the club, and plain-clothes officers were stationed outside.

Witnesses said that about 4 a.m., closing time, as Bell and his friends left the club, an argument broke out. Believing that one of Bell's friends, Joseph Guzman, was going to get a gun from Bell's car, one of the undercover detectives followed the men and called for backup.

What happened next is at the heart of the trial, being prosecuted by the assistant district attorney in Queens.

Don't Miss
Sidebar: Judge holds outcome in his hands
WABC: Vigil held at Bell's church
City braces for protests
Prosecution rests
Bell, Guzman and Trent Benefield got into the car, with Bell at the wheel. The detectives drew their weapons, said Guzman and Benefield, who testified that they never heard the plain-clothes detectives identify themselves as police.

Bell was in a panic to get away from the armed men, his friends testified.

But the detectives thought Bell was trying to run down one of them, according to their lawyers, believed that their lives were in danger and started shooting.

In a frantic 911 call, police can be heard saying, "Shots fired. Undercover units involved."

A total of 50 bullets were fired by five NYPD officers. Only three were charged with crimes.

Oliver, who reloaded his semi-automatic in the middle of the fray, fired 31 times, Isnora fired 11 times, and Cooper, whose leg was brushed by Bell's moving car, fired four times, the NYPD said.

No gun was found near Bell or his friends.

Soon after his death, Sean Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre, legally changed her name to Nicole Paultre Bell. She is now raising the couple's two daughters, ages 5 and 1.

"I tell [them] that Daddy's in heaven now," she said. "He's watching over us. He's our guardian angel. He's going to be here to protect us and make sure nothing happens to us."

Detectives Endowment Association President Michael Palladino said forensic and scientific evidence presented during the seven-week trial contradicts the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

But Paultre Bell's father, Lester Paultre, said, "For those naysayers who say the police was doing their job, they should imagine their child in that car being shot by the police for no reason."

Paultre Bell, Guzman and Benefield have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in federal court that has been stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Guzman was shot 16 times, and four bullets, too dangerous to remove, remain in his body, according to his lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein.

Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York have been monitoring the trial. In the event of an acquittal, it is likely authorities would conduct a review to determine whether there were any civil rights violations. All three victims were African-American.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/24/...ial/index.html

Some people are going to be seriously pissed, watch out for riots on the news.

[Draven]

Sounds quite interesting story actually. From the description given it doesn't sound like the police were being reckless, I mean I sure as fuck would fire if I thought somebody was trying to run me over and had mouthed off that they had guns.

Sounds like a horrible tragedy overall.

Of course nobody has pulled up the fact that the guy was bragging about having a gun, of course the cops are gonna be a bit jumpy about that.

[endless psych]

What is your definition of recklessness?As people not reckless as police officers reckless.

[Dec]

Originally Posted by Draven

Of course nobody has pulled up the fact that the guy was bragging about having a gun, of course the cops are gonna be a bit jumpy about that.

Allegedly the guy was bragging about having a gun. There's about 1000000 more people I'll believe before I believe a cop.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by endless psych

What is your definition of recklessness?As people not reckless as police officers reckless.

Fucks sake posting on a mobile phone on the train is shite.

Basically do you want to live in a society where the police can shoot someone for driving at them when as far as the person who is driving at them is concerned are just randoms shooting at them?

[Draven]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Fucks sake posting on a mobile phone on the train is shite.

Basically do you want to live in a society where the police can shoot someone for driving at them when as far as the person who is driving at them is concerned are just randoms shooting at them?

I hear what your saying, and don't disagree with you particularly. I'm just going on what Stew posted in the news story. But if the cops shouted that they were police, and then a vehicle drove straight at them with the intention of running them over then your damn right that their going to open fire.

I get what you mean about recklessness, despite your phone . I just meant from what I read that it didn't seem they were firing into a crowd, or breaking any rules, but simply defending themselves and trying to take down possibly armed individuals that had hit one cop and was aiming for another.

But I do agree when it was posted earlier in the thread this is precisely why guns should be banned.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Draven

I hear what your saying, and don't disagree with you particularly. I'm just going on what Stew posted in the news story. But if the cops shouted that they were police, and then a vehicle drove straight at them with the intention of running them over then your damn right that their going to open fire.

On the car itself aye, its tyres or such. Reasonable force surely dictates not the driver.

Accidentally hitting the driver is one thing 21 shots (out of fifty) connecting without disabling the car? Thats another entirely.

[0x21]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Accidentally hitting the driver is one thing 21 shots (out of fifty) connecting without disabling the car? Thats another entirely.

Depends on where the shots landed, but you could easily fire more than 50 rounds into a car without doing anything other than superficial damage.

It sounds like the police thought they were going for guns, and the guys in the car didn't know they were police (plain clothes; even if they were identifying themselves as police it may have been missed in the rukus), thought some guys were about to shoot at them and tried to escape.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by 0x21

Depends on where the shots landed, but you could easily fire more than 50 rounds into a car without doing anything other than superficial damage.

It sounds like the police thought they were going for guns, and the guys in the car didn't know they were police (plain clothes; even if they were identifying themselves as police it may have been missed in the rukus), thought some guys were about to shoot at them and tried to escape.

Thing is to my mind if a police officer has the responsibility of a firearm they also have the responsibility to only use it when a lethal threat has been confirmed. Of course this means that I wouldn't let them shoot unless fired upon which might be a bit shite for the police officers involved but fairer for society at large.

(there are exceptions if a member of the public appears to be under threat.)

[Kirsten]

Guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people.

Fucking Americans. (I'm almost waiting for Jeff to come and jump on my heid, but fuck it).

Originally Posted by PapaZeb

Outside of 6-10feet, shooting at a moving target gets pretty dicey. If you've ever used a handgun, you know that recoil, localized violence, the noise, movement, and the dark all contribute to throw off your aim.

Yet another reason for the argument as to why guns shouldn't be used in the first place, quite frankly.

I feel quite sorry for his missus - imagine finding out yer man has:
(1) just been shot to pieces (2) at a strip club do you really want the last vag in the face of the man you're about to marry, he ever sees, to be that of some crackwhore, plastic stripper?! (3) even though he did nothing to deserve getting shot to death over, (4) essentially HOURS before you're meant to say your vows, etc..!

OOFT! Quite a bit to take in...and they kids are going to want to know the details at some point.

Deary me.