NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184948.stm
Police said they were watching the club, Kalua, because of suspicions of drug dealing and prostitution.

New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg said police acted to prevent an incident.

"We know that the NYPD officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," he said.

Fair enough. So what did they do?

The groom and two friends were leaving a strip club in Queens on Saturday morning after the groom's bachelor party when police opened fire on them.

Police fired 50 bullets at the car which was being driven by the groom.

...

A total of 21 bullets hit the car the men were driving as they left the strip club, police said.

The driver, Sean Bell, was to be married later on Saturday. He was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.

One of his passengers, Joseph Guzman was hit by at least 11 bullets and is in a critical condition in hospital.

The other passenger, Trent Benefield, was hit three times and is in a stable condition.

Who writes the service manual for these people? :confused:

They... missed... the car... 26 out of 50 times?

They shot at the car for absolutely no good reason.

And they missed. More the half of the shots.

I hope this makes Mr. Bloomberg proud.

Oh the irony

I just read a post about how a 92 yo in Georgia was shot by police who stormed her home with a warrant searching for drugs.She fired at the police and hit 3 of them,so was henceforth shot.Albeit the police were in plain clothes,they announced they were coming in,so I think they do have some justification in what they did.But this doesn't make sense to me.There MIGHT have been a firearm incident...so they shot a groom with his wedding tomorrow?Metinks Bloomberg has a lot to answer for.

*waits for the investigation report.*

this is rather early to be judging things. but yeah, they got alot of explaining to do...

You see, we dont have this problem in England. Our police are unarmed so we always manage to find a peaceful sollution, well, most of the time

Why is American police overreacting any news? It should be common knowledge, like Earth revolving around sun...

There is the bit about how 'when they left the club their car hit an undercover officer'. or as Fox news has it 'rammed into an undercover officer'. It's hard to say what was going on there. If he was in aposition to be hit, and they were watching the car already it's possible he stepped out into the road to stop them leaving. Anyway, according to CNN they didn't keep the officer in hospital, which suggests more of a slow speed bump than anything. Still seems a bit much to let rip like that. Apparently one officer went through two magazines.

Fucking batshit. Since when did fearing a gun altercation might ensue become a problem best solved by ensuring one ensues?

Those police should be in a shit load of trouble. They should have to prove that their actions prevented a very serious crime (or set of crimes) from happening, and that their actions were in the public interest. Otherwise, the relevant officers and the police force should be proscecuted.

What it sounds like to me is that this stag party goes to a strip club, gets drunk, gets into a bit of a row with someone else. There's then a bit of drunken boasting in which one of the party threatens to draw an non-existant gun. The other two pull the other guy away and get him to leave the club. The party staggers out, climbs into the car and drive off. However the driver has probably drunk far too much and, well brushes the officer and police car (how on Earth do you only manage to hit someone in the shins with a car? Most cars aren't even that low, they'd be more likely to hit you in the thighs).

And hey presto, some cowboys who have had a slow night decide to get themselves some action and open fire, with one managing to get through two magazines. Is the NYC police force a good employer to go to if you're a high school dropout or something? Sounds like NYC might be better off with vigilante justice, they, at least, might get it right more frequently.

And what's with the US civil rights lobby? The best Al Sharpton can manage is that the Police need to explain their actions... no shit sherlock. He sounds like he might have enough brains to join NYPD.

I pity the investigators that have to try to make sense of this with Al Sharpton breathing down their necks. I hope that appropriate action is taken. I neither want unhinged cops on the loose nor decent cops scapegoated because of tragic circumstances. This is going to be messy. :(

This paper has further details. Doesn't sound too disreputable. I don't live in NYC, so I wouldn't really know.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/am-shooting1126,0,793244.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

This is going to be messy. :(

No, not really. If the victims weren't influential or had powerful connections, the investigation will muddle along for a while until the public loses interests, and then they'll be acquitted.

You see, we dont have this problem in England. Our police are unarmed so we always manage to find a peaceful sollution, well, most of the time

There are armed units in England dont forget and they've had their fair share of mistakes

You see, we dont have this problem in England. Our police are unarmed so we always manage to find a peaceful sollution, well, most of the time

Two words: Chair leg.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/25/nyc.shooting.ap/index.html

It seems there is something wrong with and in USAmerica.

Obviously, if you are too crazy to become a military grunt, you become a policeman.


"The car struck an undercover cop in the shin."
HOW?! Few cars are low enough to the ground to drive by somebody and graze their shin and you have to be pretty fucking dumb not to fucking move. People are just a bit more maneuverable than cars, especially when there are only 4 places on a car that you can get hit in the shin with and not be completely run the fuck over. Then there was a car accident of some unmentioned degree in which the officers decided to close their eyes and unload a clip each into a car.

Another questionable cop shooting.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508559


Still on the front page too.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508559

Presumably this is one of the new methods they were instructing the Iraqi cops in.

they saw him leave a strip club and followed him and killed him on his wedding day?

he was at a strip club on his wedding day?

interesting........


anyway, yeah, I don't have enough details to say what really happened but shooting that much is.......dangerous.

?? That thread is labeled " NY Police prevents fire fight".
That is not actually what happened. The police in fact started a fire fight. So how could I know that thread would be about this issue?

?? That thread is labeled " NY Police prevents fire fight".
That is not actually what happened. The police in fact started a fire fight. So how could I know that thread would be about this issue?

You could not, but I think the mods shall, and probably should either merge or erase the thread.

?? That thread is labeled " NY Police prevents fire fight".
That is not actually what happened. The police in fact started a fire fight. So how could I know that thread would be about this issue?

By reading it?

?? That thread is labeled " NY Police prevents fire fight".
That is not actually what happened. The police in fact started a fire fight. So how could I know that thread would be about this issue?

Are you 100% sure that it didn't happen that way? Were you there?

they saw him leave a strip club and followed him and killed him on his wedding day?

he was at a strip club on his wedding day?

interesting........


anyway, yeah, I don't have enough details to say what really happened but shooting that much is.......dangerous.


The 'Stag night', I would imagine......

Presumably this is one of the new methods they were instructing the Iraqi cops in.

I don't even think Evil Knievel could make that leap between this incident and the war in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Obviously, if you are too crazy to become a military grunt, you become a policeman.

I happen to have family members that are police officers, and all of them are sane and rational. Don't think that the actions of a few are representative of all.

My take on this story is this: If the police officers are found guilty (in a court of law, not the court of public opinion) of wrong-doing, then they should be punished in the confines of the law. Also, my condolences go out to the families of all the involved parties, and hope that the truth is revealed quickly.

I don't feel that anybody including the media can accurately know what really happened. Until you are 100% sure, you shouldn't judge the police, question them Yes. We all know that the media feeds off of false reportings, over exaggerations/fantasies, etc...

I would suggest to wait for the completion of the internal investigation is finished, then decide. Don't crucify the NYPD until all or most of the facts are on the table.

You see, we dont have this problem in England. Our police are unarmed so we always manage to find a peaceful sollution, well, most of the time

Wasn't there a case of an unarmed Brazilian?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1535226,00.html

Wasn't there a case of an unarmed Brazilian?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1535226,00.html

Spitzville did say most of the time.

I don't feel that anybody including the media can accurately know what really happened. Until you are 100% sure, you shouldn't judge the police, question them Yes. We all know that the media feeds off of false reportings, over exaggerations/fantasies, etc...

I would suggest to wait for the completion of the internal investigation is finished, then decide. Don't crucify the NYPD until all or most of the facts are on the table.

Agreed

?? That thread is labeled " NY Police prevents fire fight".
That is not actually what happened. The police in fact started a fire fight. So how could I know that thread would be about this issue?

Actually the police appear to be claiming they were acting to prevent a fire fight.


Though none of the men shot at actually had guns.....

Spitzville did say most of the time.

I understand that he said "most of the time." at the end of his post. However, the very beginning states that England doesn't have this problem and that the authority are "unarmed". Then his post continues to say that England resolves these problems peacefully "always" and then states, "most of the time." Which is it?

First, if the British's Law Enforcement are unarmed, How did the young innocent Brazilian die? Perhaps by unarmed British authorities?

Secondly, it is either "always" peaceful, or "most of the time" peaceful. You can't have it both ways and those two phrases don't make any sense in the same sentence.

My earlier post is well in line and justified to completely rebuke and to correct the actuallity of certain events and questioning the "unarmed" British authority. Also to question the "always" and "most of the time" sections too.

Are you 100% sure that it didn't happen that way? Were you there?

You can't prevent a firefight when the prevented never had guns to begin with. As was reported.

the trouble with britain is, if anyone gets shot by the police, there has to be a massive enquiry. this would make SO19 officers scared to fire, in case they are wrong. if they are, then they'll be prosecuted. [btw, in the brazilian case, they were trained armed policemen. theres only a few units of them. Most bobbys dont have guns] oh, and its 'most of the time'

the trouble with britain is, if anyone gets shot by the police, there has to be a massive enquiry. this would make SO19 officers scared to fire, in case they are wrong. if they are, then they'll be prosecuted. [btw, in the brazilian case, they were trained armed policemen. theres only a few units of them. Most bobbys dont have guns] oh, and its 'most of the time'

Thank you for the facts. I was unaware that a lot (Not All) of your police force don't carry guns.

the trouble with britain is, if anyone gets shot by the police, there has to be a massive enquiry. this would make SO19 officers scared to fire, in case they are wrong. if they are, then they'll be prosecuted. [btw, in the brazilian case, they were trained armed policemen. theres only a few units of them. Most bobbys dont have guns] oh, and its 'most of the time'

What would you prefer?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Police fired 50 rounds Saturday at a car of unarmed men leaving a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day in a shooting that drew a furious outcry from family members and community leaders.

The spray of bullets hit the car 21 times, after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would not say if the collisions were what prompted police to open fire.

I think the real question is "how can you miss a car that's in ramming range?"

I think the real question is "how can you miss a car that's in ramming range?"

And probably not moving.

" The shooting drew angry protests from family members and the Rev. Al Sharpton. "

As soon as I saw the bit I did of it on TV and saw the name Sean Bell .. I was like o dear .. I bet they were black. Shits gonna hit the fan now.

the trouble with britain is, if anyone gets shot by the police, there has to be a massive enquiry. this would make SO19 officers scared to fire, in case they are wrong. if they are, then they'll be prosecuted. [btw, in the brazilian case, they were trained armed policemen. theres only a few units of them. Most bobbys dont have guns] oh, and its 'most of the time'


In fairness they were told that the Brazillian was the one to shoot and were directed to do so. It was the unarmed cops who wrongly identified him that made the fuck up.

As regards the other incident, it should prove illuminating if theres CCTV footage.

While we're on the subject of police forces killing people saw this the other day:
Brazilian police 'execute thousands'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4463010.stm

No, not really. If the victims weren't influential or had powerful connections, the investigation will muddle along for a while until the public loses interests, and then they'll be acquitted.

Cynical yet accurate depictions of local politics make Jesus cry. :(

The officers’ shots struck the men’s car 21 times after it rammed into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified.

He said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in 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, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/

...so the groom's car struck a cop and a police vehicle, then fled the scene.

So what's the problem?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/

...so the groom's car struck a cop and a police vehicle, then fled the scene.

So what's the problem?

I doubt it fled anywhere with a critical condition driver and 21 bullet holes.

...so the groom's car struck a cop and a police vehicle, then fled the scene.

So what's the problem?

first, they didnt know they were cops and second 50 bullets at someone who simply failed to stop at the scence of an accident?

get real

first, they didnt know they were cops and second 50 bullets at someone who simply failed to stop at the scence of an accident?

get real

Moreover, one cop emptied two clips.

Moreover, one cop emptied two clips.

So he fired until his gun was empty, stopped, reloaded, and fired until it was empty again

despite the fact that they were not being fired upon by the suspect

this is ridiculous.

first that UCLA bullshit with the tazer, and now this? If I were an officer, I'd be embarrassed by the actions of my colleagues.

oh goody, the liberal media is covering another story about cops are teh 3vil!!1 yay. :rolleyes:

oh goody, the liberal media is covering another story about cops are teh 3vil!!1 yay. :rolleyes:

You explain why a cop unloaded two clips into suspects not returning fire or obviously armed.

oh goody, the liberal media is covering another story about cops are teh 3vil!!1 yay. :rolleyes:

How dare those 3bil liberuls! the cops should be able to shoot whoever they want whenever they want.

If they don't, the terrorists win!:rolleyes:

" The shooting drew angry protests from family members and the Rev. Al Sharpton. "

As soon as I saw the bit I did of it on TV and saw the name Sean Bell .. I was like o dear .. I bet they were black. Shits gonna hit the fan now.

I know. If they were white, Mr. Sharpton wouldn't give a shi-ite. But that's not the issue at hand.

Not only did the one officer take the time to reload in order to empty two clips, he single handedly fired more than half of all shots.
Oh yeah, not suspicious at all.

You explain why a cop unloaded two clips into suspects not returning fire or obviously armed.

I can't really answer that but I'm sure as hell am not going to jump to conclusions that the cop did anything wrong until all the facts are in.

I can't really answer that but I'm sure as hell am not going to jump to conclusions that the cop did anything wrong until all the facts are in.
Two separate clips emptied into a car of unarmed men by one officer.
Excessive force at the very least.

In fairness they were told that the Brazillian was the one to shoot and were directed to do so. It was the unarmed cops who wrongly identified him that made the fuck up.

As so many on this board like to point out, following orders is not an excuse, nor is bad intelligence, regardless of the fact I may disagree with the merits of those statements.

As for the cops, from the looks of it, they probably fucked up, but I'm with King Bodacious and Gun Manufacturers; don't crucify the entire department for the actions of a few dumb cops, and don't crucify the cops until ALL of the information is available to prove they fucked up.

You explain why a cop unloaded two clips into suspects not returning fire or obviously armed.

It's very simple really. Normal people *stop* when the police turn those flashy lights on. They didn't.

I can't really answer that but I'm sure as hell am not going to jump to conclusions that the cop did anything wrong until all the facts are in.

well, if thinking that the cop did something wrong is 'jumping to conclusions', then why do you assume that the suspect did anything wrong?

that's "jumping to conclusions" just as much as assuming that the police did something wrong.


I'm not going to play judge and jury to the suspect, but in my mind, the police should be held to a higher standard than shooting at an unarmed man. I will not pay murderers with my tax dollars.

Two separate clips emptied into a car of unarmed men by one officer.
Excessive force at the very least.

Do you actually think that the police just emptied two clips in 10 seconds, or that they kept firing because the car kept moving after fleeing a crime scene? :rolleyes:

first, they didnt know they were cops and second 50 bullets at someone who simply failed to stop at the scence of an accident?

get real

If you hit someone with a vehicle and then hit a vehicle and don't stop... and then continue to NOT stop after the flashy lights go on and bullets have been fired, you can expect to keep being shot at.

[I]
<SNIP>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/

...so the groom's car struck a cop and a police vehicle, then fled the scene.

So what's the problem?


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
...it doesn't get much more centrist than this.



Actually, it doesn't get more centrist than this...

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

It's very simple really. Normal people *stop* when the police turn those flashy lights on. They didn't.
Bet you can't show where a marked police car or uniformed policeman approached them.

well, if thinking that the cop did something wrong is 'jumping to conclusions', then why do you assume that the suspect did anything wrong?



Because I trust the words and actions of police(honest, brave members of society) over those of criminals(society's cancer)

Actually, it doesn't get more centrist than this...

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

Thanks! It's taken nearly two years to find someone else with similar scores! :)
Congrats, you are much.

Because I trust the words and actions of police(honest, brave members of society) over those of criminals(society's cancer)

Hypocrite senses tingling, agh, hypocrite senses overwhelming other senses, going into convulsssidsodfndsn z/

Hypocrite senses tingling, agh, hypocrite senses overwhelming other senses, going into convulsssidsodfndsn z/

How am I a hypocrite?

How am I a hypocrite?
How do you know they are criminals? Because cops fired on them? Why doesn't that make the cops criminals? Because they are cops? That's circular reasoning skippy.

How do you know they are criminals? Because cops fired on them? Why doesn't that make the cops criminals? Because they are cops? That's circular reasoning skippy.

Whats that flying over your head?




Oh that would be my point, look at it go.

Whats that flying over your head?




Oh that would be my point, look at it go.

What's the point? That you are using circular logic to rationalize a cop gunning down innocent people? Already established.

Bet you can't show where a marked police car or uniformed policeman approached them.

Bet I don't care, either. If they were innocent of everything, why run?

Your argument is simply that too many rounds were fired in your opinion. To me, that pales to the fact that they ran after hitting someone with a vehicle, hitting a police vehicle, and kept running when confronted by police. AND there may have been a 4th man in the car that fled on foot. Never mind that the club they were in had a "chronic history of narcotics, prostitution and weapons complaints."

Maybe they're innocent, maybe they're not. But they ran... and that cause the incident.

Because I trust the words and actions of police(honest, brave members of society) over those of criminals(society's cancer)

and if the police say so, it must be true?

if that's the case, why do we even need trials?

after all, the police decided he was guilty enough to be shot, so apparently they know better than the entire US legal system.

or was it self defense? were the police being shot at?

Bet I don't care, either. If they were innocent of everything, why run?
Ooh, did anyone else catch that? His whole defense of the police centered around the suspects running from uniformed cops in marked police cars with flashing lights on. Soon as some one questions this unfounded assertion, he switches to his own circular logic. How do you know they were running? Because they tried to drive off in a car? They didn't know there were cops there so they wouldn't have ran from them. I await you next bs excuse.

Your argument is simply that too many rounds were fired in your opinion.
Yes, that is my argument. 50 round were fired, of which less than half hit a either non-moving or slow-moving car and of which half or more were fired by a single officer.

kept running when confronted by police.
Bet you can't show where the police announced themselves as police.

AND there may have been a 4th man in the car that fled on foot.
May? I'm sure that will hold up in any sort of legal inquiry.

Never mind that the club they were in had a "chronic history of narcotics, prostitution and weapons complaints."
A club is three people?

Because I trust the words and actions of police(honest, brave members of society) over those of criminals(society's cancer)

are you alledging the guys killed was were criminals?

im always amused by the right wing law and order hang em and flog em types.

assume that the victim of police violence by definition deserved it but when the cops fuck up, we have to wait for all the facts.

servile hypocricy.

Bet I don't care, either. If they were innocent of everything, why run?

Uh, because people in regular street clothes started firing guns at them. Would you stop if random people, not in any way identified as police officers, started shooting at you? Or would you run the fuck away?

How can anyone trust these trigger happy cops anymore? They have been shooting down innocent young males one too many now and try distorting the truth by further attacking the dead victims. What's even worse, corrupt higher-ups back the false statements made by these cops and prevent them from doing their jail time. If these cops are scared of black folks then don't post them in Queens!!! coward cops are a threat to society, cause they shoot first without any rationalization. It's a whole system of shoot first and then find out if these blacks got guns and I'm sick of this. If this doesn't change then a lot of communities might not be so welcoming to coppers.

Although it is too early to draw conclusions about this morning's shootings ... we know that the NYPD officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement.

Minority Report, anyone?

Uh, because people in regular street clothes started firing guns at them. Would you stop if random people, not in any way identified as police officers, started shooting at you? Or would you run the fuck away?

Ah yes. Because police just start shooting without yelling out "stop, police" all the time. And they never pulled out any badges, lit the lights, hit the siren or anything.

According to the news, we don't know what exactly happened. But throwing stuff around like this and me throwing it back only takes up whitespace, eh?

Ah yes. Because police just start shooting without yelling out "stop, police" all the time. And they never pulled out any badges, lit the lights, hit the siren or anything.

According to the news, we don't know what exactly happened. But throwing stuff around like this and me throwing it back only takes up whitespace, eh?

"According to the news"? I don't think you even read the news or you would have noticed the part where it said it is unknown whether they announced themselves as police or not and that everyone was in plain-clothes and there were no marked cars or uniformed officers. If you want to live in a fantasy world, at least live in one that is in agreeance with the article.

Ooh, did anyone else catch that? His whole defense of the police centered around the suspects running from uniformed cops in marked police cars with flashing lights on. Soon as some one questions this unfounded assertion, he switches to his own circular logic. How do you know they were running? Because they tried to drive off in a car? They didn't know there were cops there so they wouldn't have ran from them. I await you next bs excuse.

What circular logic? We *don't* know what happened. You or I can't prove what was done (lights, ID, too many shots fired, knowing they were or were not cops, et al). So please dispense with the bull: or can you only dish it out?

Yes, that is my argument. 50 round were fired, of which less than half hit a either non-moving or slow-moving car and of which half or more were fired by a single officer.

Have you ever fired a gun? At a live target? In the dark?

Bet you can't show where the police announced themselves as police.
Bet I still don't care. You seem hell bent on denying the benefit of the doubt to the police, which is comical given your wanting to give it to the guys whom were shot.

May? I'm sure that will hold up in any sort of legal inquiry.

Yes, I'm sure the inquiry will find out if there was one or not. They tend to figure these sort of things out. Otherwise bad things like LA riots happen.

A club is three people?
Were the three people in the club? Yes.
Could they have gotten a weapon there? Yes.
Was there a verbal dispute there? Yes.
Was there a reference of a gun in front of an officer? Yes.

BTW, if you're in a bar that gets raided, you need to show ID to prove your legal. Until then, you're suspect. If you're in a club that may be shut down because of known illegal activity, you're likewise suspect. It's called probable cause, you may want to read up on it. :rolleyes:

"According to the news"? I don't think you even read the news or you would have noticed the part where it said it is unknown whether they announced themselves as police or not and that everyone was in plain-clothes and there were no marked cars or uniformed officers. If you want to live in a fantasy world, at least live in one that is in agreeance with the article.

Ahem. I was pointing out that the poster assumed that the cops just started shooting without saying anything.

Did you read *my post*?!? I clearly said we DON'T know if they ID'd themselves or not!! :rolleyes:

What circular logic? We *don't* know what happened. You or I can't prove what was done (lights, ID, too many shots fired, knowing they were or were not cops, et al). So please dispense with the bull: or can you only dish it out?
We know what is in the articles, and unlike yourself who is just making up shit you think happened, I am going with the article.s

Have you ever fired a gun? At a live target? In the dark?
No, but I know how big a car is.


Bet I still don't care.
Because if you cared you would have to acknowledge you are making up shit and are wrong.


Was there a reference of a gun in front of an officer? Yes.
According to the officer.

BTW, if you're in a bar that gets raided, you need to show ID to prove your legal. Until then, you're suspect. If you're in a club that may be shut down because of known illegal activity, you're likewise suspect. It's called probable cause, you may want to read up on it. :rolleyes:
I would read up on it but after reading your previous statements, I will assume you are wrong unless you can prove otherwise.


Ahem. I was pointing out that the poster assumed that the cops just started shooting without saying anything.
Read the article.

Tell you what Markreich, I'll assume you're right.
But EVEN IF they got a gun in that club,
And EVEN IF they hit a police car,
And EVEN IF they ran knowing it was the police,
an unregistered firearm and a hit and run do not justify opening fire even if there were three escaped convicts in the car.
Just get in the police car and chase them down for fuck's sake, it's not that hard.

Tell you what Markreich, I'll assume you're right.
But EVEN IF they got a gun in that club,
And EVEN IF they hit a police car,
And EVEN IF they ran knowing it was the police,
an unregistered firearm and a hit and run do not justify opening fire even if there were three escaped convicts in the car.
Just get in the police car and chase them down for fuck's sake, it's not that hard.

Agreed. What did they think the guys were going to do, set off a bomb? Nothing justifies that sort of response, short of a clear and definite threat to someone's life.

Good thing we're DEFINATLY getting the whole story without a shred of doubt!

:rolleyes:

as terrible as i feel for the groom and his family. apparently the police report says that the guys in the car hit an undercover cop then rammed an undercover van...generally vehicular manslaughter merits a few shot being fired. but i'm not entirely sure so thats a little bit of opinion mixed with fact...we'll see more of what happens later.

as terrible as i feel for the groom and his family. apparently the police report says that the guys in the car hit an undercover cop then rammed an undercover van...generally vehicular manslaughter merits a few shot being fired. but i'm not entirely sure so thats a little bit of opinion mixed with fact...we'll see more of what happens later.

The person hit wasn't killed, in fact he had an "abrasion." Now I may be wrong but I'm sure an abrasion isn't exactly serious.

Did you read *my post*?!? I clearly said we DON'T know if they ID'd themselves or not!! :rolleyes:

It's very simple really. Normal people *stop* when the police turn those flashy lights on. They didn't.

You seem pretty confident that the people knew it was the cops unloading 50 rounds into their car. We don't know if they identified themselves or not. Like you said.

Ah yes. Because police just start shooting without yelling out "stop, police" all the time. And they never pulled out any badges, lit the lights, hit the siren or anything.

Again, with the assumptions. I don't even know why you're attacking my post, I'm simply pointing out why one might reasonably expect these people to NOT stop when their being fired at by plain clothes officers. You seemed willing to assume their guilt based on the fact that they fled the cops. I merely pointed out why they might have fled the cops.

?? That thread is labeled " NY Police prevents fire fight".
That is not actually what happened. The police in fact started a fire fight. So how could I know that thread would be about this issue?
Actually they neither averted nor started a fire fight. When only one side is armed and does all the shooting, that's more accurately described as an attack and (in the case of death) outright slaughter. A fire fight suggests two (or more) armed sides both taking shots. Since the victims were unarmed, that's clearly not the case here.

every police officer involved should be executed. End of story.

Because I trust the words and actions of police(honest, brave members of society) over those of criminals(society's cancer)
Not that you'd be one to jump to conclusions or anything.....:rolleyes:

You should know that some police are not only not honest brave members of society but have actually been found guilty of crimes...yes it's actually possible for someone to be both a police officer and a criminal. Apparently there is no magical anti-criminal fairy dust sprinkled over officers when they are given their badge and uniform....Who'd a thunk huh?

It's very simple really. Normal people *stop* when the police turn those flashy lights on. They didn't.
What flashing lights?
The police officers themselves cannot confirm that the shooters identified themselves as police, you'd think if other officers didnt notice flashing lights, A) it's unreasonable to expect the victims would have, and B) there probably were none. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that flashing lights occured, yet you clearly phrase your post as though it were a fact that there were such lights. You later when challenged on your made up BS start in at other posters for assuming things. At least their assumptions are consistent with the article and reported facts.

Uh, because people in regular street clothes started firing guns at them. Would you stop if random people, not in any way identified as police officers, started shooting at you? Or would you run the fuck away?
I'd be out of there as quick as my bullet ridden legs would carry me, but then I'm not suicidal, perhaps the poster you responded to is.

Ah yes. Because police just start shooting without yelling out "stop, police" all the time. And they never pulled out any badges, lit the lights, hit the siren or anything.

According to the news, we don't know what exactly happened. But throwing stuff around like this and me throwing it back only takes up whitespace, eh?
Unlike you, Police Commissioner Kelly certainly doesnt dismiss the possiblity out of hand and I'd gather he knows a fair bit more about it than you do. If they did identify themselves, you'd think other police at the scene would have noticed, yet
It was unclear whether the shooters had identified themselves as police,
Quote from Commission Kelly.
I'm thinking if other police officers, trained to be observant didnt notice the identification, it probably wasnt necessarily apparent to the confused driver and his passangers if such identification occurred.

New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg said police acted to prevent an incident.

The irony of that...wherever the suspects/victims are buried is going to be profitable lead mine. Thats how much lead they pumped into the poor guy.

New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg said police acted to prevent an incident.

The irony of that...wherever the suspects/victims are buried is going to be profitable lead mine. Thats how much lead they pumped into the poor guy.

they might as well mine the whole street block where the shots were fired... how many of the 50 actually hit the vehicle? i believe witness counts peg it somewhere in the 20s...

its sad. even if they hit the damn car 29 times, thats still less than a 60% hit percentage... not good.

maybe our police force should be comprised of 12-year old children trained by nothing but the Grand Theft Auto series! (stern glance towards Jack Thompson)

"The car struck an undercover cop in the shin."
HOW?!

I don't know but from the looks of things they followed him, then jumped out in front of his car as it was moving, I can easily see him being temporarily confused by this and swerving into a parked van as a result.

they might as well mine the whole street block where the shots were fired... how many of the 50 actually hit the vehicle? i believe witness counts peg it somewhere in the 20s...

its sad. even if they hit the damn car 29 times, thats still less than a 60% hit percentage... not good.

maybe our police force should be comprised of 12-year old children trained by nothing but the Grand Theft Auto series! (stern glance towards Jack Thompson)
Actually I understand that 21 hit the vehicle, so your assessment is (despite presenting a dismal picture), over-generous.

Actually I understand that 21 hit the vehicle, so your assessment is (despite presenting a dismal picture), over-generous.

yeah... isnt that sad?

i mean, honestly... these people actually train to use their firearms! i can group three shots with an old Boy Scout (mind you, this is 10 years ago) .20 caliber rifle into the size of a quarter at 50 yards and these people cant shoot a car with half of their bullets.

i heard why police officers discharge their magazines in a firefight by a firearms instructor, but i cant remember why now...

I don't know but from the looks of things they followed him, then jumped out in front of his car as it was moving, I can easily see him being temporarily confused by this and swerving into a parked van as a result.
Yeah, and in an area where nightclubs are notorious for being havens for prostitutes, gun-dealers and drug-dealers (according to the police), after an altercation, someone jumps in front of your car and another car tries to pin you in, with no visible indication that these are law enforcement officers rather than gang-bangers, you'd have to be insane or suicidal to not try to high-tail it out of there.

When did it stop being the duty of police to put themselves on the line for the public they serve and start to be the duty of the public to put themselves on the line for the police? The onus is on the police to protect the public not their own arses at the cost of the lives of any innocent person who may or may not present a threat. When did the police become no better than vigilantees who happen to have badges and tax payer funding?

Yeah, and in an area where nightclubs are notorious for being havens for prostitutes, gun-dealers and drug-dealers (according to the police), after an altercation, someone jumps in front of your car and another car tries to pin you in, with no visible indication that these are law enforcement officers rather than gang-bangers, you'd have to be insane or suicidal to not try to high-tail it out of there.

When did it stop being the duty of police to put themselves on the line for the public they serve and start to be the duty of the public to put themselves on the line for the police? The onus is on the police to protect the public not their own arses at the cost of the lives of any innocent person who may or may not present a threat. When did the police become no better than vigilantees who happen to have badges and tax payer funding?

its just one group of police officers that chose to go beyond the power of their position.

there are hundreds of law enforcers out there that do a job that would get you to argue to the contrary.

its just one group of police officers that chose to go beyond the power of their position.

there are hundreds of law enforcers out there that do a job that would get you to argue to the contrary.
Actually it is the prevailant attitude that the police ought to not be expected (when in doubt) to ensure that they do not hurt innocent parties that I am concerned with. Take the tasor incident in the library the other week and the number of people who stated that since the police couldnt be expected to know the person was definately not dangerous that it was reasonable to treat the person as though they were dangerous.

There now exists a definate attitude that the police have the right to ensure their own safety at risk to potentially innocent members of the public. That reduces them to no more than funded vigilantees rather than law and peace enforcement officers.

Actually it is the prevailant attitude that the police ought to not be expected (when in doubt) to ensure that they do not hurt innocent parties that I am concerned with. Take the tasor incident in the library the other week and the number of people who stated that since the police couldnt be expected to know the person was definately not dangerous that it was reasonable to treat the person as though they were dangerous.

There now exists a definate attitude that the police have the right to ensure their own safety at risk to potentially innocent members of the public. That reduces them to no more than funded vigilantees rather than law and peace enforcement officers.

As far as the iranian UCLA kid goes, I don't see how they can say the cops percieved any danger. I mean laying down on the ground, no, not percieving the cops as being in danger from that. Saying don't touch me, yelling or not, not percieving danger there either.

And I know what you are talking about, I've lived in rough ghetto-ish neighborhoods before. However I don't give a shit if they were in a safe neighborhood where no crime ever takes place, the cop was both stupid and in the wrong for ever jumping out in front of a car. I could understand if he had confirmed that all people withing were known serial killers, but he was going with his gut, and on something much less serious.

As far as the iranian UCLA kid goes, I don't see how they can say the cops percieved any danger. I mean laying down on the ground, no, not percieving the cops as being in danger from that. Saying don't touch me, yelling or not, not percieving danger there either.
Aha, but if you dreg up the thread here on NSG, you'll find people stating that the police were justified because they didnt know the student wasnt a danger.

And I know what you are talking about, I've lived in rough ghetto-ish neighborhoods before. However I don't give a shit if they were in a safe neighborhood where no crime ever takes place, the cop was both stupid and in the wrong for ever jumping out in front of a car. I could understand if he had confirmed that all people withing were known serial killers, but he was going with his gut, and on something much less serious.
Yes, but if the public have an expectation that when police perceive either that they are dealing with criminals or that their lives are in danger, that the police ought to take a 'stop at nothing' and 'shoot first, figure out what is going on later' attitude, then it's silly to expect that police will behave contrary to public expectations.
I agree police ought to understand and act as though the protection of the public is their primary concern (after all that's what they signed up for), but if the public do not demand this, then they will not get it.

To a large extent I believe that problems such as this are at least in part the responsiblity of the public who do not demand higher standards and who too often want to excuse the officers concerned rather than examine the structural aspects of law enforcement and the social attitudes that facilitate the problems. That doesnt mean bagging the officers concerned, after all I expect few police officers would be at all 'ok' with living the rest of their lives knowing they slaughtered an innocent person.

We need to keep standards for our law enforcement officers and agencies very high, to protect both the public and the officers who sign up because they want to be a public asset, not a public liability.

this was funny, like a bibel-black tyrant-funny.

Aha, but if you dreg up the thread here on NSG, you'll find people stating that the police were justified because they didnt know the student wasnt a danger.

I know, I'm argueing with an idiot on newgrounds right now about it. He actually feels that tasering the kid after he was handcuffed is justified. Worse, he thinks the fact that he wrote a fake transcript of the incident means he is right, especially since I wasn't stupid enough to retaliate in kind.

Yes, but if the public have an expectation that when police perceive either that they are dealing with criminals or that their lives are in danger, that the police ought to take a 'stop at nothing' and 'shoot first, figure out what is going on later' attitude, then it's silly to expect that police will behave contrary to public expectations.
I agree police ought to understand and act as though the protection of the public is their primary concern (after all that's what they signed up for), but if the public do not demand this, then they will not get it.

To a large extent I believe that problems such as this are at least in part the responsiblity of the public who do not demand higher standards and who too often want to excuse the officers concerned rather than examine the structural aspects of law enforcement and the social attitudes that facilitate the problems. That doesnt mean bagging the officers concerned, after all I expect few police officers would be at all 'ok' with living the rest of their lives knowing they slaughtered an innocent person.

We need to keep standards for our law enforcement officers and agencies very high, to protect both the public and the officers who sign up because they want to be a public asset, not a public liability.

I can understand why not. If you're seen by officers at city hall rallying against something the police did, and it comes down on them, how might the police treat you if they recognize you/your car? Might they stop you over, break your tail-light, and give you a citation for a broken tail-light? Might they decide you were going 90 in a 20 when you weren't? Or falsely arrest you and take you to a cell with somebody who's racist against you? Corrupt cops are known to do that.

I know, I'm argueing with an idiot on newgrounds right now about it. He actually feels that tasering the kid after he was handcuffed is justified. Worse, he thinks the fact that he wrote a fake transcript of the incident means he is right, especially since I wasn't stupid enough to retaliate in kind.
Well if you are not prepared to resort to fiction in order to prove your point, just how strong is that point....?:p
I've encountered your type before, resorting to facts and logic. That's no way to conduct yourself (at least not on the internet).

I can understand why not. If you're seen by officers at city hall rallying against something the police did, and it comes down on them, how might the police treat you if they recognize you/your car? Might they stop you over, break your tail-light, and give you a citation for a broken tail-light? Might they decide you were going 90 in a 20 when you weren't? Or falsely arrest you and take you to a cell with somebody who's racist against you? Corrupt cops are known to do that.
The police need to first have the ability to break the law without being hauled over the coals for it. Maintain high standards and the liklihood of police becoming corrupt is lowered.
It's a complex issue, partly about how we expect police to conduct themselves, what we will and will not allow, partly about the laws we call on them to enforce, and partly about the tasks we ask them to perform (I believe for instance that transfering traffic enforcement from a seperate agency to the police has contributed to problems in my country).

This is consequence of all this small weapons policies. Almost half of the bullets went astray, with great peril to the average innocent bystander. If the police wants to stop a car, they should fire a laser-guided missile!;)

I know, I'm argueing with an idiot on newgrounds right now about it. He actually feels that tasering the kid after he was handcuffed is justified. Worse, he thinks the fact that he wrote a fake transcript of the incident means he is right, especially since I wasn't stupid enough to retaliate in kind.

You should link us so we can show up and spam mindlessly in your favour.

You should link us so we can show up and spam mindlessly in your favour.

Or post the link on 4chan /b/

Those police should be in a shit load of trouble. They should have to prove that their actions prevented a very serious crime (or set of crimes) from happening, and that their actions were in the public interest. Otherwise, the relevant officers and the police force should be proscecuted.



They should have to, and they should be. However, it will likely never happen. :headbang:

This is consequence of all this small weapons policies. Almost half of the bullets went astray, with great peril to the average innocent bystander. If the police wants to stop a car, they should fire a laser-guided missile!;)

With the accuracy of the cops, that probably would have been safer to bystanders.

This is consequence of all this small weapons policies. Almost half of the bullets went astray, with great peril to the average innocent bystander. If the police wants to stop a car, they should fire a laser-guided missile!;)

Nah, they would have taken out the chinese embassy instead...
Tac Nuke is the only solution! :gundge:

Cynical yet accurate depictions of local politics make Jesus cry. :(

I am the anti-LG. :p

Because I trust the words and actions of police(honest, brave members of society)

Come to where I live. You would find it hard to distinguish police from criminals. Other than the fact that the former wear uniforms half the time.

whats the problem here? i think cops should be able to shoot anyone, anytime, anywhere... after all, they are PROTECTING us, right?.... right?

whats the problem here? i think cops should be able to shoot anyone, anytime, anywhere... after all, they are PROTECTING us, right?.... right?

Teeheehee, you made a funny. Yay!

Mayor admits 'excessive force' used

New York's mayor has admitted it appeared "excessive force" was used when a young groom was gunned down by police in a hail of bullets on his wedding day. Black community leaders called on Michael Bloomberg and police commissioner Ray Kelly to show "moral outrage" as they met the officials in the aftermath of Sean Bell's death at the weekend after his stag night. Mr Bloomberg said he was "deeply disturbed" by the incident, which left two of the 23-year-old's friends injured, adding that it was "unacceptable or inexplicable" to him how officers could have unleashed 50 shots.


Well that basically said nothing

You should link us so we can show up and spam mindlessly in your favour.

You'd have to mindlessly spam forums all over the net. Besides it seems he's gone anyway.