If only there was this much outrage and mobilization by community leaders, the public, and politicians when the much more common incident of a minority youth shooting another minority youth occurs. Yeah, the police suck, yet I bet the general public in these communities fear the drug dealers and gang members that their own communities produce more than the police.
No matter how this plays out the neghborhood will still be as shitty as it was before. The criminals must be loving it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
Let’s start a new thread regarding that case.
Been there, done that.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1346557
[/quote]
Then why post it here? It doesn’t strengthen your argument.
What you said in the other post was pretty messed up. You think that the cops should watch the strippers instead of investigating a confrontation where a gun has been mentioned?
“So Bob, should we go outside and see if those 8 guys are going to kill that one guy?”
“Naw, we’ll just stay inside here and watch these girls get naked. Interfering with violence isn’t our job.”
You’re right. Instead of cops interfering with possible homicides, they should sit in strip clubs. I have a feeling that no matter what the police do, some people still won’t be happy.
[quote]NDM wrote:
What you said in the other post was pretty messed up. You think that the cops should watch the strippers instead of investigating a confrontation where a gun has been mentioned?
“So Bob, should we go outside and see if those 8 guys are going to kill that one guy?”
“Naw, we’ll just stay inside here and watch these girls get naked. Interfering with violence isn’t our job.”
You’re right. Instead of cops interfering with possible homicides, they should sit in strip clubs. I have a feeling that no matter what the police do, some people still won’t be happy. [/quote]
Well, they sure didn’t interfere with the homicide that did occur.
[quote]NDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
Let’s start a new thread regarding that case.
Been there, done that.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1346557
Then why post it here? It doesn’t strengthen your argument.
What you said in the other post was pretty messed up. You think that the cops should watch the strippers instead of investigating a confrontation where a gun has been mentioned?
[/quote]
Are you being serious? They were there to investigate the strip club. Maybe they should have continued doing so.
So if a cop is assigned to catch speeders, and he sees a group of people threatening a guy, and then saying “yo go get my gun”, he should “mind his own business” and continue to watch for speeders? Which one should be higher on the priority list? Hmmmm…
Maybe Sean Bell should have minded his own business, and he never would have gotten into this situation in the first place. If he didn’t go outside and try to be some stripper’s hero, he probably wouldn’t be dead right now, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
[quote]NDM wrote:
So if a cop is assigned to catch speeders, and he sees a group of people threatening a guy, and then saying “yo go get my gun”, he should “mind his own business” and continue to watch for speeders? Which one should be higher on the priority list? Hmmmm…
[/quote]
Stop. You are ranting like a lunatic. The undercover cops inside had armed backup outside. The cops on the outside should have made the initial contact with the “subjects”.
[quote]NDM wrote:
So if a cop is assigned to catch speeders, and he sees a group of people threatening a guy, and then saying “yo go get my gun”, he should “mind his own business” and continue to watch for speeders? Which one should be higher on the priority list? Hmmmm…
[/quote]
I get it…you’re joking. You are pretending that you DON’T understand that regardless of any threat made, these guys were LEAVING and NO PUNCHES WERE THROWN. If they were going to jump in, wouldn’t the correct time have been…oh, I don’t know…WHILE THERE WAS A THREAT?
Yep, you sure are one funny comedian. Excuse me while I guffaw.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Stop. You are ranting like a lunatic. The undercover cops inside had armed backup outside. The cops on the outside should have made the initial contact with the “subjects”.
[/quote]
Malo, shut up. Ok!!! You’re making too much sense!
[quote]NDM wrote:
So if a cop is assigned to catch speeders, and he sees a group of people threatening a guy, and then saying “yo go get my gun”, he should “mind his own business” and continue to watch for speeders? Which one should be higher on the priority list? Hmmmm…
[/quote]
He could either:
a. figure the guy was just a jerk and mind his own business because nothing happened and nothing was likely to happen.
b. pull in behind him and hit the lights to pull him over and ask if he can search his vehicle.
c. follow him and all of his buddies around and tap their phones for the next 6 months to see if he really has a gun.
d. have a bunch of “rough characters” (undercover officers) surround him in the street and then burn him down mercilessly when he “resists arrest” (tries to escape).
e. shoot him in the head immediately to protect all of the innocent people.
f. give him a job at the PD where his activities would be OK because he has a tough job to do.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
NDM wrote:
So if a cop is assigned to catch speeders, and he sees a group of people threatening a guy, and then saying “yo go get my gun”, he should “mind his own business” and continue to watch for speeders? Which one should be higher on the priority list? Hmmmm…
Stop. You are ranting like a lunatic. The undercover cops inside had armed backup outside. The cops on the outside should have made the initial contact with the “subjects”.
[/quote]
You’re a lunatic if you think it’s ok for people to claim to have guns and threaten people’s lives and not expect to be questioned about it. You’re border patrol right? Not really a cop. Not even close. Anyway, if a guy came through whatever border it is that you are at, and he drove right into you, what would you do?
I really don’t give a shit about “oh they shouldn’t have followed him to his car”. The guy could have been arrested for uttering threats. It only went down bad because Bell booked and smoked a cop with his car. If he didn’t drive into the cop, there wouldn’t have been a shooting. Don’t give me some bullshit about “minding their own business” because when the idiot yelled for his gun, it became the cops business.
Yea, they did have armed backup outside. Maybe they were down the block and not waiting by the front door to be inconspicuous. The guy inside also radioed the situation to his backup. Then the group split up into two groups. They probably didn’t know what group did what, so the UC followed them, and then when the backup came, they knew which guys to arrest.
Has this situation been considered?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
So if a cop is assigned to catch speeders, and he sees a group of people threatening a guy, and then saying “yo go get my gun”, he should “mind his own business” and continue to watch for speeders? Which one should be higher on the priority list? Hmmmm…
I get it…you’re joking. You are pretending that you DON’T understand that regardless of any threat made, these guys were LEAVING and NO PUNCHES WERE THROWN. If they were going to jump in, wouldn’t the correct time have been…oh, I don’t know…WHILE THERE WAS A THREAT?
Yep, you sure are one funny comedian. Excuse me while I guffaw.[/quote]
Would you jump in on 8 guys when you don’t have any backup?
I’ve realized something. With a combined post total of nearly 20 000, you really don’t have anything better to do than argue on this website. You will stop at nothing. This is pointless for me. You probably spend every available minute on this website. I can’t compete with that, nor do I want to. I have a life outside of these forums. So, it’s been nice having this little pissing contest. Good luck.
[quote]NDM wrote:
You’re a lunatic if you think it’s ok for people to claim to have guns and threaten people’s lives and not expect to be questioned about it. You’re border patrol right? Not really a cop. Not even close. Anyway, if a guy came through whatever border it is that you are at, and he drove right into you, what would you do? [/quote]
I was a COP for four years prior to becoming a Fed. And what do you know about the Border Patrol that you deem it not even close? Close to what? Because we don’t enforce traffic laws? You don’t have a clue what BP Agent do and with your idiotic examples, you obviously have no clue about anything to do with Law Enforcement.
[quote]
I really don’t give a shit about “oh they shouldn’t have followed him to his car”. The guy could have been arrested for uttering threats. It only went down bad because Bell booked and smoked a cop with his car. If he didn’t drive into the cop, there wouldn’t have been a shooting. Don’t give me some bullshit about “minding their own business” because when the idiot yelled for his gun, it became the cops business. [/quote]
Were threats even made? Somebody booked and a cop was smoked? The officer was bumped and was able to get out of the way. Him being able to get out of the way, ALONE, says he shouldn’t have fired on the vehicle.
Are you quoting me? I never posted anything about “minding their own business”.
[quote]
Yea, they did have armed backup outside. Maybe they were down the block and not waiting by the front door to be inconspicuous. The guy inside also radioed the situation to his backup. Then the group split up into two groups. They probably didn’t know what group did what, so the UC followed them, and then when the backup came, they knew which guys to arrest.
Has this situation been considered?[/quote]
Which group did what? WTF are you talking about? Nobody did anything up to that point. It was all just talk. Talk that could and should have been investigated by other officers.
Sounds like you are insinuating the officers used bad tactics by not being where they should have been? Are you sure you don’t want to re-evaluate your comment?
Your situation won’t be considered because it’s idiotic. Like most of your arguments.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
NDM wrote:
Did you even watch the video? A group of guys claimed to have a weapon, then tried to run down police officers with a vehicle. What do you expect?
First, how does pointing out questionable actions by police constitute “hatred” of the police? Distrust? Yes. Is that somehow not supposed to occur? Do you trust every official with authority over you without question?
I did watch the video. I listened to the speaker for the police department make the statement that no gun was ever seen but that because they mentioned a gun in an altercation (which could have been just talk if this was a fight…I know I have heard similar especially when someone is being ganged up on as a threat), it was assumed that they had a weapon.
They were followed after they left the strip club in a car by an undercover officer. “Undercover officer 1” walked in front of the car as they were pulling out (they didn’t mention why he did this) and was hit by the car. The car then hit a police mini-van. 50 rounds were then fired into the Nissan (from the sounds of things, the attempt by the police was to box the car in considering it was described by the end of that tape that another cop car was coming down the other end of street at the same time the mini-police van pulled in front of the Nissan).
No gun was found. We can argue about how “innocent” these guys were, but the one thing that seems to be fact, is that 50 rounds were fired into a car filled with unarmed men.
“Yo, go get my gun.” was the comment that was overheard by the undercover cop. Based on this, 50 rounds were fired in belief that a gun was present.
50 rounds.
No gun was found.
50 fucking rounds.
I wouldn’t even fault the cops for attempting to pull the guys over after a near fight where a threat was uttered. However, it doesn’t sound like the technique used here to box them in, have one cop out of uniform walk in front of the car and then a mini van pull in front as another car pulls in back went over too well.[/quote]
Well said.
Here are some “facts” from today and yesterday’s New York Post. take them how you like.
-3 of the undercover officers involved in the shooting were minorities
-The undercover officers inside the club were unarmed
-The undercover officer inside the club saw a man(same man believed to have escaped from the car) pat his waistband indicating a bulge where his gun was
-It wasnt until following this man and his friends outside the undercover officer heard another man say he was going to get his gun
-the undercover at that point immediately called for backup grabbed his own gun from another undercover and went to intercept the men in the car
-undercover said he identified himself as police, while the victims say he did not
-undercover fired into car after he was hit, bullets went thru car into the area of the other undercover officers, prompting them to return fire thinking shots were coming from inside the car
-it is police policy to shoot only “3” shots and then evaluate the situation
personally, i think its ridiculous to say that the undercover inside the bar shouldve just ignored what he heard and saw from the victims. Its his duty as an officer to investigate all immeniant threats and to priortize them accordingly. I think a man claiming to have a gun, and the undercover beleiving to see one constitutes a more detailed investigation. As for the officers actions after that, i think its definetely open for debate(as seen in the past 7 pages of posts here), but to say its race related is ridiculous.
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’ve been trained at a high level with defensive pistol use, and the 50 rounds isn’t that disturbing. If they had a right to shoot, the number of rounds is irrelevant. If they had no right to shoot, one round is excessive.
I need to read no further when you start with this. There is nothing false about this statement. Nothing could be truer.
I am starting to change my mind on this. Over 20+ of those 50 shots struck other vehicles and buildings, that is intolerable. At 4am people in Queens are already going to work.
Some say the officers were trying to disable the vehicle or kill the driver before he rammed the Police again - what about the two passengers who were shot 3 and 11 times?
Is it standard procedure to make a premptive strike on the passengers before they can crawl over the body of their dad friend and take control of the vehicle.
The NYPD claims undercover officers can have UP TO 2 drinks, how many did these oficers have.
No one took the time to give the shooters a blood alcohol test, but they found time to handcuff a man who had been shot 11 times to his hospital bed.[/quote]
That could be a problem. while it is true you can shoot a bad guy as many times as needed, the bullets you fire go someplace and hitting innocents is not acceptable. this goes back to the training I had previously mentioned.
I didn’t read all the posts but, all I have to say is, don’t jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.
Before you watch the two attached videos, please read.
Be sure to watch the videos in proper sequence (first #1, then #2). These are videos of an officer-involved shooting. Watch the first video (from the onboard dash cam of the third cruiser involved in the high-speed chase) and make your best determination on whether this is a “good shooting” or not.
Be sure to watch the pertinent part of the video several times.
Once you have made your initial determination, watch video #2 in my next post. This is from the onboard camera of the second cruiser that was involved in the high-speed chase. Does this change your initial perception of events?
Moral of the story: Next time we see video of the police using deadly force on the 6 O’clock news, don’t jump to any conclusions that the officer was not justified in his decision.
Well, that didn’t work.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’ve been trained at a high level with defensive pistol use, and the 50 rounds isn’t that disturbing. If they had a right to shoot, the number of rounds is irrelevant. If they had no right to shoot, one round is excessive.
I need to read no further when you start with this. There is nothing false about this statement. Nothing could be truer.
I am starting to change my mind on this. Over 20+ of those 50 shots struck other vehicles and buildings, that is intolerable. At 4am people in Queens are already going to work.
Some say the officers were trying to disable the vehicle or kill the driver before he rammed the Police again - what about the two passengers who were shot 3 and 11 times?
Is it standard procedure to make a premptive strike on the passengers before they can crawl over the body of their dad friend and take control of the vehicle.
The NYPD claims undercover officers can have UP TO 2 drinks, how many did these oficers have.
No one took the time to give the shooters a blood alcohol test, but they found time to handcuff a man who had been shot 11 times to his hospital bed.
That could be a problem. while it is true you can shoot a bad guy as many times as needed, the bullets you fire go someplace and hitting innocents is not acceptable. this goes back to the training I had previously mentioned.
[/quote]
Unfortunately with a 9mm you often have to shoot a lot. Small, high velocity bullet. Barely enough gun.