NYPD's Finest?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]david dunne wrote:
You dont agree that played a role pga?

Tell me please - would YOU have tried to run over a guy with a badge around his neck in front of your car screaming Freeze Police??

If no - then you and your friends in your bmw would have been searched and sent on your way.

If yes - then you would have also kicked off a police shooting.[/quote]

The officer did not identify himself. only the “union” claims he did. I will not go over it again as it has been discussed to death as to what a person would do when his car is surrounded by men in the bad part of town after almost getting into an altercation.

222

[quote]david dunne wrote:
You dont agree that played a role pga?
[/quote]

Alcohol could have played a part, on BOTH sides.

223

[quote]PGA wrote:
david dunne wrote:
You dont agree that played a role pga?

Tell me please - would YOU have tried to run over a guy with a badge around his neck in front of your car screaming Freeze Police??

If no - then you and your friends in your bmw would have been searched and sent on your way.

If yes - then you would have also kicked off a police shooting.

The officer did not identify himself. only the “union” claims he did. I will not go over it again as it has been discussed to death as to what a person would do when his car is surrounded by men in the bad part of town after almost getting into an altercation.[/quote]

Surrounded by one man pga?

Look - the cop says he id’d himself and so did the city officials.
The suspects I am guessing will or did say he did not id himself.

Well neither of us was there to say for sure right?

However, I can say since I was a UC officer myself that it is by far more likely he DID id himself for just the reasons stated. The UC doesnt WANT this to turn into a shooting gallery. He is UC remember? That means no vest.
He has backup supposed to be coming… but they arent there with him as he steps in front of the vehicle right?

Look man I know if I am going me against the car full like that AND the other cops are coming in seconds also that I am definatley going to scream POLICE over and over bc I dont WANT the badguys to assume I am another criminal and start shooting.
Understand?
Also, I know my cover is blown anyway because other cops are coming and we are taking this car down so no way I can do otherwise.
See, the UC does NOT want to have a shootout with 4 suspects so he is going to id himself.

Stop saying surrounded by men because thats not what the facts as reported thus far show.

224

[quote]PGA wrote:
david dunne wrote:
You dont agree that played a role pga?

Alcohol could have played a part, on BOTH sides.[/quote]

Could be.
If the suspects hadnt had the mindset to run the guy over - and no one seems to be disputing they did hit him - then the cops would not have started shooting. THAT decision on the driver’s part was what forced the situation in my opinion.

225

[quote]david dunne wrote:

Stop saying surrounded by men because thats not what the facts as reported thus far show.[/quote]

Dave,

"In a statement, Commissioner Kelly said that about 4 a.m. a group of men confronted a man outside the strip club and that one man in the group yelled, ?Yo, get my gun.?

The altercation broke up, and the men separated into two groups, with an undercover officer following one group. The men being followed by the undercover officer got into the Altima that then hit the minivan."

"Mr. Bell and his friends walked out and got into their car. Mr. Bell drove the car half a block, turned a corner and struck a black unmarked police minivan bearing several plainclothes officers.

Mr. Bell?s car then backed up onto a sidewalk, hit a storefront?s rolled-down protective gate and nearly struck an undercover officer before shooting forward and slamming into the police van again, the police said.

In response, five police officers fired at least 50 rounds at the men?s car, a silver Nissan Altima; the bullets ripped into other cars and slammed through an apartment window near the shooting scene on Liverpool Street near 94th Avenue."

Then here is the only report that I have read that says he identified himself as an officer. But the last line is very interesting and something I havent seen before…

"According to the person briefed on the accounts, the detective, his police badge around his neck, then pulled out his gun, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the occupants to show their hands. They did not comply, the person said, but instead gunned the car forward, hitting the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan. The undercover officer fired the first of 11 shots, yelling, “He?s got a gun! He?s got a gun!”

226

[quote]PGA wrote:
david dunne wrote:

Stop saying surrounded by men because thats not what the facts as reported thus far show.

Dave,

"In a statement, Commissioner Kelly said that about 4 a.m. a group of men confronted a man outside the strip club and that one man in the group yelled, ?Yo, get my gun.?

The altercation broke up, and the men separated into two groups, with an undercover officer following one group. The men being followed by the undercover officer got into the Altima that then hit the minivan."

"Mr. Bell and his friends walked out and got into their car. Mr. Bell drove the car half a block, turned a corner and struck a black unmarked police minivan bearing several plainclothes officers.

Mr. Bell?s car then backed up onto a sidewalk, hit a storefront?s rolled-down protective gate and nearly struck an undercover officer before shooting forward and slamming into the police van again, the police said.

In response, five police officers fired at least 50 rounds at the men?s car, a silver Nissan Altima; the bullets ripped into other cars and slammed through an apartment window near the shooting scene on Liverpool Street near 94th Avenue."

Then here is the only report that I have read that says he identified himself as an officer. But the last line is very interesting and something I havent seen before…

"According to the person briefed on the accounts, the detective, his police badge around his neck, then pulled out his gun, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the occupants to show their hands. They did not comply, the person said, but instead gunned the car forward, hitting the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan. The undercover officer fired the first of 11 shots, yelling, “He?s got a gun! He?s got a gun!”[/quote]

This is some quote from some news report? So what?
“According to the person briefed on the accounts”???

You are quoting someone… who spoke to someone… who was “briefed” on what the officers statements actually were.
So, some source who has the general gist of what the cops said?

Only one reporter bothers to write that the UC id’d himself and you are taking that to mean he didn’t?

I tried to explain to you the real world way these things happen already. The UC id’s himself because he doesnt want to get shot as another bad guy by the bad guys.

Maybe this - tell me why he would NOT id himself?

Regarding the UC yelling he has a gun…he had every reason to believe he did at that point. He heard the guys SAY there was a gun and they had just rammed him with their car.

Honestly at that point it really doesnt matter much-they all saw the car strike the UC and they are going to shoot when that happens in most instances.

Again, not the way the cops wanted it to go down either…

How about if the idiots werent so full of tough guy bullshit threatening to get their gun etc?

They would have just driven home thats what.

Would they have been shot by the cops for merely saying threats about a gun? No.

How about if they had stopped the damn car when they saw badges and cops jumping out all over?

they would have driven their now dented car home thats what.

Lots of dominoes falling badly in this scenario but the cops - for all the reasons I have detailed in the last several posts - were RE-ACTING to the choices the suspects made every step along the way.

227

[quote]david dunne wrote:
Wrote stuff, saving space.

[/quote]

The police commissioner, who gave a very detailed press conference, not once said the officer identified himself and actually said the opposite in an interview.

228

[quote]PGA wrote:
david dunne wrote:
Wrote stuff, saving space.

The police commissioner, who gave a very detailed press conference, not once said the officer identified himself and actually said the opposite in an interview.[/quote]

So far I have seen reports that the UC wa struck before the police van…and another saying the van was struck first then the UC.

I have seen reports the union rep reported the UC did id himself.

I have seen nothing from the commissioner stating the UC didn’t id himself.
I cant imagine how he would be able to even make that claim.

Again - I explained why it’s far more likely in my opinion that he did id himself.

Tell me why he wouldn’t. For what benefit? For what reason? To further endanger himself?

229

[quote]david dunne wrote:
PGA wrote:
david dunne wrote:
Wrote stuff, saving space.

The police commissioner, who gave a very detailed press conference, not once said the officer identified himself and actually said the opposite in an interview.

So far I have seen reports that the UC wa struck before the police van…and another saying the van was struck first then the UC.

I have seen reports the union rep reported the UC did id himself.

I have seen nothing from the commissioner stating the UC didn’t id himself.
I cant imagine how he would be able to even make that claim.

Again - I explained why it’s far more likely in my opinion that he did id himself.

Tell me why he wouldn’t. For what benefit? For what reason? To further endanger himself?[/quote]

Gee, why would they let guys get in the car in the first place? Wouldn’t supposedly armed suspects be more dangerous in the car? You can’t ignore that just because it makes the actions of these cops look really stupid.

If the UNDERCOVER cop was hit because he walked in front of the car…why was he walking in front of the car? If they were worried about these supposed gun carriers, it would only make sense to stop them before they got in the car. This didn’t happen which should be raising questions in the mind of anyone who isn’t just trying to take the side of the cops no matter what.

230

[quote]

Gee, why would they let guys get in the car in the first place? Wouldn’t supposedly armed suspects be more dangerous in the car? You can’t ignore that just because it makes the actions of these cops look really stupid.

If the UNDERCOVER cop was hit because he walked in front of the car…why was he walking in front of the car? If they were worried about these supposed gun carriers, it would only make sense to stop them before they got in the car. This didn’t happen which should be raising questions in the mind of anyone who isn’t just trying to take the side of the cops no matter what.[/quote]

X, I already explained it in previous posts. You dont go one vs 4 suspects on the sidewalk when you 1) have backup coming and 2) can get them all contained in a vehicle.
No,it’s actually much safer if all 4 are in the car because then it doesnt immediately turn into a running gun battle with suspects running and gunning in 4 different directions…against one cop. Much harder to control 4 people if they are contained in a vehicle vs ready to break otu in every direction.

How do you figure containing all 4 suspects is a stupid play by the cops? Picture yourself as the UC. Do you rambo up and rush 4 guys claiming they got a gun? No of course not.

Sorry, what makes no sense is your theory the lone cop should rush 4 suspects he thinks are armed. What movie did you get that from?

Why step in front of the car? Because if you are a cop stopping a vehicle you can’t do that from the rear thats why. THAT would be more like jackers instead of cops right? Running up from behind?
Because he is a cop. He is doing what he is sworn to do. He is stopping 4 clowns claiming to have a gun. He doesnt want them to roll down the street with that gun. He doesnt want them to pop caps out the window as they leave. He wants to stop them right there before the whole shitstorm goes mobile. He has backup on the way so he has to act now. This guy approaches from in front -fully visible- with a badge also visible and in my opinion (I explained why a few posts back)most likely screaming POLICE FREEZE at the top of his lungs.

I am not trying to “take the side of the cops no matter what”. It’s simple procedure and logic my friend.

How about you? You so determined that the cops somehow are all wrong in this that you can’t allow yourself to play it from the cop’s eyes?

Like I said earlier-it wasn’t flawless by any means. It never is. I am sure it would have been preferable to have a uniform available to initiate the takedown. Its not a perfect world and there could be 100 reasons that didn’t happen.

But alot of the ideas I have seen suggested here in posts don’t hold water, including your earlier comment the cops should have ignored the idiots making threats about getting a gun and go back to the original investigation. Thats ridiculous man.

231

[quote]david dunne wrote:

How do you figure containing all 4 suspects is a stupid play by the cops? [/quote]

  1. Because they were out of uniform and quite likely not visibly known to even be cops.

  2. That none of these guys even had a gun but ended up dying because of their reaction to #1.

  3. That there WAS backup outside of the club. In fact, there was apparently an entire minivan filled with cops along with the undercover cops inside of the club. Exactly how many cops are needed to take down some guys who aren’t even proven to be carrying ANYTHING?

This was a fuck up, plain and simple. To act as if it wasn’t is just plain stupid. Then again, so is arguing with some guy who clearly refuses to see any of this.

232

[quote]Professor X wrote:
david dunne wrote:

How do you figure containing all 4 suspects is a stupid play by the cops?

  1. Because they were out of uniform and quite likely not visibly known to even be cops. In a perfect world they would have had 10 uniforms available and present. Sorry guys it isnt perfect out here. The suspects (and maybe you or me someday) will have to decide if the guy with a badge standing in front of my car yelling FREEZE POLICE is an actual cop or a “jacker”. Course I dont know of ANY jackings where the suspect approaches head on like that but hey thats just my experience.

  2. That none of these guys even had a gun but ended up dying because of their reaction to #1. Partly true. THE SUSPECTS reactions along the way caused the cops to re-act. The yelling threats about a gun…the hitting the cop with a car…The cops HAVE to react to those things my friend. Had the genius suspects not done either of those two things the dominos would have stopped falling.

  3. That there WAS backup outside of the club. In fact, there was apparently an entire minivan filled with cops along with the undercover cops inside of the club. Exactly how many cops are needed to take down some guys who aren’t even proven to be carrying ANYTHING? This “point” shows me you dont know shit about it. What exactly IS your point? The cops should somehow “prove” the suspects are carrying before they take them down? It should have been just one cop or it should have been six cops? You wouldn’t think it was “right” either way I am sure.

This was a fuck up, plain and simple. To act as if it wasn’t is just plain stupid. Then again, so is arguing with some guy who clearly refuses to see any of this.

[/quote]

Your logic doesnt hold up. You seem to be only able to look at this thru emotions.

According to your own posts the cops should have just IGNORED the gun threat and hoped nothing materialized out of it.
Thats just stupid. They cant. No more cop tv for you.

Ok that doesnt make sense so you say well they should have had the lone cop that was in position rush up at the 4 suspects and order them to freeze…but wait you were upset bc he was UC and the poor suspects wouldn’t really know if he was a cop or not right? SO A UC RUNNING UP WITH A GUN AND BADGE FROM BEHIND THEM ON FOOT IS A BETTER PLAN??
You dont know shit.Is that how YOU would handle that? Yeah ok. I dont know anyone who would.

So the cop instead approaches the vehicle from the FRONT with a BADGE and yelling FREEZE POLICE - SHOW YOUR HANDS.

But that wasn’t a good enough option either because the cop wasnt in uniform.
Well I already agreed it would have been good to have uniforms but sorry professor it doesnt always play out that way in the real world. The van apparently wasnt able to be in position until they got in the car and were already moving.

I wont bother with this thread anymore because I haven’t heard any one tell me which part of my views are illogical…not one. Instead I hear people like yourself simply repeating “the cops fucked up” without walking thru it in the cops shoes. Whatever man. I am looking at it from the suspects shoes AND the cops shoes. Do that honestly and the whole thing is a lot less one sided than you would like to believe.

I dont like the outcome of the shooting either. The cops, the suspects…all involved dont like how it turned out. But saying I’m the stupid one because I wont hold hands with you and yell “Its a cop fuck up pure and simple”…?

Thanks but I will leave that to others.

233

I will also say this: I think the cops did a terrible job controlling their fire. I wont pretend a real life shooting is going to be as accurate as tv but hey thats alot of misses. It is what it is.
I will also say some of the officers almost certainly had some “sympathy fire” or whatever their commish called it. I wouldn’t be surprised to find some officers simply saw another fire and joined in. That could have happened here from the way the scene was described.
But the events leading up to the shooting? The reactions of the cops vs the choices/decisions of the suspects?

No, thats not nearly as one sided as some wish it were. That’s just armchair quarterbacking from guys who don’t understand how real life police shootings unfold.

234

Bell had been arrested three times in the past: twice for drugs and one on a gun rap in a case that was sealed. Guzman has been busted nine times, including for armed robbery. He spent two stretches in state prison in the '90s. Benefield has a sealed record as a juvenile for gun possession and robbery.

Some marijuana was later found near the Altima, and investigators believe that it may have been tossed out by the group before the gunfire. Two bullet casings also were recovered from the Altima, although cops said they do not believe they were from a police gun.

The three suspects in the car ALL have prior weapons charges and casings not from a cop’s gun are found in the car? -from the NY Post 11/27/06.

235

[

[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]

DO you follow PGA and defend his cop bashing on a regular basis? I bet you wipe his snotty little nose!
Once again the dynamic dipshits are on a cop rant in an effort to undermine law enforcement.
Do you realize that a car is a deadly weapon? Do you realize the police have the right to use deadly force when someone is trying to hurt them with a vehicle or has commited a forcible felony?
Were you you there? It’s easy to make the call after reading the headlines isn’t it. The both of you are MEAT-HEADED SHITSACKS

236

[quote]david dunne wrote:
Bell had been arrested three times in the past: twice for drugs and one on a gun rap in a case that was sealed. Guzman has been busted nine times, including for armed robbery. He spent two stretches in state prison in the '90s. Benefield has a sealed record as a juvenile for gun possession and robbery.

Some marijuana was later found near the Altima, and investigators believe that it may have been tossed out by the group before the gunfire. Two bullet casings also were recovered from the Altima, although cops said they do not believe they were from a police gun.

The three suspects in the car ALL have prior weapons charges and casings not from a cop’s gun are found in the car? -from the NY Post 11/27/06. [/quote]

This is a very important point that I have not had time to comment on. A good amount of the arguing here hinges on if the police identified themselves. The cops say yes, the suspects say no. This is all about credibility and the information in your post is very telling.

237

[quote]david dunne wrote:
Your logic doesnt hold up. You seem to be only able to look at this thru emotions.[/quote]

This was hilarious. I’m the one who can only see this through emotions despite your several back to back posts showing you aren’t listening to anything I wrote.

[quote]

According to your own posts the cops should have just IGNORED the gun threat and hoped nothing materialized out of it.
Thats just stupid. They cant. No more cop tv for you.[/quote]

First sign that you can’t read. I have never implied that they shouldn’t involve themselves in the threat. The issue is why they didn’t involve themselves WHILE THE THREAT WAS GOING ON. Why would they wait to see that no punches were thrown and no one was hurt, no one was going back, everyone was getting into the car and driving away? They sure as hell did ignore it for too damn long if they were going to do something about it. Letting them get into a vehicle that can move faster than most cops can run was the stupid move. But wait, you have more that you couldn’t understand…

[quote]

Ok that doesnt make sense so you say well they should have had the lone cop that was in position rush up at the 4 suspects and order them to freeze…but wait you were upset bc he was UC and the poor suspects wouldn’t really know if he was a cop or not right? SO A UC RUNNING UP WITH A GUN AND BADGE FROM BEHIND THEM ON FOOT IS A BETTER PLAN??
You dont know shit.Is that how YOU would handle that? Yeah ok. I dont know anyone who would.[/quote]

What official is claiming they ever presented a badge besides a union rep? The speaker for the police department in a very detailed speech in a video mentioned nothing of the sort…yet now you know for sure that a badge was presented clearly and a gun was drawn? This cop was NOT alone. There were several policemen outside of the club.

[quote]
So the cop instead approaches the vehicle from the FRONT with a BADGE and yelling FREEZE POLICE - SHOW YOUR HANDS.[/quote]

If this was clearly done, no one would have an issue with it. There seems to be some controversy on whether that happened at all. English is your first language, right? If so, why can’t you understand what is written? In fact, how about you simply quote exactly what I have written before because your attempt to tell me what I said shows you can’t understand shit.

238

[quote]ikkenhissatsu wrote:
DO you follow PGA and defend his cop bashing on a regular basis? I bet you wipe his snotty little nose!
Once again the dynamic dipshits are on a cop rant in an effort to undermine law enforcement.
Do you realize that a car is a deadly weapon? Do you realize the police have the right to use deadly force when someone is trying to hurt them with a vehicle or has commited a forcible felony?
Were you you there? It’s easy to make the call after reading the headlines isn’t it. The both of you are MEAT-HEADED SHITSACKS
[/quote]

Your post clearly shows you are well above me in intelligence and “non meat-headedness”. Congrats. I don’t have to defend anyone. If I agree with something, I will say so. If I disagree, I will say that as well. You sound threatened. Don’t be. If you are a cop, you can simply shoot me.

239

Wow, my sister asked if I was on steriods this week and now I’ve been called a meat-head. I guess all the hard work is paying off! Been a good week!

240

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
b[/b] There was a 4th individual that fled the scene. Before anyone professes themselves the judge, jury, and executioner, consider that this 4th individual may have been in criminal possession of the gun in question.

b[/b] Freedom of speech has its limitations. If someone yells “fire” in a crowded movie theater and bluffs, they are still held criminally accountable. If someone bluffs they have a bomb at an airport and tries to flee, they can be shot from behind. If someone bluffs they are in possession of a gun or requests such possession while behaving furtively, the police are justified in opening fire. There is no doubt the victim/perpetrator acted furtively.

b[/b] Once a deadly weapon is involved, the police have justification in using force to eliminate any and all imminent threats, whether perceived or actual. Four men (all perceived to be imminent threats to the good order of the community), in a vehicle being operated recklessly causing injury to a bystander - hmmmm, all of a sudden 50 shots doesn’t seem that crazy. Four men, one of which escaped from the haze of bullets, clearly testifies to the accuracy of the police gunfire. Some people get shot 10 times and still have the capacity to strike at the police. Talk to any cop and the most important concept they’re taught from the FBI to the state police down to the NYPD is coming home alive.

I know the NYPD has a strict policy on concealed weapons, and rightfully so. In this city and age, a bluff like that will either get you killed by the police or the rival street gang. That’s common knowledge to all New Yorkers.

Peace be with all.