NYPD's Finest?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Mr. Hyde wrote:
They were firing at a CAR, that wasn’t shooting back and I think that is a big target to miss. Luckily no one was hurt in the area. To Protect and To Serve , if you kill an innocent you are no longer Protecting. I have friends and relatives that are officers, so I am not anti Police. In my opinion if you fire you weapon you are accountable to where the rounds go.[/quote]

Right, and by the fact that no innocent bystanders were struck by the gunfire testifies to the discretion these police officers used.

242

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
gojira wrote:
But I’m also wondering how one officer was able to fire 31 rounds from a 9mm that has a 15 round clip. That would mean he would have to reload twice.

Carrying a round in the chamber is a requirement for every police department and security agency that I am aware of, so 1+15+15=31. He only had to reload once.

Not that that has any bearing, just being a math/gun nerd.[/quote]

Evidently gojira’s government work is NOT related to law enforcement… You’re right on the money though. Always keep one in the chamber.

243

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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.

[/quote]

First, screaming, “fire!” in a public place is a criminal act because of the induced potential mass panic it can create. Yelling, “fire!” in front of only 2 or 3 people would not be a criminal action unless the act of screaming it led to the direct harm of someone else. If someone requests a gun the police are justified in opening fire? You honestly wrote that and thought it was correct?

“Hey, Bob, go get my gun.”

“FIRE!!!”

??

I don’t think anyone has claimed these guys were saints. That isn’t even the issue. The issue is, were these guys even aware that the undercover cop was actually a cop, and were the cops justified in action at all since the threat was apparently over. These guys weren’t running to go get a gun. They were already in the car and driving off when the cop steps in front of the vehicle. Requesting a gun, especially if it was an empty threat and no gun was anywhere around, is not punishable by firing squad. It is sort of strange you think otherwise, though.

If they were clearly aware that this was a cop and THEN ran him over, then that changes everything. If this was so clearly accomplished, why was it left out of such a detailed verbal report of the incident in that video?

244

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Mr. Hyde wrote:
They were firing at a CAR, that wasn’t shooting back and I think that is a big target to miss. Luckily no one was hurt in the area. To Protect and To Serve , if you kill an innocent you are no longer Protecting. I have friends and relatives that are officers, so I am not anti Police. In my opinion if you fire you weapon you are accountable to where the rounds go.

Right, and by the fact that no innocent bystanders were struck by the gunfire testifies to the discretion these police officers used.
[/quote]

I think it testifies to people simply not being in the way of the bullets at that particular time of day much more than “discretion”. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

245

[quote]Professor X wrote:
A guy who is believed to have a gun ON HIM…then goes outside and says, “yo, go get my gun”? What? This was some shitty police work.
[/quote]

Police arrest upon probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. The fact this guy was bragging of having a gun can allow for a pat down but NOT an arrest… When he asked for his gun outside, it may have been handed away at some unspecified time unbeknown by the police.

Police officers do not always bite the bait at the first chance. Occasionally they wait-out the scene believing they’re in the process of catching a big fish (narcotics bust vs. a gun charge)…

246

[quote]Shaved wrote:
Does that honestly not make sense to you?

  1. Bad neighborhood
  2. Pitch dark (assumption)
  3. Stopped half a block away from the bar
  4. Start to be surounded by men

If that happened to me, I would try to drive away from the scene as fast as possible, and I would be riddled with bullets.

I just want you to address this seriously. Is it that hard to imagine that these men had no idea they were cops. Is it that hard to imagine that they thought they were in trouble and tried to get away?
[/quote]

Isn’t it possible the cops thought these guys were gun-toting bandits precisely because of the very same logic you present?

  1. Bad neighborhood.
    These suspects are in the wrong part of town. How are they being protected? Maybe with guns!

  2. Pitch dark (assumption)
    Maybe the suspects brandished weapons but the cops couldn’t get a glimpse because it was so damn dark! Assume they’re armed because they [b]say[/b] they’re armed until the reasonable suspicion is dispelled.

  3. Stopped half a block away from the bar
    Perhaps to provide for a safer location and more back-up units to assemble.

  4. Start to be surrounded by men
    One of whom perhaps addressed himself as a cop and was run over.

247

[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]

Agreed. I believe the NYPD should have dispatched uniformed officers to conduct the follow-up questioning outside the club. This would have been the best option. Was such an omission a crime though? I think not.

248

[quote]PGA wrote:
No, they shouldnt have waited. If they felt that he was such a threat why didnt he stop and detain him when he “patted” his waist line? Why didnt they stop and detain him when he made the threat “go get my gun?” They shoudnt have let him walk ONE STEP if the felt his threats were legitimate.

Next…[/quote]
Perhaps that would’ve blown the sting operation they were also focused upon with the strip club…

249

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Perhaps the officers wanted the whole crew in the same vehicle - this way when the suspects would be lawfully detained for questioning based upon their buddy’s remarks of gun ownership, it would automatically prove their relations to each other thus justifying a frisk of all subjects rather than just the one…

250

[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]
Interesting indeed. The victims weren’t little angels after all.

251

Smart move to step in front of a car when you’re about to arrest them for carrying a gun.

You think they’re a threat because they might be carrying a gun. How does standing in front of the car make it any safer?

252

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Smart move to step in front of a car when you’re about to arrest them for carrying a gun.

You think they’re a threat because they might be carrying a gun. How does standing in front of the car make it any safer?[/quote]

It doesn’t make sense at all… Unless you’re a cop and identifying yourself to the driver of the car. The side and rear windows could have been tinted, and the occupants of the car could have drawn the weapons that they claimed to have, and the cop wouldn’t have been able to see it.

Most cars don’t have tinted windshields, so this enabled the cop to see what the occupants in the car were doing when he was identifying himself.

253

[quote]NDM wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Smart move to step in front of a car when you’re about to arrest them for carrying a gun.

You think they’re a threat because they might be carrying a gun. How does standing in front of the car make it any safer?

It doesn’t make sense at all… Unless you’re a cop and identifying yourself to the driver of the car. The side and rear windows could have been tinted, and the occupants of the car could have drawn the weapons that they claimed to have, and the cop would’t have been able to see it.

Most cars don’t have tinted windshields, so this enabled the cop to see what the occupants in the car were doing when he was identifying himself. [/quote]

If it is dark, and a cop is out of uniform, why would you assume that he identified himself in any manner that could be discerned by the guys in the car?

If a guy in plain clothes, in a “bad” part of town was walking behind you, and then turned to walk in front of your car…just like many car jackings that take place…your first thought would be, “oh, this must be a lovely police officer coming over to say, ‘hi’.”? Of course it would.

It isn’t like you would have not only locked your doors but pulled out real quick to get away from any possible danger. Nope. You would sit there, roll down the window, and squint through the darkness to see if the nice gentleman might have a badge on him.

Ree-dick-you-luss.

Clearly, you have not grown up in a part of town that was actually a threat. If you have, then your surprise me by acting like you don’t understand the “rules” in such an environment.

254

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
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”.

Agreed. I believe the NYPD should have dispatched uniformed officers to conduct the follow-up questioning outside the club. This would have been the best option. Was such an omission a crime though? I think not.
[/quote]

Whether the cops outside were undercover OR in uniform doesn’t bother me. Both STILL need to identify themselves.

My input in this thread has been pretty straight forward. I don’t believe the cops will be held criminally liable. Without all the facts present, I can’t make that determination.

However, with all the facts that ARE present, I believe that bad tactics lead to a bad scene and a death.

Whether or not the detective identified himself or not is regardles. According to reports, NYPD policy is to NOT shoot at vehicles. Further, as I have said before, the detective was bumped and able to get out of the way. His life was not in danger. If he was trapped, then that would be another story.

It is my contention that the detective put himself in front of the vehicle knowing full well that he would be in a shoot situation. He caused a chain reaction to the other officers present and a man was killed.

And to those who keep bringing up that the “subjects” had crooked pasts. Do you think the detectives knew what their pasts were at the time? I would say probably not. Just because it was later discovered that they had criminal pasts does not mean the officers should slide for poor judgment.

I feel sorry for the other officers involved in the domino effect. They were brought into this mess by the bad actions of one detective who yelled, “gun”.

255

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Clearly, you have not grown up in a part of town that was actually a threat. If you have, then your surprise me by acting like you don’t understand the “rules” in such an environment.[/quote]

These type of incidents don’t just occur in “bad” neighborhoods. It happens everywhere. This situation would have been just as bad if it was in downtown Metropolis.

256

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Clearly, you have not grown up in a part of town that was actually a threat. If you have, then your surprise me by acting like you don’t understand the “rules” in such an environment.

These type of incidents don’t just occur in “bad” neighborhoods. It happens everywhere. This situation would have been just as bad if it was in downtown Metropolis.[/quote]

I would think so as well…however, I see people around here (where I currently live is supposed to have less crime than average) who leave their cars unattended AND RUNNING while they run into the store real quick to use the ATM.

In Houston, it was a given that if you did that, your car would not only NOT be there when you got back, but your tires might be laying on the ground since whoever stole it decided to steal some better looking rims at the same time and change them out.

I don’t understand people glossing over the fact that these “cops” were in plain clothes. You can’t act like a uniformed cop OUT of uniform and then wonder why everyone isn’t responding like you’re a cop, especially at night under these circumstances.

257

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Clearly, you have not grown up in a part of town that was actually a threat. If you have, then your surprise me by acting like you don’t understand the “rules” in such an environment.[/quote]

I live in an area where not too long ago a cop was shot in the face while identifying himself to a drug dealer. The guy that shot the cop in the face claimed the cop startled him. The story in NYPD went the other way than the one I just told you about. Can you understand my point of view now?

258

[quote]
NDM wrote:
You’re border patrol right? Not really a cop. Not even close. [/quote]

Holy fucking shit.

Man, I thought you were just stupid before, but now I’m thinking borderline retarded. And I’m not 100% on the “borderline” part!

An informative fact sheet:

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/careers/customs_careers/border_careers/border_patrol_factsheet.ctt/careers_bpa_fact.doc

The academy for Border Patrol Agents is five months long; longer than any military branch’s basic training and certainly longer and more intensive than any police academy.

“Not really a cop”? “Not even close”?
You might want to take note of the term “Agent”, as in “Federal”. If Border Patrol is working with a local sheriff’s department or police force, the local cops’ main concern is how the BP Agents like their coffee.

Sorry Malo, but I felt you were being far too modest so I took some liberties. Didn’t mean to speak for you

259

[quote]NDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Clearly, you have not grown up in a part of town that was actually a threat. If you have, then your surprise me by acting like you don’t understand the “rules” in such an environment.

I live in an area where not too long ago a cop was shot in the face while identifying himself to a drug dealer. The guy that shot the cop in the face claimed the cop startled him. The story in NYPD went the other way than the one I just told you about. Can you understand my point of view now? [/quote]

I would rather hear that story from the source rather than you interpretation of it. Besides that, no, your point is still not understood because what difference does that make? A cop startles a drug dealer and gets shot…therefore, every case you view from now on assumes that the cops did everything correctly when a life gets taken? How does that make sense to you?

You just proved yourself more biased than anyone else, only from the opposite position. How does that make you more right?

260

Some of the things being said now is completely laughable…