Here are some interesting articles of the Racist Orgins of so called “gun-control” laws.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
http://www.jpfo.org/gpjack4.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19563
Cops had alcohol in their system and union says cop flashed badge. Going by Kelly’s remarks it doesnt seem like thats the case.
New York Cops Questioned Over Groom Killing
Sharpton Likens 50-Bullet Barrage to ‘Firing Squad’
By TOM HAYS, AP
NEW YORK (Nov. 28) - It began as a routine undercover operation involving unarmed police officers patrolling a sketchy nightclub by trying to blend in with patrons.
But by the end of the evening, a 50-bullet police barrage - likened to a “firing squad” by the Rev. Al Sharpton - killed groom-to-be Sean Bell, injured two of his friends and ignited concerns over police tactics and firepower.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday went to the Bell family’s church in Queens and met with Bell’s fiancee and father, and with Sharpton. The mayor then met again with other community leaders.
On Monday, Bloomberg called the police response to the shooting “unacceptable” and "inexplicable,‘’ but he was steadfast in his support for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who has been denounced by some activists since the shooting.
Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown said that his office was investigating the Saturday morning shootings and the results would be presented to a grand jury.
“I will be guided only by the law and the facts,” Brown said in a statement. “I will reach no conclusions until the investigation is complete. There will be no rush to judgment.”
The undercover operation that began 1 a.m. Saturday at the strip club Kalua Cabaret was part of a citywide crackdown sparked by the case of a New Jersey teenager who was abducted, raped and killed following a night of partying earlier this year at a Manhattan nightclub.
Police said they had received several complaints about prostitution and drug dealing at Kalua Cabaret in Queens before sending in two undercover detectives who left their guns behind because of searches at the door.
The detectives apparently spent the next few hours nursing drinks and mingling with the crowd. Critics have questioned why the officers were allowed to consume alcohol, but police officials said the officers weren’t impaired.
“We authorize them to have two drinks, and not more,” said Kelly.
The situation began to unravel when one of the officers alerted the back-up team outside that a man inside was possibly armed. During a later altercation among patrons, police claim they heard a member of Bell’s bachelor party, say, “Yo, get my gun.”
[b]One of the undercover detectives responded by retrieving his weapon and confronting Bell and his friends after they entered their car. Kelly suggested that it was unorthodox for the officer to blow his cover rather than rely on other officers to make the arrest.
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.[/b]
Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him. The vehicle then smashed into an unmarked police van, backed up and smashed the van again before the shooting began.
The crashes - along with the fear that one of the men had a gun - seem to be what escalated the situation to a hail of gunfire by five officers.
It is not immediately clear if the men in the car knew they were dealing with a police officer. Friends and family have speculated Bell got spooked by having a gun pointed at his vehicle, possibly crashing the car in a panic.
The NYPD discourages officers from firing on a moving vehicle. But Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association, argued that the officers had a right to fire if the car posed a lethal threat.
“The driver of that vehicle - his actions were a contributing factor,” Palladino said. “The amount of shots fired does not spell out excessive to me.”
In her first public comments on the shooting, Bell’s fiancee, Nicole Paultre, told a radio station Monday that the people who shot her husband shouldn’t be called officers.
“They were murderers, murderers,” she told hip-hop station Power 105.1. “They were not officers. No one gives anyone the right to kill somebody.”
None of the five unidentified officers had ever fired their 16-shot semiautomatic pistols on patrol before that morning, officials said. The undercover officer fired first, squeezing off 11 rounds; another, a 12-year-veteran, fired 31 times, meaning he paused to reload.
Officials said all the officers would have received training to combat against “contagious or sympathetic fire” - when police become disoriented by the sound of friendly fire and blast away at a phantom threat.
“We stress when officers go to the range that they fire no more than three rounds and then assess what the situation is,” Kelly said.
The 37,000-officer New York Police Department, the nation’s largest, trains its members on “how to defend themselves and not use excessive force,” Bloomberg said Monday. “What exactly happened here, we do not know.”
Contagious fire would not be a valid excuse, Sharpton said.
“To say that one gun causes an atmosphere where you keep shooting is to tell me that if one policeman makes a mistake, you could be subjected… to what amounts to a firing squad,” he said.
The survivors were Joseph Guzman, 31, who was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, who was hit three times. Guzman was in critical condition, and Benefield in stable condition Monday.
[quote]PGA wrote:
Cops had alcohol in their system and union says cop flashed badge. Going by Kelly’s remarks it doesnt seem like thats the case.[/quote]
Based on this?
Why ignore this?
I think we should consider ALL of the information when we are forming an opinion.
Politics are going to be a huge factor in the outcome of this case. Someone’s going to have to assume responsibility for it even if the officers are acquitted, and it’s probably not going to be some commissioner, and definitely not the mayor of NY.
It’s a tough job being a cop. In and out of the office.
[quote]NDM wrote:
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.
Why ignore this?
[/quote]
Are you asking if I’m ignoring it or saying I should ignore it. If you’re saying I should ignore it because a “union” official said so, right…
Police COMMISSIONER said that he took enforcement action whil undercover. Again he HAS NOT said he identified himself. ONLY the union until this point has said so.
I think its a safe bet to say they had a drink or two, maybe more wont speculate on that. If they didnt drink, they would have stuck out like sore thumbs in the club. Shit, I’ve been asked if I was undercover when I go to clubs becaues I dont really drink out and the clubs I go to are nowhere near as bad as the club they were in.
[quote]PGA wrote:
NDM wrote:
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.
Why ignore this?
Are you asking if I’m ignoring it or saying I should ignore it. If you’re saying I should ignore it because a “union” official said so, right…
Police COMMISSIONER said that he took enforcement action whil undercover. Again he HAS NOT said he identified himself. ONLY the union until this point has said so.
I think its a safe bet to say they had a drink or two, maybe more wont speculate on that. If they didnt drink, they would have stuck out like sore thumbs in the club. Shit, I’ve been asked if I was undercover when I go to clubs becaues I dont really drink out and the clubs I go to are nowhere near as bad as the club they were in.[/quote]
If all they had was two drinks and weren’t carrying their weapons then I don’t see the big deal of having minimal alcohol consumption. It hasn’t been that long since some departments allowed officers to have a beer with their lunch.
What I don’t like is that the plain clothes officer went to his car to retrieve his gun and blew his cover when he had armed backup readily available and serving that very role.
That adds credence to my previous point that HE didn’t want to let the bad guy get away.
Again, probably not a violation of policy, but definitely bad tactics.
[quote]PGA wrote:
NDM wrote:
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.
Why ignore this?
Are you asking if I’m ignoring it or saying I should ignore it. If you’re saying I should ignore it because a “union” official said so, right…
Police COMMISSIONER said that he took enforcement action whil undercover. Again he HAS NOT said he identified himself. ONLY the union until this point has said so.
I think its a safe bet to say they had a drink or two, maybe more wont speculate on that. If they didnt drink, they would have stuck out like sore thumbs in the club. Shit, I’ve been asked if I was undercover when I go to clubs becaues I dont really drink out and the clubs I go to are nowhere near as bad as the club they were in.[/quote]
I asked you why you were ignoring the comment that the union made about the cop identifying himself. I didn’t say the union official should be ignored at all. I thought that you were ignoring the union’s statement.
I hope that clarifies things.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
PGA wrote:
NDM wrote:
“He was still acting in an undercover capacity when he followed the group down the street and apparently took some enforcement action, and that was unusual,” Kelly said.
Why ignore this?
Are you asking if I’m ignoring it or saying I should ignore it. If you’re saying I should ignore it because a “union” official said so, right…
Police COMMISSIONER said that he took enforcement action whil undercover. Again he HAS NOT said he identified himself. ONLY the union until this point has said so.
I think its a safe bet to say they had a drink or two, maybe more wont speculate on that. If they didnt drink, they would have stuck out like sore thumbs in the club. Shit, I’ve been asked if I was undercover when I go to clubs becaues I dont really drink out and the clubs I go to are nowhere near as bad as the club they were in.
If all they had was two drinks and weren’t carrying their weapons then I don’t see the big deal of having minimal alcohol consumption. It hasn’t been that long since some departments allowed officers to have a beer with their lunch.
What I don’t like is that the plain clothes officer went to his car to retrieve his gun and blew his cover when he had armed backup readily available and serving that very role.
That adds credence to my previous point that HE didn’t want to let the bad guy get away.
Again, probably not a violation of policy, but definitely bad tactics.[/quote]
How can you call the victim a “bad Guy”?
He had no gun on his person, no gun in his car. He didnt do anything illegal. He was shot because a group of unidentified men tried to surround him and his friends , in their car, outside a nightclub, @ 3am.
Again im not saying these guys were angels or that they acted completely above board. But to kill someone because you suspect them of a crime… thats excessive to me.
Also, every person i know, and i know several, gun owners and law enforcement officers. All of them agree that alcohol and guns DO NOT MIX. Period. Alcohol affects judgement, aim, decision making
Allowing officers to drink on duty, if i was their attorney, i’d hammer that point.
[quote]emdawgz1 wrote:
How can you call the victim a “bad Guy”?
He had no gun on his person, no gun in his car. He didnt do anything illegal. He was shot because a group of unidentified men tried to surround him and his friends , in their car, outside a nightclub, @ 3am.
Again im not saying these guys were angels or that they acted completely above board. But to kill someone because you suspect them of a crime… thats excessive to me.[/quote]
I didn’t personally call him a bad guy. If you read my other posts you would have known that. I am pretty sure the officer thought he was the bad guy though.
The rest of your comments are just gibberish. In one breath you say the “victims” didn’t do anything wrong and then you say that they aren’t angels and might not have acted above board. Take a stand and stick to it. Otherwise you sound like you are just saying shit to argue.
[quote]
Also, every person i know, and i know several, gun owners and law enforcement officers. All of them agree that alcohol and guns DO NOT MIX. Period. Alcohol affects judgement, aim, decision making
Allowing officers to drink on duty, if i was their attorney, i’d hammer that point.[/quote]
Why are you arguing with me that alcohol and guns don’t mix? I never said they did. These officers were unarmed during their operation inside the club. That to me is an acceptable undercover tactic to “fit in”. I questioned the officers actions of going and getting his gun when he had readily available armed backup.
Bottom line is I don’t know if what this officer did was a violation of policy or not. I can tell you that it was bad tactics and bad decision making. In turn those decisions caused a domino effect that led to someone being killed.
The officers’ actions of shooting the car very well might be considered justified by policy. It’s the actions leading up to the shooting that don’t seem justified to me. But I don’t have all the information yet, so I can only speculate.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PGA wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Most regular people cannot get a carry permit in NYC.
Of course. But thats not the issue here or the question he asked, Zap.
Of course it is relevant. If the guy was talking about having a gun in the car in NYC it is likely the cop would assume it was illegal. In most other states the cop would not automatically make that assumption.
[/quote]
That is exactly why I asked. In Colorado it’s perfectly legal to have a loaded hadgun in your car. No licsense is needed.
I am aware that NYC CCW are restrictive, I just didn’t know if you could keep a gun in your car.
As far as the previously mentioned 92 year old woman (found later by the medical examiner to be 88 years old) mentioned earlier in this thread who was shot to death by cops who rushed into her house out of uniform…it turns out that the informant they used lied about buying drugs from her.
That tells us a few things. First, that the cops originally lied about finding drugs in her house…and that there seem to be many people dying due to cops acting out of uniform.
While Atlanta seems to now be reviewing their “no knock policy” as far as warrants, how many more people are going to die before cops quit acting like they have uniforms on when they don’t?
Is pointing this out “cop hatred”? Maybe I just don’t want to die because of the shotty police work of some guy out of uniform.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as the previously mentioned 92 year old woman (found later by the medical examiner to be 88 years old) mentioned earlier in this thread who was shot to death by cops who rushed into her house out of uniform…it turns out that the informant they used lied about buying drugs from her.
That tells us a few things. First, that the cops originally lied about finding drugs in her house…and that there seem to be many people dying due to cops acting out of uniform.
While Atlanta seems to now be reviewing their “no knock policy” as far as warrants, how many more people are going to die before cops quit acting like they have uniforms on when they don’t?
Is pointing this out “cop hatred”? Maybe I just don’t want to die because of the shotty police work of some guy out of uniform.[/quote]
Let’s start a new thread regarding that case.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as the previously mentioned 92 year old woman (found later by the medical examiner to be 88 years old) mentioned earlier in this thread who was shot to death by cops who rushed into her house out of uniform…it turns out that the informant they used lied about buying drugs from her.
That tells us a few things. First, that the cops originally lied about finding drugs in her house…and that there seem to be many people dying due to cops acting out of uniform.
While Atlanta seems to now be reviewing their “no knock policy” as far as warrants, how many more people are going to die before cops quit acting like they have uniforms on when they don’t?
Is pointing this out “cop hatred”? Maybe I just don’t want to die because of the shotty police work of some guy out of uniform.[/quote]…who might be drunk.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That tells us a few things. First, that the cops originally lied about finding drugs in her house…and that there seem to be many people dying due to cops acting out of uniform.
While Atlanta seems to now be reviewing their “no knock policy” as far as warrants, how many more people are going to die before cops quit acting like they have uniforms on when they don’t?
Is pointing this out “cop hatred”? Maybe I just don’t want to die because of the shotty police work of some guy out of uniform.[/quote]
In respect to the NYPD shooting, they were on duty in plain clothes. It is common in pretty much every dept of decent size in the U.S. There are certainly limitation to plainclothes details, as this incident in part highlights, but you just can’t do some essential law enforcement functions effectively while in a uniform.
Only the negative makes the papers in this respect. I certainly see your point about some of the risks associated with plainclothes work, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You are correct, but that is not the norm.
[quote]brand wrote:
In respect to the NYPD shooting, they were on duty in plain clothes. It is common in pretty much every dept of decent size in the U.S. There are certainly limitation to plainclothes details, as this incident in part highlights, but you just can’t do some essential law enforcement functions effectively while in a uniform.
Only the negative makes the papers in this respect. I certainly see your point about some of the risks associated with plainclothes work, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[/quote]
No one is. if they had simply continued with their investigation of the club, no one would be finding fault in their actions. It is when they start to interfere in situations OUT OF UNIFORM that would be best handled IN UNIFORM that questions get raised.
They obviously had communication inside the club with officers outside the club…so why didn’t a cop IN UNIFORM get called to the site if there was a need to question or apprehend these guys? They fucked up and this is clearly another situation…just like the old woman who was killed…where cops need to quit acting like everyone should just know they are cops when they are out of uniform.
If Atlanta is now reviewing their “no knock needed” warrant practice, maybe the rest of the country should catch on. It seems like common sense to me. Why are so many other people in the dark?
There is a HUGE problem if I can get killed in my house because some cops force false info out of an informant and they come running into my place without even knocking on the door.
This shouldn’t be considered some small matter. It should be plastered everywhere. The fact that minorities seem to be getting the shaft disproportionately makes it even worse.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
I need to read no further when you start with this. There is nothing false about this statement. Nothing could be truer.
[quote]NDM wrote:
Let’s start a new thread regarding that case. [/quote]
Been there, done that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as the previously mentioned 92 year old woman (found later by the medical examiner to be 88 years old) [/quote]
How could he tell?
Cut off her arm and count the rings?
Carbon date the fecal matter impacted in her bowels?
Check her drivers license?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…If Atlanta is now reviewing their “no knock needed” warrant practice, maybe the rest of the country should catch on. It seems like common sense to me. Why are so many other people in the dark?
[/quote]
Let’s see if we can come up with an answer.
[quote]
…
This shouldn’t be considered some small matter. It should be plastered everywhere. The fact that minorities seem to be getting the shaft disproportionately makes it even worse.[/quote]
There it is.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.