# NY Police kill unarmed man on wedding day



## goandykid (Nov 26, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184948.stm


----------



## goandykid (Nov 26, 2006)

Last Updated: Sunday, 26 November 2006, 10:58 GMT
E-mail this to a friend 	Printable version
NY police kill man on wedding day
New York police officers at the crime scene
No gun was found in the car which was hit by 21 bullets
An unarmed man has been shot dead by police in New York City hours before he was to have been married, prompting fury over the officers' actions.

Two of the man's friends were hurt in the shooting, which occurred outside a strip club where they had been celebrating before the wedding.

Police fired 50 bullets at a car carrying the men after it reportedly struck an unmarked police vehicle.

New York's mayor says police had acted fearing an armed "altercation".

"Officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Michael Bloomberg said.

The club was under surveillance because of its long history of weapons complaints, drug-dealing and prostitution, New York's Police Chief Raymond Kelly said.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton has demanded the police explain its actions.

"Gunshots all over the place. This is outrageous at best," he said.

He also criticised the police for handcuffing the two men receiving emergency care for their injuries in hospital.

Denise Ford, the mother of one of the men hurt in the shooting, is quoted as saying her son was shot in the hand, right leg and buttocks.

"I think this is messed-up on the cops' behalf," Ms Ford told New York newspaper Newsday.

"They're too hotheaded and something needs to be done about it."

Police suspicions

A total of 21 bullets hit the car the men were in 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.

Al Sharpton, flanked by relatives of the injured men
Al Sharpton said the police must explain its actions

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.

Police Chief Kelly said the three men were also being watched.

He said an undercover officer at the club had reported that the men were in a group that was involved in a dispute with another person outside the club.

The officer had reportedly called his colleagues saying he feared a gun would be produced.

As the men left the scene, a car they were driving struck an undercover officer on the shin.

It also hit an unmarked police vehicle, which is when five of the seven police officers on the scene opened fire, Mr Kelly said.

No weapons were found on the three men or in their car. An investigation is under way.

In 1999, New York police fired 41 bullets at unarmed Amadou Diallo, killing him. The four officers involved were acquitted of all charges.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 26, 2006)

Weird, not sure if it deserved 50 shots due to thinking their "might" be a gun, but the guy did nick one of the cops and his car pulling out. Sounds like a DUI

Not as bad as the Diallo incident mentioned at the end, but still overkill


----------



## themamasan (Nov 26, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Weird, not sure if it deserved 50 shots due to thinking their "might" be a gun, but the guy did nick one of the cops and his car pulling out. Sounds like a DUI
> 
> Not as bad as the Diallo incident mentioned at the end, but still overkill




Yeah, it seems like a lot is missing in that article.  Did they stop the car?  Or just shoot at it as it was driving off?  How did they hit the officer?  Was he trying to stop them, already stopped them?  Did they try to run after they hit the officer due to them being drunk?

I'm usually on the cops side on issues like this when a 'criminal' is putting lives in danger, but I have to say, I don't know what to think of this.  It sounds like the cops were definitely trigger happy.  Hell after two shots fired, they should have stopped and see if there were return fire, at the very least.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 26, 2006)

Yeah 50 is a little ridiculous. It says there his friend alone was hit 11 times.

"As the men left the scene, a car they were driving struck an undercover officer on the shin."

Sounds like they were just pulling out and nicked him, if they ahd hit him directly facing the shin they wouldve been in position to run him over. Sounds like drunk driving, nothing that takes 50 shots.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 26, 2006)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-25-police-shooting_x.htm

NEW YORK (AP) ??? A crowd angrily called on police Sunday to explain why authorities fatally shot a 23-year-old man on the day of his wedding, and some called for the ouster of the city's police commissioner.

At a vigil and rally, family members and friends chanted and prayed. Community leaders said they wanted to know why officers fired as many as 50 rounds at an unarmed group Saturday as they left Sean Bell's bachelor party in a car.

"We cannot allow this to continue to happen," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been speaking for Bell's family since the shooting. "We've got to understand that all of us were in that car."

The civil rights advocate led the crowd in chants of "No justice, no peace." At times some in the crowd yelled that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly should be ousted. "Kelly must go!" people shouted.

VIDEO: Family members outraged

The shootings occurred outside the Kalua Cabaret, a strip club where the bachelor party was held. The surviving victims were Joseph Guzman, 31, who was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, who was hit three times. Both men are at Mary Immaculate Hospital, where Guzman was in critical condition and Benefield was stable.

Relatives of all three men ??? many of them stoic, and some crying ??? attended Sunday's vigil but none spoke publicly.

During a press conference Saturday, Kelly said the department was still piecing together what happened, and that it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified.

The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan. The wild gunfire hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no residents were injured.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun. But investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.

According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.

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, Kelly said.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. That officer had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

At some point, Bell, who was driving, backed his car up onto the sidewalk, hitting a building gate, authorities said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said.

On Sunday, the group 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care said it is issuing a vote of no confidence in Kelly over the shooting.

A police spokeswoman on Sunday did not immediately comment on the group's demands.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Posted 11/25/2006 10:27 AM ET


----------



## goandykid (Nov 26, 2006)

I wonder if he "backed up and hit the vehicle a second time" after the shooting started in an attempt to get to safety. The vehicle he hit and the cop were *unmarked* so he probably thought it was some thugs shooting at him. It also says the cop in plain clothes walked towards the front of his car as he was pulling out. Sounds like a dumb cop.


----------



## the nut (Nov 26, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club in the Jamaica section of Queens. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret; five of them were involved in the shooting.
> 
> According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club after 4 a.m. and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.
> 
> 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, Kelly said.



There ya go. Club was under surveillance, someone mentions a gun and then a cop gets hit by their car. I say nice shot!

I do love to hear Sharpton's comments.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 26, 2006)

the nut said:


> There ya go. Club was under surveillance, someone mentions a gun and then a cop gets hit by their car. I say nice shot!
> 
> I do love to hear Sharpton's comments.



A guy was shot and killed on his wedding day for what sounds only to be a DUI, how the hell is that funny? 

I hate Sharpton also, but his involvement shouldn't make this case any less serious. There are missing parts of the story which might prove those cops are completely innocent or it might prove them to be at fault. 

It doesn't make sense. Who the fuck unloads that much lead into a car simply because they were told someone might have a gun? How the fuck was the cop hit in the sheen? How fast were was the car going when it struck him?


----------



## Yanick (Nov 26, 2006)

the nut said:


> There ya go. Club was under surveillance, someone mentions a gun and then a cop gets hit by their car. I say nice shot!
> 
> I do love to hear Sharpton's comments.



you sir, are retarded and should be sentenced to a vasectomy.

KelJu, as usual i find myself agreeing with you to a T. you seem to verbalize, or rather, write what i think but cannot put down on paper/computer screen.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> A guy was shot and killed on his wedding day for what sounds only to be a DUI, how the hell is that funny?
> 
> I hate Sharpton also, but his involvement shouldn't make this case any less serious. There are missing parts of the story which might prove those cops are completely innocent or it might prove them to be at fault.
> 
> It doesn't make sense. Who the fuck unloads that much lead into a car simply because they were told someone might have a gun? How the fuck was the cop hit in the sheen? How fast were was the car going when it struck him?



Exactly. The picture I got was that he was leaving the scene drunk and struck an officer in the shin while pulling out. The officer was *walking towards him*, and it makes no mention of him falling or being run over. All news articles would mention that as to relieve suspicion. It seems as though he was struck in the shin and the car stopped or turned, and they started shooting. My guess is he hit the cop car after he heard shots. We need to remember that there were 7(?) UNDERCOVER police officers and he hit an UNDERCOVER officer/UNDERCOVER car. He was obviously in the hood if the strip club in Queens was suspected of prostitution and gang activity, he must've thought these were gangbangers shooting at him or something.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 27, 2006)

_This is not nice at least it was less painful than marriage, I am joking. 

Why would someone shoot so many times? _


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Exactly. The picture I got was that he was leaving the scene drunk and struck an officer in the shin while pulling out. The officer was *walking towards him*, and it makes no mention of him falling or being run over. All news articles would mention that as to relieve suspicion. It seems as though he was struck in the shin and the car stopped or turned, and they started shooting.* My guess *is he hit the cop car after he heard shots. We need to remember that there were 7(?) UNDERCOVER police officers and he hit an UNDERCOVER officer/UNDERCOVER car.



And there is your problem, along with Sharpton's: You're guessing.

All the facts aren't clear yet, but if he did hit a cop with a car, then I'm not surprised that they shot him.  Trying to kill someone with a car ranks right up there with using a gun.  He may simply have been drunk, but to the cops it looked like attempted vehicular homicide.



goandykid said:


> He was obviously in the hood if the strip club in Queens was suspected of prostitution and gang activity, he must've thought these were gangbangers shooting at him or something.



You obviously don't know how the police work.  They identify themselves every time.  And they do it multiple times.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Nov 27, 2006)

Without hearing the full story here, it's hard to make an informed opinion.  It certainly doesn't look good for the cops based on what's been reported to this point.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 27, 2006)

Don't know what happened, but 

1)They said they had a gun
2)They ran from the po-po
3)They were in a suspicious place anyway.

I don't believe the cops needed to fire so much, or needed to try and go for the kill.  I think this is a severe overreaction by the cops, but still believe what the guys did was wrong.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> .
> 
> Who the fuck unloads that much lead into a car simply because they were told someone might have a gun? How the fuck was the cop hit in the sheen? How fast were was the car going when it struck him?



If they tried to run over the officer, it is force with a deadly weapon and the officer is justified using however much resistant force to stop it. It that means it takes 50 shots, so be it. He also sideswiped an undercover car. I personally know a police chief in another small town that responded to a domoestic and another officer had been shot and killed previously responding and when he drove up and was hit in the shoulder by a rifle and he unloaded every clip he had into the door/window where the shot came  from. I think it was 46 rounds(three 15 rd clips and 1 in the chamber) Luckily one or two shots injured the guy and it stopped him from shooting the chief again. If not, I'm sure he would have kept firing at the chief. You do what you have to, to stop the threat. 
Unfortunately, we don't know enough about this to make  any kind of determinations, but I'm sure many will fry every officer involved because of ignorance.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 27, 2006)

If you're telling me there's no foul play here you have to be kidding. I understand what you wrote DG (BTW, happy 50th  ), but the it sounds like the officer walked into a drunk driver pulling out, not going fast, not enough to "run him down" or seriously injure him. I feel like the shooting wouldve stARTed ASAP after the officer made contact w/ the vehicle, and the fender bender was caused by him fleeing the shooting. Theres no way for him to know these were cops shooting at him or were cops around him. If people dressed in plain clothes started unloading at me I'd try and bolt too.


Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

goandykid said:


> *If you're telling me there's no foul play here you have to be kidding.* I understand what you wrote DG (BTW, happy 50th  ), but the it *sounds like* the officer walked into a drunk driver pulling out, not going fast, *not enough to "run him down" or seriously injure him.* *I feel *like the shooting wouldve stARTed ASAP after the officer made contact w/ the vehicle, and the fender bender was caused by him fleeing the shooting. *Theres no way for him to know* these were cops shooting at him or were cops around him. If people dressed in plain clothes started unloading at me I'd try and bolt too.



con·jec·ture 

 (k
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





n-j
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ch
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




r)_n._
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
 A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
_v._ *con·jec·tured*, *con·jec·tur·ing*, *con·jec·tures* 
_v.__tr._ To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.


You're getting pretty worked up over something that you simply lack all the facts of.  You're *ass*uming.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 27, 2006)

Why are people so quick to jump the cops when these type of stories come out?  How about a little support for the guys that risk their lives for us on a dailly basis?  We don't know shit from the articles posted so far, only that a guy was killed in an officer involved shooting.  DO you really believe that some undercover cop walking out of a club behind a person of interest decided that ... because the guy _might _have a gun ... it was time to kill him?  Lol not a chance.  There were words and actions taken that aren't in the news yet.  Look at it this way ... the police were survailing this guy in a club known as a thug joint.  After an altercation became public, a gun was mentioned, and the guys were leaving the club the po-po came up on the guy and shot his ass.  Just decided that he was someone who needed shot and tossed a few clips his way for sport.  What the hell we got time, he is black and we haven't been in the news enough for racial hatred lately, and we are all bored.  Fuck it lets shoot his ass.

Nah ... the guy was up to something that got him killed.  We need to give the right people a little support here before the public caining starts.  If this is a bogus killing of an unarmed man then the cops involved need to be  hung out to dry.  All  I'm saying is that we need to hear it all before we fry the poor bastards AND we need to make a habit of it instead of right away hanging the cop that had to take a life to keep us safe.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 27, 2006)

I'll go out on a limb here and "conjecture" the other side of the story. 

This idiot was a bad guy.  A gang banger.  A sordid soul with no respect for authority or life outside his own pathetic existence.

It's a shame the police wern't armed with belt-fed weapons.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 27, 2006)

goandykid said:


> If you're telling me there's no foul play here you have to be kidding. I understand what you wrote DG (BTW, happy 50th  ), but the it sounds like the officer walked into a drunk driver pulling out, not going fast, not enough to "run him down" or seriously injure him. I feel like the shooting wouldve stARTed ASAP after the officer made contact w/ the vehicle, and the fender bender was caused by him fleeing the shooting. Theres no way for him to know these were cops shooting at him or were cops around him. If people dressed in plain clothes started unloading at me I'd try and bolt too.
> 
> 
> Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.


 
goandykid, you are jumping the gun here. You can't possibly have enough information yet to know whether this was justified or not.


----------



## the nut (Nov 27, 2006)

Let me lay this out for you guys:

Surveillence - Expecting or watching for criminal activity that night. 

Dsipute with mention of firearm - red flag goes up.

Men who claimed to have gun are heading to vehicle - 2nd red flag 

Officer approaches vehicle - car "srtikes" officer - officer open fire - brother officer see this occur and vehicle still moving, they open fire. You tend to get a little nervous when you see your brother officer's life in danger, and you are gonna fire until the vehicle stops. The fact that the driver is the only one dead tells me that all the cops were firing on the drivers seat to stop the vehicle. 

Lesson to be learned:

Try not to threaten people with guns and try not to strike a police officer or civilian with your vehicle right after you do that. 

I was laughing because Sharpton waste no time in these instances, getting his rallies going and protests. He dosen't care wether it was justified or not. 

I'm gonna go with my brother officers on this one, until something else comes out that even looks suspicious.


----------



## the nut (Nov 27, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.



Andy, they didn't assume... they reacted to the threat.


----------



## ALBOB (Nov 27, 2006)

Married or dead; either way his life is over.  So, what's all the fuss about?


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> If they tried to run over the officer, it is force with a deadly weapon and the officer is justified using however much resistant force to stop it. It that means it takes 50 shots, so be it. He also sideswiped an undercover car. I personally know a police chief in another small town that responded to a domoestic and another officer had been shot and killed previously responding and when he drove up and was hit in the shoulder by a rifle and he unloaded every clip he had into the door/window where the shot came  from. I think it was 46 rounds(three 15 rd clips and 1 in the chamber) Luckily one or two shots injured the guy and it stopped him from shooting the chief again. If not, I'm sure he would have kept firing at the chief. You do what you have to, to stop the threat.
> Unfortunately, we don't know enough about this to make  any kind of determinations, but I'm sure many will fry every officer involved because of ignorance.





Like I said before, there are missing parts to the story that make assigning blame impossible at this point. Bringing up some story about some guy unloading 3 clips worth of ammo at a perpetrator and saving the day does not automatically make what these cops did ok. There will be an investigation, and hopefully new information will help determine what actually happened.



DOMS said:


> And there is your problem, along with Sharpton's: You're guessing.
> 
> All the facts aren't clear yet, but if he did hit a cop with a car, then I'm not surprised that they shot him.  Trying to kill someone with a car ranks right up there with using a gun.  He may simply have been drunk, but to the cops it looked like attempted vehicular homicide.



You???re doing the exact same thing just in the other direction. The facts aren't out yet and you have already made the guy out to be an attempted murderer. When the smoke clears you may be right, but lets get the rest of the story first.




			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> You obviously don't know how the police work.  They identify themselves every time.  And they do it multiple times.



Bahahaha, that is bullshit. I have watched undercover officers jump people without identifying themselves every year at mardi gras. Usually the undercover cops would subdue the perpetrator, then identify themselves, and read them their rights once they were handcuffed on the ground. 

The cops are supposed to identify themselves, that doesn't mean they do.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 27, 2006)

goandykid said:


> "Officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Michael Bloomberg said.



Bloomberg is a fucking whacko.  He is one of the nation's leaders in gun control efforts.  Apparently Bloomberg thinks people should not be able to defend themselves, instead they must depend on the police.  When the police arrive on the scene, they can open fire on anyone they please, regardless of whether they have seen a gun or not.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> > Bloomberg is a fucking whacko. He is one of the nation's leaders in gun control efforts.
> 
> 
> He's a whacko all because he is against guns?
> ...


 
I am sorry, that seems to be over my head.
Are you implying the gunfight would have been fair if the people who were shot had guns? WTF??


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I am sorry, that seems to be over my head.
> Are you implying the gunfight would have been fair if the people who were shot had guns? WTF??



 


That is a funny way of interrupting that, but I don???t think that is what he means.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> Like I said before, there are missing parts to the story that make assigning blame impossible at this point. Bringing up some story about some guy unloading 3 clips worth of ammo at a perpetrator and saving the day does not automatically make what these cops did ok. There will be an investigation, and hopefully new information will help determine what actually happened.


I agree there are missing parts. We may never know them. So why are you still condeming the police if we don't know what they done is justified or not???


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I am sorry, that seems to be over my head.
> Are you implying the gunfight would have been fair if the people who were shot had guns? WTF??



What I am saying is that people like Bloomberg who argue for extreme gun control (not simple background checks or things like that) usually argue that people should depend on the police rather than have the ability to protect themselves.  In addition to that, Bloomberg seems to think that the police should be able to shoot people who are unarmed for fear of them having an unseen and unbrandished weapon.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> That is a funny way of interrupting that, but I don???t think that is what he means.


I know, but if the thread was "defensless man gets kidnapped by terrorist" then I can see where a gun can come in handy.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> Bloomberg is a fucking whacko.  He is one of the nation's leaders in gun control efforts.  Apparently Bloomberg thinks people should not be able to defend themselves, instead they must depend on the police.  When the police arrive on the scene, they can open fire on anyone they please, regardless of whether they have seen a gun or not.



  I am one of the biggest supporters of gun rights. But you have to do it in a responsible manner. People should be able to protect themselves.
But it's the ones that don't want to let the police know they have guns that are always in trouble. Most are already criminals not legally allowed to carry firearms or ones that are intent to commit a crime with that gun.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 27, 2006)

I wouldn't want to call the police knowing that they have that broad of a license to use deadly force.  I guess thats my ultimate point.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> What I am saying is that people like Bloomberg who argue for extreme gun control (not simple background checks or things like that) usually argue that people should depend on the police rather than have the ability to protect themselves. In addition to that, Bloomberg seems to think that the police should be able to shoot people who are unarmed for fear of them having an unseen and unbrandished weapon.


 

Now you made sense, but I still don't trust my fellow man with a gun. 
I wouldn't even trust myself with one, I probably would have shot my neighbor long ago.




> Bloomberg seems to think that the police should be able to shoot people who are unarmed for fear of them having an unseen and unbrandished weapon



That's not the way he should be thinking, in fact he should have let his commissioner do the talking on that issue.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> I wouldn't want to call the police knowing that they have that broad of a license to use deadly force.  I guess thats my ultimate point.



They only use that level of force if it is used against them first. Lesson? Obey and do what the police tell you and everything will come out fine. I've had many people tell me as I approach a car that they have a handgun. I've never shot anyone over it. The ones that tell you, pose no danger to you. It's the ones that sit quitely and watch every move you make that makes me nervous.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> I wouldn't want to call the police knowing that they have that broad of a license to use deadly force. I guess thats my ultimate point.


The officer who did most of the shooting was on the force for years before he fired his first shot.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> . It's the ones that sit quitely and watch every move you make that makes me nervous.


Now that's scary.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> I agree there are missing parts. We may never know them. So why are you still condeming the police if we don't know what they done is justified or not???



I never condemned anyone. I think I said it over 3 times now that *missing information makes it impossible to assign any blame at this point.*

I can already see that I am about to catch a lot of shit for not jumping on the cops can do no wrong bandwagon. I guess if you are a cop or a soldier you can do no wrong.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> They only use that level of force if it is used against them first. Lesson? Obey and do what the police tell you and everything will come out fine. I've had many people tell me as I approach a car that they have a handgun. I've never shot anyone over it. The ones that tell you, pose no danger to you. It's the ones that sit quitely and watch every move you make that makes me nervous.



Oh, you're a cop. That explains it all. You wouldn't have any bais or anything, lawl.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> You???re doing the exact same thing just in the other direction. The facts aren't out yet and you have already made the guy out to be an attempted murderer. When the smoke clears you may be right, but lets get the rest of the story first.



I'm just going on what the article actaully said.  You know..the facts presented so far?    A lot of the shit for the side trying to vilify the cops is adding stuff beyond the article.






KelJu said:


> Bahahaha, that is bullshit. I have watched undercover officers jump people without identifying themselves every year at mardi gras. Usually the undercover cops would subdue the perpetrator, then identify themselves, and read them their rights once they were handcuffed on the ground.
> 
> The cops are supposed to identify themselves, that doesn't mean they do.



I find your story doubtful. The do it for two reasons: 1) It states their authority. 2) It limits their liability.

If a cop did jump someone without identifying themselves first, it would be because they need to get the drop on someone who presented a dangerous thread.  Which I find hard to believe at the Mardi Gras.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> Oh, you're a cop. That explains it all. You wouldn't have any bais or anything, lawl.


I'm not a cop, but I'm taking the same stance at dg.  With two exceptions, my encounters with the police have been pretty good.  If that moron had simply complied with the directions given to him, he'd still be alive.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

There is definitly more to this story but if the Police were in the right they will still come out losing. It's just the way it is. 



> The white detective who squeezed off* 31 of 50 shots at three unarmed men* outside a Queens strip joint* had a clean record, never fired his gun in the line of duty and was known as a good street cop. *
> 
> His unblemished history left fellow officers puzzled yesterday over what led the 12-year veteran to get down on one knee and empty two clips on the darkened Jamaica street early Saturday morning.
> *"He lost it. Four or five rounds - maybe. But to reload? It's hard to understand. Even in the heat of the moment, it's overkill," a law enforcement source said.*
> ...




It shouldn't be a bias case.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Don't know what happened, but
> 
> 1)They said they had a gun
> 2)They ran from the po-po
> ...



agree


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> They only use that level of force if it is used against them first. Lesson? Obey and do what the police tell you and everything will come out fine. I've had many people tell me as I approach a car that they have a handgun. I've never shot anyone over it. The ones that tell you, pose no danger to you. It's the ones that sit quitely and watch every move you make that makes me nervous.



agree.  also, you can't put people, like officers (or even millitary personel) in positions like this and then get mad at them when they respond.  They have to make life and death situations.....how the fuck can an outsider say what is right or wrong?



Did it ever say if the driver was drinking or not?  Pretty strange that he would just run into a car and be sober.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> There is definitly more to this story but if the Police were in the right they will still come out losing. It's just the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't let the facts get in the way of saying it was racially motivated.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

also....why the fuck does Al Sharpton get involved?  All he does is stir shit.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

> If a cop did jump someone without identifying themselves first, it would be because they need to get the drop on someone who presented a dangerous thread. Which I find hard to believe at the Mardi Gras


 
I have seen it 3 times, once a couple of uniformed cops came and took our drugs.....ahem..

I'll never forget his eyes, he was more stoned than we were.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I'm just going on what the article actaully said.  You know..the facts presented so far?    A lot of the shit for the side trying to vilify the cops is adding stuff beyond the article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dude, Mardi Gras in Mobile isn't Disney Land. There is a massive illegal drug industry here. Trust me; I was part of it for a few years. One dealer could easily push a couple thousand dollars in one day. You think those dealers aren't carrying guns? We are also packed in here like sheep on Joe Kane day or Fat Tuesday making it very easy for people to slip into the crowds to escape police in uniforms, because any dealers that have any fucking sense have lookouts that call them on their cell to alert them that police are closing in on them. The only way for the cops to effectively get these people is to rush them without warning. 

So, you can believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first, but I am telling you this is how it is.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Don't let the facts get in the way of saying it was racially motivated.


I didn't say it was. But it will be, in fact they already are.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

P-funk said:


> also....why the fuck does Al Sharpton get involved? All he does is stir shit.


He is a buffoon, I never took him seriously. I don't think anyone does.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 27, 2006)

goandykid said:


> Dale - And jsut because they assumed he had a gun doesn't mean he did, as we all know now.



Drunk driver behind wheel driving psychotically=gun, IMO.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

P-funk said:


> also....why the fuck does Al Sharpton get involved?  All he does is stir shit.



I'm waiting on Jesse Jackson to have his say also.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Drunk driver behind wheel driving psychotically=gun, IMO.



Yep, it can kill you.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> He is a buffoon, I never took him seriously. I don't think anyone does.



I think everyone   when Al shows up. He waits for shit to happen just so he can get some media coverage.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> Drunk driver behind wheel driving psychotically=gun, IMO.



drunk driving = grounds for getting shot and killed before you kill someone else.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> Oh, you're a cop. That explains it all. You wouldn't have any bais or anything, lawl.



Honestly. I try not to. If the cops are in the wrong, they need to be punished. But they are atomatically jumped on everytime something likes this happens and 99% of the time it is not justified.
Just like P stated, they make decisions so fast sometimes, how can others say right or wrong or how they felt threatned at the time? Although I have never been shot at, I've been in fights where I've used pepper spray and you do what it takes to get out of it. You would to if you were in their shoes.


----------



## KentDog (Nov 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> You obviously don't know how the police work.  *They identify themselves every time.*  And they do it multiple times.


I disagree, from personal experience.



DOMS said:


> And there is your problem, along with Sharpton's: *You're guessing.*
> 
> He may simply have been drunk, *but to the cops it looked like attempted vehicular homicide*.


Then the cop was guessing.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> I think everyone  when Al shows up. He waits for shit to happen just so he can get some media coverage.


What good has he done, I really can't think of any good.
All he does is bring more hate to the race issue.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

Cops are human, to err is human...no?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> What good has he done, I really can't think of any good.
> All he does is bring more hate to the race issue.



I wonder how he makes money?  How does he make a living?


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 27, 2006)

P-funk said:


> I wonder how he makes money? How does he make a living?


Politicians and special interest groups give him money so he'll shut the fuck up and leave the room.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

P-funk said:


> I wonder how he makes money? How does he make a living?


His hair dresser must take in half of his money.
What a ugly 'do.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> Politicians and special interest groups give him money so he'll shut the fuck up and leave the room.


Ohh....now I See.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

P-funk said:


> I wonder how he makes money?  How does he make a living?



Some group like the Rainbow coalition that JJ has.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> His hair dresser must take in half of his money.
> What a ugly 'do.



Who's is worse?  Sharpton, King or Godhand?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> Dude, Mardi Gras in Mobile isn't Disney Land. There is a massive illegal drug industry here. Trust me; I was part of it for a few years. One dealer could easily push a couple thousand dollars in one day. You think those dealers aren't carrying guns? We are also packed in here like sheep on Joe Kane day or Fat Tuesday making it very easy for people to slip into the crowds to escape police in uniforms, because any dealers that have any fucking sense have lookouts that call them on their cell to alert them that police are closing in on them. The only way for the cops to effectively get these people is to rush them without warning.
> 
> So, you can believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first, but I am telling you this is how it is.



Like I said, they'd only do it if the situation was dangerous enough.  This guy was already trying to get away, so the officers would identify themselves because they'd already been made.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

P-funk said:


> Who's is worse? Sharpton, King or Godhand?


Is that really Godhand? 

What is Don thinking......


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 27, 2006)

I don't know what all the fuss is about.  I don't want to sound insensitive, but what is the difference between dying by gunshot wound, or having his wife slowly bleed him to death over a 20 year marriage.  Bullet sounds more humane to me.


----------



## the nut (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> In addition to that, Bloomberg seems to think that the police should be able to shoot people who are unarmed for fear of them having an unseen and unbrandished weapon.



The gun was referenced to by the victim or victim's passenger and the officers were responding to that, but the vehicle became the weapon, or appeared to become the weapon to the officers, when it struck him. It just seems like a bad sequence of events that occurred, and from what I've read I can see how they could perceive it the wrong way and why they responded the way they did. I think the victim is just as responsible as the officers in this case.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

the nut said:


> The gun was referenced to by the victim or victim's passenger and the officers were responding to that, but the *vehicle became the weapon, or appeared to become the weapon to the officers, when it struck him.* It just seems like a bad sequence of events that occurred, and from what I've read I can see how they could perceive it the wrong way and why they responded the way they did. I think the victim is just as responsible as the officers in this case.


 
If this is the case.


This is a question to anyone.

If your a cop and a perp uses his vehicle as a weapon to hurt or kill  a person.....would you use your gun to stop the perp?


I would, if I see him try to use a car to hurt  or kill anyone.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 27, 2006)

The "cops can do no wrong bandwagon" has not rooled through here yet.  We are just requesting that police _support _be the norm here rather than _kick the cop in the teeth ... then investigate him later_ posistion that seems to be popular.

Of course the cops can show up at your crime in progress, wait for you to get shot and _only after deadly force has been used_ then open fire to avoid getting blasted by the killer and in the press for bogus use of force.  We would have no more worries about unjustified use of force but you'd be dead so for you it wouldn't matter.  Is that dead thug's right to refuse to surrender to police authority worth your life?  Ultimatly that IS what you are saying ...


----------



## P-funk (Nov 27, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:


> I don't know what all the fuss is about.  I don't want to sound insensitive, but what is the difference between dying by gunshot wound, or having his wife slowly bleed him to death over a 20 year marriage.  Bullet sounds more humane to me.



 

classic mabry


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> The "cops can do no wrong bandwagon" has not rooled through here yet. We are just requesting that police _support _be the norm here rather than _kick the cop in the teeth ... then investigate him later_ posistion that seems to be popular.
> 
> Of course the cops can show up at your crime in progress, wait for you to get shot and _only after deadly force has been used_ then open fire to avoid getting blasted by the killer and in the press for bogus use of force. We would have no more worries about unjustified use of force but you'd be dead so for you it wouldn't matter. Is that dead thug's right to refuse to surrender to police authority worth your life? Ultimatly that IS what you are saying ...


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

KentDog said:


> I disagree, from personal experience.



So do I..from personal experience. 




KentDog said:


> Then the cop was guessing.



The guy was running from the cops and hit one of them.  But, I'm sure you'll agree, they should have just given him a good hug.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Honestly. I try not to. If the cops are in the wrong, they need to be punished. But they are atomatically jumped on everytime something likes this happens and 99% of the time it is not justified.
> Just like P stated, they make decisions so fast sometimes, how can others say right or wrong or how they felt threatned at the time? Although I have never been shot at, I've been in fights where I've used pepper spray and you do what it takes to get out of it. You would to if you were in their shoes.




I agree with most of what you said. But, with that much power comes a great responsibility. I don't think any of those cops should be vilified. I think they should have the same rights that any other person would have, if they were in a similar situation. But if information proves that they fucked up, they should be dealt with accordingly. 

I hope the investigation leads to information proving that the cop???s actions were justified, because I would much rather know that a criminal was killed and two other arrested than to hear that we have more out of control policemen.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> But, with that much power comes a great responsibility. .


Did you just qoute Pete Parkers father?  

Please tell me DG isn't Spiderman.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Did you just qoute Pete Parkers father?
> 
> Please tell me DG isn't Spiderman.



I always wanted to use that in a sentence.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> I always wanted to use that in a sentence.


I said that once to one of my younger co-workers who had just become a supervisor and he looked at me like I was really wise....

He saw the movie and found out I was a fraud.


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I said that once to one of my younger co-workers who had just become a supervisor and he looked at me like I was really wise....
> 
> He saw the movie and found out I was a fraud.


LOL!  I once overheard a guy use the line "you complete me" (Jerry McGuire) on a girl at a bar.  She literally spit her drink all over the guy from laughing so hard.

The rest of us had a good laugh too.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> LOL! I once overheard a guy use the line "you complete me" (Jerry McGuire) on a girl at a bar. She literally spit her drink all over the guy from laughing so hard.
> 
> The rest of us had a good laugh too.


Did he get her?


----------



## Witmaster (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Did he get her?


I honestly don't know.  They were both pretty drunk but I left with friends shortly afterward.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> I agree with most of what you said. But, with that much power comes a great responsibility. I don't think any of those cops should be vilified. I think they should have the same rights that any other person would have, if they were in a similar situation. But if information proves that they fucked up, they should be dealt with accordingly.
> 
> I hope the investigation leads to information proving that the cop???s actions were justified, because I would much rather know that a criminal was killed and two other arrested than to hear that we have more out of control policemen.



Maybe they made a bad split second decision?  
Doesn't mean they were out of control and meant to do it. Shit happens and sometimes it happens to good people who are trying to do good.
If the guy that fired most of the shots was a seasoned vet, I doubt he was out of control. He has seen plenty of this before and cops like this are not gung ho. He probably is more likely looking to quitting time and retirement time. 
Ironically, there was a guy in Charlotte that is in this situation. Been on the job for two weeks and fired a shot and killed a guy in the same manner. He was still with his field training officer. He killed a guy in a pickup truck after a robbery and the guy tried to run over him with his pickup truck.
Maybe Taylorsnutrition can give you more info if he reads this.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> I said that once to one of my younger co-workers who had just become a supervisor and he looked at me like I was really wise....
> 
> He saw the movie and found out I was a fraud.






Why did he think your were a fraud? Everything you could possibly say has been said by someone else first. The wisdom is in using it at the most effective moment.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> Why did he think your were a fraud? Everything you could possibly say has been said by someone else first. The wisdom is in using it at the most effective moment.



There are few things as bad in life as having a _really _good saying..and then hearing it in a movie.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

KelJu said:


> Why did he think your were a fraud? Everything you could possibly say has been said by someone else first. The wisdom is in using it at the most effective moment.


It was the way I said it, I said it in the same tone.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> He killed a guy in a pickup truck after a robbery and the *guy tried to run over him with his pickup truck.*


Again, I would have to side with the officer on this.


----------



## the nut (Nov 27, 2006)

Does anyone know the race of the officers? I can't find it.


----------



## largepkg (Nov 27, 2006)

Witmaster said:


> I honestly don't know.  They were both pretty drunk but I left with friends shortly afterward.



I think min0 meant did *you* get her?


----------



## Vieope (Nov 27, 2006)

_Where is the video? _


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

the nutDoes





> anyone know the race of the officers? I can't find it.


Do you have me on ignore?  




min0 lee said:


> Questioning the officers who fired falls to the Queens district attorney's office, which sources said plans to present the case to a grand jury this week. Of the five, *two are white, two are black and one is Hispanic. *.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Now you made sense, but I still don't trust my fellow man with a gun.
> I wouldn't even trust myself with one, I probably would have shot my neighbor long ago.



As well you shouldn't.  You have to earn trust.

I would surmise that the people you shouldn't trust are the ones who own/carry guns whether it is legal or not, and are thus unaffected by the law.  The ones that are trust worthy are the ones who go through the proper steps of getting a license, and are the only ones that are disarmed.





Anyway, that has nothing to do with the thread topic.  I was just irked by the fact that Bloomerg justified it not by the fact that they were using a car as a weapon, but by the fact that they _might_ have had a gun.


----------



## the nut (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> the nutDoes
> Do you have me on ignore?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> As well you shouldn't. You have to earn trust.
> 
> I would surmise that the people you shouldn't trust are the ones who own/carry guns whether it is legal or not, and are thus unaffected by the law. The ones that are trust worthy are the ones who go through the proper steps of getting a license, and are the only ones that are disarmed.
> 
> ...


 
Now that's a tough call for any cop to make. The adrenaline rush they get when they see or hear gun goes up the roof.

If you were to call the NYPD for anything they would take their time but be it a officer up against a perp with a gun and ZOOOOOOOM!!! They come a running like the cavalry.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Nov 27, 2006)

Probably would have been a different story if the victims were white

This dispute reminds me of the Rodney King incident that occurred years ago in LA


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:


> > Probably would have been a different story if the victims were white
> 
> 
> They would have been given a ticket and told to go home.
> ...


This is more like the Diallo incident.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/475045p-399522c.html


----------



## KentDog (Nov 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> So do I..from personal experience.


Just stating how it's not *always*.



DOMS said:


> The guy was running from the cops and hit one of them.  But, I'm sure you'll agree, they should have just given him a good hug.


I actually think people are asking for trouble when they are messing with cops, but I wasn't there so I don't know the situation. It is possible that the cop had not identified himself. Where does it say he was running from the cops? Either way it sucks that it had to end in death.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Nov 27, 2006)

> Amadou Diallo was 22 when he was shot to death Feb. 4, 1999, by cops who fired 41 bullets as he stood, unarmed, in the doorway of his Bronx apartment. The cops were acquitted of all criminal charges by an Albany jury, but the city later paid the Diallo family $3 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:


>


Your rolling your eyes at the police being acquitted or the family getting 3 mil in the lawsuit?


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Now that's a tough call for any cop to make. The adrenaline rush they get when they see or hear gun goes up the roof.
> 
> If you were to call the NYPD for anything they would take their time but be it a officer up against a perp with a gun and ZOOOOOOOM!!! They come a running like the cavalry.



Depending on the placement of the officers and the direction/speed of the car, the shooting may have been justified.  If that is your position then you would say, "the shooting was justified because the suspects were using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against officers."  However, the idea that five police officers can open fire on a car exclusively because they think the suspects might be armed is ridiculous, yet this is what Bloomberg seems to be suggesting.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

clemson357 said:


> Depending on the placement of the officers and the direction/speed of the car, the shooting may have been justified. If that is your position then you would say, "the shooting was justified because the suspects were using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against officers." However, the idea that five police officers can open fire on a car exclusively because they think the suspects might be armed is ridiculous, yet this is what Bloomberg seems to be suggesting.


 
I think Bloomberg should have let the Commish comment on that one. 
I wish there was video on this.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Nov 27, 2006)

min0 lee said:


> Your rolling your eyes at the police being acquitted or the family getting 3 mil in the lawsuit?



police getting acquitted


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 27, 2006)

shiznit2169 said:


> police getting acquitted


Oh, I was more shocked at the Diallo incident but this new one doesn't really shock me.


----------



## goandykid (Nov 27, 2006)

Conjecture your face, DOMS 


All this is is conjecturing and speculation, don't vocab word me. I also hope that the cops are acquitted and a report comes out that the man was using the car as a weapon.

Having said that, I feel like a lot of this story doesn't work. I don't believe the cops said they were cops, and here's why:

If the (*undercover)*cop who was walking towards the front of the car was hit by the car, he wouldnt have time to stop and yell police. He would instinctively start to defend himself. His partners would follow suit.

I don't believe this was racially motivated, but knowing Al Sharpton he'll address the fact that it was a white cop who shot first, and that the other cops just soon followed afterwards. I do however believe the cops were heavy on the trigger because it was a bad neighborhood, leading to their ASSUMPTION that they had a gun, as sstated in both articles I posted earlier.

Still, gotta feel for this guy, the cops, his fiancee, and their family.


----------

