NYPD Shooting

[MJS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/

NEW YORK - Police opened fire early Saturday on a car full of men driving away from a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day after an undercover officer was rammed with the car.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it was too early to say whether the shooting — 50 rounds were fired, hitting the vehicle 21 times — was justified. The deadly incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the club, Kelly said.

Thoughts on this? There are still many unanswered questions, but it'll be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[bydand]

I think there is a lot more to this story than it first appears. I did notice that in true media fashion, they had to add 2 unrelated incidences where a seemingly innocent person was shot and killed and the police involved were not charged with anything. All that is going to do is raise this up to a fever pitch before the whole story gets out. Plus with Sharpton involved it is going to go right down a racial path weather it is or not.

 

[michaeledward]

I think there is a lot more to this story than it first appears. I did notice that in true media fashion, they had to add 2 unrelated incidences where a seemingly innocent person was shot and killed and the police involved were not charged with anything. All that is going to do is raise this up to a fever pitch before the whole story gets out. Plus with Sharpton involved it is going to go right down a racial path weather it is or not.

I am wondering if the language 'seemingly innocent person' indicates an 'assumption of guilt'. Because a police officer draws a weapon, does that automatically indicate guilt? Guilt is the opposite of innocent, isn't it?

Are we determining guilt on the part of a person strictly because a police officer thought use of force was necessary?

EDIT ...

It is interesting that you intimate some nefarious purpose to Reverend Sharpton's involvement. From the article, which statement do you think hints on something other than what it says?

I will stand with this family. This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right.

We’re not anti-police ... we’re anti-police brutality.

END EDIT.

 

[bydand]

I am wondering if the language 'seemingly innocent person' indicates an 'assumption of guilt'. Because a police officer draws a weapon, does that automatically indicate guilt? Guilt is the opposite of innocent, isn't it?

Never said they were guilty or innocent. I do not know, nor can I know one way or the other. "seemingly innocent" means exacty that, break it down. It seems as though they were innocent, how would you rather me phrase it? "Totally innocent persons" well that would be incorrect also, because I do not know one way or the other. Never said because a Police officer draws a weapon it makes the other person guilty. Show me where I indicated that please. Guilt is opposite of innocent, no bearing on the statement I made.

Are we determining guilt on the part of a person strictly because a police officer thought use of force was necessary?

Again, NO.

It is interesting that you intimate some nefarious purpose to Reverend Sharpton's involvement. From the article, which statement do you think hints on something other than what it says?




END EDIT.

Never said it had a nefarious purpose. Just that reasonable adults know the race issue card will be drawn with anything he gets his fingers involved in. That is based on past history, not on anything he said in that article. If you are going to call me to the mat over that statement, you need to call the media to the mat also for calling up past history as well. If just taken as if this was a stand alone story, I admit I would be in the wrong for that assumption. And as I called the media to task for bringing up cases that are not related to this particular incident, I was in the wrong to do the same with Mr. Sharpton. I hope he is there just for support of the family and not to make this into a media circus and personal spotlight.

 

[michaeledward]

Never said they were guilty or innocent. I do not know, nor can I know one way or the other. "seemingly innocent" means exacty that, break it down. It seems as though they were innocent, how would you rather me phrase it? "Totally innocent persons" well that would be incorrect also, because I do not know one way or the other. Never said because a Police officer draws a weapon it makes the other person guilty. Show me where I indicated that please. Guilt is opposite of innocent, no bearing on the statement I made.

Again, NO.

Never said it had a nefarious purpose. Just that reasonable adults know the race issue card will be drawn with anything he gets his fingers involved in. That is based on past history, not on anything he said in that article. If you are going to call me to the mat over that statement, you need to call the media to the mat also for calling up past history as well. If just taken as if this was a stand alone story, I admit I would be in the wrong for that assumption. And as I called the media to task for bringing up cases that are not related to this particular incident, I was in the wrong to do the same with Mr. Sharpton. I hope he is there just for support of the family and not to make this into a media circus and personal spotlight.

The article linked by MJS does not reference any earlier incidents (8:58 AM 11/26). While different articles on different web sites make reference to other historical incidents (cnn 5:09 pm 11/26), when I replied, I was looking at the MSNBC article.

Looking at your post now, after this response, it seems that you were referencing this news story from a media source other than that posted by MJS. But, you did not direct me to any other stories. Your language about two prior incidents did not make any sense to me then. Only after looking to other news stories do your references make any sense.

 

[bydand]

The article referenced is the only one I have seen on the matter. The earlier incidences were referenced at the very bottom. I have looked for more information this afternoon, but have only seen this article, and the same thing reprinted in a UK paper.

EDIT: Son of a gun. Just looked back at the referenced article and the last paragraph is GONE! I can see why it didn't make any sense.

 

[Don Roley]

Well, it seems that the car crashed into a van with NYPD officers in it. Then it sped backwards, nearly killing another officer. Then it crashed into the van again and the police opened up.

Probably some extreme stupidity and booziness on the part of the driver. But from the police viewpoint, they were right to assume that this guy might be trying to kill them.

I don't think any one of us as marial artists would have had more restrain than them in considering this an attack on them.

I hope more facts get out rather than press conferences by Sharpton. I still remember some of the things he did and the riots they caused.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I hope more facts get out rather than press conferences by Sharpton. I still remember some of the things he did and the riots they caused.

Well, Sharpton is definitely a piece of work, isn't he?

I'm reserving judgment on this one until a few more days have passed. Initial reports on high-profile cases are often wrong or misleading.

 

[MJS]

Looking in my local paper, it stated that there was a verbal dispute outside the club, and one of the guys friends made reference to getting a gun. An undercover officer began to follow the group. As he approached the front of their car, the car drove forward, hitting the officer as well as an unmarked car. The article does not mention if the officer identified himself as a police officer.

That is one question that I'd like to know the answer to: Did they know that the guys on the outside of the car were cops?

There have been a few cases like this here in CT, in which an officer, fearing for his safety, fires upon the car. Could he have shot out the tires, in an attempt to disable the car? I'm sure we've all heard of cars being hit by spike stripes, and they still attempt to continue on, despite having no tires. Then again, thats like people saying to shoot the guy in the leg rather than the chest, if faced with a gun. They're most likely going to be going for a bigger target, not a smaller one.

It will be interesting to see what else happens. If anyone else has any links to articles that are relevant, feel free to post them.

Mike

 

[Lisa]

A vehicle is a deadly weapon. After seeing it ram the officer, back up and ram again, I can see why the incident escalated to where it did.

It is a tragedy to say the least.

 

[Drac]

Well, Sharpton is definitely a piece of work, isn't he?

I would love to tell you what I think of Sharpton but I'd probably short out the automatic censor...

 

[michaeledward]

Looking in my local paper, it stated that there was a verbal dispute outside the club, and one of the guys friends made reference to getting a gun. An undercover officer began to follow the group. As he approached the front of their car, the car drove forward, hitting the officer as well as an unmarked car. The article does not mention if the officer identified himself as a police officer.

That is one question that I'd like to know the answer to: Did they know that the guys on the outside of the car were cops?

There have been a few cases like this here in CT, in which an officer, fearing for his safety, fires upon the car. Could he have shot out the tires, in an attempt to disable the car? I'm sure we've all heard of cars being hit by spike stripes, and they still attempt to continue on, despite having no tires. Then again, thats like people saying to shoot the guy in the leg rather than the chest, if faced with a gun. They're most likely going to be going for a bigger target, not a smaller one.

It will be interesting to see what else happens. If anyone else has any links to articles that are relevant, feel free to post them.

Mike

It is interesting that the articles do not say who was involved in the verbal alteraction. I am wondering if there is an assumption that those who were shot were verbally altercating with the police.

Several of the articles are vague about whether there was intent on the part of the driver with hitting the plain clothed officer. Reports are that the office followed the party to their car. One news report said the officer had a 'scraped knee'. In fact, one article says Mr. Bell "almost" ran over an undercover cop. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4798502

One officer fired 31 one times. That seems interesting. Two clips? Two officers did not fire any rounds?

Bullets Broke windows at the train station, which was across 94th street.
Bullets hit nearby homes?

There was ... maybe ... a fourth member of the party, that fled?

EDIT - just found this ... here http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/1127/nypd_ap.html ... perhaps Ms. Wright was the fourth member of the party.

Trini Wright, a dancer at the strip club where Bell's bachelor party was held, told the Daily News she was going to a diner with the men and was putting her makeup bag in the trunk of their car when the police minivan appeared.

"The minivan came around the corner and smashed into their car. And they (the police) jumped out shooting," Wright, 28, told the newspaper for Monday editions. "No 'stop.' No 'freeze.' No nothing."

END EDIT


The officers that fired their weapons are on desk duty, and because of the Grand Jury investigation will not be able to speak for some time. Obviously, there are quite a few unanswered questions.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Heres a list compiled by some ACLU type org listing NYPD shootings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~alvgc/justice/id73.html

Is it me or do a LOT of these "Shootings of civilians (strange term. arent ALL people cops shoot, justified or not, civilians??)" look pretty cut and dry justified? People shooting and stabbing cops get shot, big deal. Just because the DA decides not to prosecute doesnt mean a cover-up. Look at how many of these went to grand jury and got turned down. Should we short circuit the system and go to trial on all police shootings? If it goes to grand jury and a panel of citizens decides it was justified its good enough for me.

In this case, all these people calling for heads to roll this early in the investigation are going by emotion rather than logic. Nobody knows enough details to be calling for anything at this point. Sharpton is just an opportunist looking to get back in the limelight if you ask me. How he has ANY standing after the Tawana Brawley fiasco is beyond me. If he was a white guy making these types of accusations against non-whites I can just imagine what would be said bout him. Somehow Sharpton remains a hero. I guess it shows that race issues trump almost anything.

 

[michaeledward]

Heres a list compiled by some ACLU type org listing NYPD shootings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~alvgc/justice/id73.html

Is it me or do a LOT of these "Shootings of civilians (strange term. arent ALL people cops shoot, justified or not, civilians??)" look pretty cut and dry justified? People shooting and stabbing cops get shot, big deal. Just because the DA decides not to prosecute doesnt mean a cover-up. Look at how many of these went to grand jury and got turned down. Should we short circuit the system and go to trial on all police shootings? If it goes to grand jury and a panel of citizens decides it was justified its good enough for me.

In this case, all these people calling for heads to roll this early in the investigation are going by emotion rather than logic. Nobody knows enough details to be calling for anything at this point. Sharpton is just an opportunist looking to get back in the limelight if you ask me. How he has ANY standing after the Tawana Brawley fiasco is beyond me. If he was a white guy making these types of accusations against non-whites I can just imagine what would be said bout him. Somehow Sharpton remains a hero. I guess it shows that race issues trump almost anything.

What accusations are you seeing Reverend Sharpton make?

Are you referencing statements about this account, or earlier incidents?

Again, here are two quotes about this incident I find ascribed to Reverend Sharpton.

"I will stand with this family. This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right."

"We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality."

Here is a third quote.

"How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?"

 

[mrhnau]

"How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?"

When they ram cops and cop cars repeatedly. You know what? If I did that, I'd expect to get shot too! I'll also wager that ANY court is going to find a car ramming police as a weapon. Those men were not unarmed.

Good grief... ok, lets take away their guns. they can't seem to EVER use them w/out some liberal having a hissy fit. Lets take away the TASERS, since thats too dangerous. Cuffs should go, since you can hit someone while they are wearing them and they tend to chafe. Lets just instruct them to sing "koom by ya" when someone starts shooting them, ramming them with cars or otherwise threatening the public...

sorry, I'm not interested in neutering the police. they have a job to do, and its a hard job to do. they don't do it perfect, but I'm going to imagine there is NOONE on this board that does thier job perfectly. I'll tip my hat to any cop any day. They have a hard job every day that often determines life and death. They get shot at, stabbed, run over, etc. and are crucified by people like Sharpton if they survive.

"We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality."

Agreed, however, ridiculous things like RAMMING POLICE with your car requires extreme response. Should they just run away and let this idiot go ram some civilians? Has it been proposed that if these guys left the scene they would have caused other fatalities?

I do get a bit tired of people like Sharpton running their mouths all the time before the facts are even out. Police are not out to get people. I don't know any cop that finds pleasure in shooting people or causing anyone serious harm. Its not like they want to go kill everyone. Geez. Some guy will take a shot at a cop and the cop fires back. If the guy is black and dies, here comes Sharpton et al. They ignore the fact that he shot at the cop, but focus on the cops response and the resulting death. I mean, come on...

I'm reserving judgment on this one until a few more days have passed. Initial reports on high-profile cases are often wrong or misleading.

AMEN! Thank you! Totally agreed. Give this time. Don't have a heart attack. If the cops handled it inappropriately, it will come out. They will be prosecuted if so. The rantings of Sharpton will not determine their innocence or guilt. From my understanding, when there is a shooting death there is automatically a probe. It will happen, just let it work...

Other shots hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no one else was injured.

I must admit, that part was distrubing. I thought they were trained to not have collateral damage?

 

[MJS]

It is interesting that the articles do not say who was involved in the verbal alteraction. I am wondering if there is an assumption that those who were shot were verbally altercating with the police.

Yes, that is a good point.

Several of the articles are vague about whether there was intent on the part of the driver with hitting the plain clothed officer. Reports are that the office followed the party to their car. One news report said the officer had a 'scraped knee'. In fact, one article says Mr. Bell "almost" ran over an undercover cop. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4798502

Amazing how many different witness accounts there are.

One officer fired 31 one times. That seems interesting. Two clips? Two officers did not fire any rounds?

Bullets Broke windows at the train station, which was across 94th street.
Bullets hit nearby homes?

Given the amount of shots fired, I'm surprised that no bystanders were hit.

There was ... maybe ... a fourth member of the party, that fled?

EDIT - just found this ... here http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/1127/nypd_ap.html ... perhaps Ms. Wright was the fourth member of the party.



END EDIT

Hmmm...yeah, that very well could be a possibility. I don't recall, in the initial stories, any detailed description of the 4th person. This girl could very well be that one.


Mike

 

[MJS]

When they ram cops and cop cars repeatedly. You know what? If I did that, I'd expect to get shot too! I'll also wager that ANY court is going to find a car ramming police as a weapon. Those men were not unarmed.

Good grief... ok, lets take away their guns. they can't seem to EVER use them w/out some liberal having a hissy fit. Lets take away the TASERS, since thats too dangerous. Cuffs should go, since you can hit someone while they are wearing them and they tend to chafe. Lets just instruct them to sing "koom by ya" when someone starts shooting them, ramming them with cars or otherwise threatening the public...

Aside from moving out of the way, I really don't see how they could not be justified in shooting at the car.

sorry, I'm not interested in neutering the police. they have a job to do, and its a hard job to do. they don't do it perfect, but I'm going to imagine there is NOONE on this board that does thier job perfectly. I'll tip my hat to any cop any day. They have a hard job every day that often determines life and death. They get shot at, stabbed, run over, etc. and are crucified by people like Sharpton if they survive.

I don't know much about Sharpton, but anytime something like this happens, its not surprising that there are alot of folks voicing their thoughts. Back to the cops though. My Grandafther was a cop, I work at a PD, and I see everyday, the crap the LEOs have to deal with. Likewise, I tip my hat to them as well.

Agreed, however, ridiculous things like RAMMING POLICE with your car requires extreme response. Should they just run away and let this idiot go ram some civilians? Has it been proposed that if these guys left the scene they would have caused other fatalities?

Good points.

I do get a bit tired of people like Sharpton running their mouths all the time before the facts are even out. Police are not out to get people. I don't know any cop that finds pleasure in shooting people or causing anyone serious harm. Its not like they want to go kill everyone. Geez. Some guy will take a shot at a cop and the cop fires back. If the guy is black and dies, here comes Sharpton et al. They ignore the fact that he shot at the cop, but focus on the cops response and the resulting death. I mean, come on...

Agreed 100%

AMEN! Thank you! Totally agreed. Give this time. Don't have a heart attack. If the cops handled it inappropriately, it will come out. They will be prosecuted if so. The rantings of Sharpton will not determine their innocence or guilt. From my understanding, when there is a shooting death there is automatically a probe. It will happen, just let it work...

Agree.


Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Strange how one can praise the desire to withhold judgement until more facts are known, at the same time as decrying statements that are completely neutral. That just doesn't seem to be 'withholding judgement'.

Also, it has not yet been determined that the officers identified themselves as police officers. The automobiles that were hit were unmarked vehicles. The officers were plain-clothed.

If some guy in bluejeans followed me out of a club, and started firing a gun at me ... I'ld probably try to run the guy over ... and "ram" the car too.

 

[Grenadier]

I'll divide my post into two sections. The first concerns Al Sharpton, and the second is about the actual situation.

Al Sharpton does not care about the families. He's an attention hound, and just happens to be able to incite people by trying to find any kind of dirt on the police, often times using race as an issue. He has zero credibility, especially after the Tawana Brawley incident, and how he desperately tried to keep the anger amongst the community at a peak, despite the fact that Brawley was a flat-out liar.

He even tried to drag down Steve Pagones, and ended up ruining his life and his career, just to keep the hype up. If Sharpton had any decency, he would have at least given an apology to Pagones, but chose not to do so, instead having a lackey of his pay the money to Pagones after the defamation trial.

Then add to the fact that Sharpton was spewing blatant lies during the Crown Heights incident, and spurring on people to riot.



As for this incident, there seem to be two sides to tell.

The first side is dependent on the testimony of a stripper at the club where Bell and co. were at. She asserts that the van rammed Bell's Altima first, and didn't announce anything, and instantly started shooting.

The second side states that Bell first tried to run over the police officer, who had identified himself as a law enforcement agent. Bell then proceded to ram the police van, then rammed a store, and the tried to run over the police officer in an effort to escape. It wasn't until he tried to run over a police officer *again*, that shots were fired.


If the facts agree with the second point of view, then the police officers were perfectly justified in firing at someone attempting to commit vehicular homicide. If, on the other hand, the stripper's account of the events proves to be true, then the officers would be responsible for committing murder.

I am much more inclined to believe the second point of view.

Regardless of the situation, there is no racist content in this incident from the police. Three of the five officers involved are minorities (2 black, 1 Hispanic).

 

[mrhnau]

Strange how one can praise the desire to withhold judgement until more facts are known, at the same time as decrying statements that are completely neutral. That just doesn't seem to be 'withholding judgement'.

1) "I will stand with this family. This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right."

2) "We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality."

3) "How does one justify 50 shots at unarmed men?"

These are completely neutral?

1) "This stinks" is considered neutral? Want to stand by the family, thats fine, but "This stinks"? Speaking of which, he supports the families, but not the police? The guys that risk their lives to protect him from criminals don't deserve his support?

2) police brutality has not been determined.

3) Thats already been mentioned. They were armed. What number of shots would have made you happy? 10? 4? These cops wanted to stop the ability of these men to run over any more cops/civilians. It will be determined later if excessive force was used.

I'll withhold judgement on the situation. I was not there, and I don't know the men involved. I'll posit that Sharpton does not either. Now, Sharpton I've observed over the past years. He has precedent. Sharpton is free to say what he wants, but I also reserve the right to respond. Sharpton wants to paint a picture of police brutality, I'll posit the alternative.

It seems Sharpton wants a lynching. I'm not up for that. Maybe these guys are guilty and deserve punishment. Maybe they are innocent and acted properly. Either way, I don't like Sharptons automatic assumption of guilt.

Also, it has not yet been determined that the officers identified themselves as police officers. The automobiles that were hit were unmarked vehicles. The officers were plain-clothed.

If some guy in bluejeans followed me out of a club, and started firing a gun at me ... I'ld probably try to run the guy over ... and "ram" the car too.

Would it have been better if they were civilians? The only thing that changed in this circumstance is these guys had the ability to stop them.

So, you would ram some cops too... lets find out some information here then. 1) Why were undercover cops there? 2) Why was an undercover van there 3) what were these guys being probed for (assuming they were) and were they engaged in any illicit activity in that bar?

Is there bias in asking these questions about the victims? Sort of... questions seemed to have been raised about the cops, but I'm not hearing anything about these guys that were shot. Lets get both sides here.

One of the things that is aggrevating about this is the contradictory eye witness accounts... going to make it difficult to get the truth. What should be telling are videos that might arise and police records. I'm sure they have records of their undercover activities.