NYPD Shooting

[michaeledward]

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.



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.

Did you really just say that "I'll withhold judgement", one paragraph before
"If Sharpton wants a Lynching" ? ? ? That language doesn't connote judgement at all, does it?


I guess I would have to ask ... How would you describe it, if a groom dies on his wedding day, at anyone's hands? Seems to me that "This Stinks" is an understatement.


And ... at 4 in the morning NOBODY KNEW THEY WERE COPS. The reports are exceedingly vague when it comes to the officers identifying themselves. At 4 in the morning ... it was some plain clothed thug with a gun, following the young men as they left the club.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The whole outrage about the number of shots fired is pure idiocy. If a shooting is justified and it needs 5000 rounds to conclude it, so be it. If its unjustified, one shot is too many. I wonder how many rounds "you" (for those with a round count issue) would fire if you thought your or your comrades life were in danger? Were these rounds justified here? I dont know and neither do "you", but the number of shots when there are that many people with guns around dont really mean much IMO. 5 officers, 50 rounds...about 10 shots each if all were shooting on average. I dont know about anybody else but Ive shot out a whole pistol magazine with an automatic in a couple of seconds. I can see how this happens. Once one person starts shooting the other cops start shooting too, yeah they are all each responsible for the shots they fire but it doesnt seem like a big mystery to me.

 

[Grenadier]

The whole outrage about the number of shots fired is pure idiocy. If a shooting is justified and it needs 5000 rounds to conclude it, so be it. If its unjustified, one shot is too many.

Exactly.

The big issue here, is that shooting at a vehicle isn't the same as shooting someone out in the open. When a charging attacker or God forbid, a 3000 lb automobie is rushing towards you, you don't have time to take one shot, analyze the situation, and then determine if a second shot is needed. If you try to analytically determine what to do, you're probably going to be dead in a short time. You shoot until the threat is no longer present.

This is especially true when dealing with an oncoming vehicle. You don't have time to take a careful aimed shot at the tires of a moving target.

If you took some of the best handgun marksmen on almost any police force or even civilian marksmanship club, and had them try to shoot an 8 inch wide target that's moving at 40 MPH with only one shot, in a time period of a half second, while being jacked up on adrenaline, and I'll guarantee that only by sheer luck will they hit that kind of a target, which is why multiple shots would most likely be necessary.

Even if you did hit the tires, that's no guarantee that the car will magically swerve out of your way (more often than not, it won't). As posted above, cars can drive on deflated tires for a long time, and even bare metal rims for a while.

In this case, they did what was tactically correct, and shoot at the windshield multiple times. Windshield glass is very tough stuff, and just about any handgun bullet can be deflected when it hits the front windshield at an oblique angle, after hitting the surface with the first shot. Yes, even a .44 magnum slug can be deflected in such a manner. Remember, we're talking about handgun rounds, not centerfire rifle rounds.

This isn't long-range sniping; it's tactical handgunning, and those are two different games, indeed.

This is why, if the NYPD's version of the story holds up, that it doesn't matter how many rounds of ammo were fired; they had to shoot to stop the attacker, and however many rounds it took, is not an issue.

 

[michaeledward]

I will not disagree that if firing is justified, then enough bullets should be used to complete the task.

One office emptied two clips at the vehicle; 31 one rounds. Two officers fire zero rounds. There were no 'averages' involved. I wonder why the difference. One officer had time to re-load his weapon and empty another clip, while officers apparently standing by, did not feel the need to fire. That seems odd, doesn't it?

Reports are more than 20 bullets struck the vehicle.

Mr. Bell is dead. Reports are he recieved 4 shots. He was driving the car.

One passenger was hit with 11 bullets, he is in critical condition.

One passenger was hit with 3 bullets, he is in stable condition.

The train station, on the other side of 94th street was struck. As were some houses.


And there continues to assumptions about the speed with which the car was moving. From descriptions, the car was parked, and attempting to get out of a parrallel parked situation. Reports indicate the car pulled forward ... backed up ... pulled forward again.

"rushing"
"40 Miles Per Hour"

Why not just make stuff up?

EDIT
And this from a Fox News report on the story

There were no reports that any officers were wounded, Officer Kathleen Price said.

This contradicts earlier reports that the driver hit an undercover officer.

END EDIT

2ND EDIT

This story tells a different version of events. Which may be more accurate, or less. In this story, there are several bystanders who were injured by the discharge of weapons --- other than those in the car.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/n...&en=df284071aaaa3079&ei=5094&partner=homepage

END 2ND EDIT

 

[Grenadier]

standing by, did not feel the need to fire. That seems odd, doesn't it?

Not odd at all. You don't take the shot if you don't have a shot. There could be any number of circumstances, such as obstructions, or maybe you might be worried about hitting your fellow officer. They were most likely not in the line of direct danger.

The train station, on the other side of 94th street was struck. As were some houses.

Collateral damage is going to occur in these situations. The officers are going to try to avoid it, but as stated before, they're human beings, and don't have the luxury of taking carefully aimed shots when under duress.

And there continues to assumptions about the speed with which the car was moving. From descriptions, the car was parked, and attempting to get out of a parrallel parked situation. Reports indicate the car pulled forward ... backed up ... pulled forward again.

And what reports were that? Most of the AP articles list that Bell and co. tried to run over a police officer the first time (who initiated the firing), and when you claim that Bell was just trying to "pull forward," that paints an entirely different picture than someone trying to commit vehicular assault.

My friend, have you seen the pictures of the scene? Based on how badly the police van was damaged, I strongly doubt that they were just trying to "pull forward."

Bell rammed the van a second time, and that's hardly "pulling forward."

 

[mrhnau]

Did you really just say that "I'll withhold judgement", one paragraph before
"If Sharpton wants a Lynching" ? ? ? That language doesn't connote judgement at all, does it?

Fine.

Lynching typically happens when a crowd is excited by someone or something that has occured. It seeks to contravine justice by enforcing their own judgement sans due process. Sharpton has already taken sides. He is not there for justice (which could fall EITHER way) but to excite a crowd. I'm not saying they are forming a gang to murder the cops, so perhaps the term "lynching" is a bit much, but I'll stand behind how it was used.

As I have said before, I'm not going to form a judgement on the situation with the shooting. There is not sufficient evidence. Sharpton has been a public figure for a very long time and his actions both past and present are easily observable.

I guess I would have to ask ... How would you describe it, if a groom dies on his wedding day, at anyone's hands? Seems to me that "This Stinks" is an understatement.

If I was given JUST that information, I would agree! That would suck! Anyone dying on their wedding day would be bad. I'll also say that the death/injury of his friends is bad and stinky!

You know what else is stinky? someone trying to run over cops! Or someone trying to ram a cop car? Something else that is stinky is someone trying to run over someone that is NOT a cop or ramming a car that is NOT a cop car.

And ... at 4 in the morning NOBODY KNEW THEY WERE COPS. The reports are exceedingly vague when it comes to the officers identifying themselves. At 4 in the morning ... it was some plain clothed thug with a gun, following the young men as they left the club.

So, if they were not cops, you would be ok with these guys running them down? Its ok to ram a van that is not a cop van? Exactly why are you so concerned that noone knew these were cops? Would it make you happier that a non-cop was assaulted or a civilian vehicle rammed?? Or that the shooting death was perpetrated by someone else?

Are you privy to some facts I'm not aware of? Did these guys KNOW this undercover cop had a gun? I've had lots of people follow me out of stores. I seldom run over old grannies following me out of grocery stores though. I've also had alot of cops tail me on the road and even pull me over. I've yet to ram any of them.

 

[Don Roley]

Did you really just say that "I'll withhold judgement", one paragraph before
"If Sharpton wants a Lynching" ? ? ? That language doesn't connote judgement at all, does it?

For me, I will reserve judgement on the shooting until some more facts are known, even though at least some of the facts seem to back the officers. But I feel free to judge Sharpton based on the fact that he is leading people in chanting "No justice, No peace." I say he wants a lynching based on his own statements and actions in front of the cameras.

 

[michaeledward]

My friend, have you seen the pictures of the scene? Based on how badly the police van was damaged, I strongly doubt that they were just trying to "pull forward."

Bell rammed the van a second time, and that's hardly "pulling forward."

I did not see the photo of the crime scene until I posted that last link to the New York Times article. Combined with the text from the NYTimes, I have said there is a different frame of events.

If you read the links, the story as first reported was that the three men went to their car, the man followed them and walked in front of the car. The driver may have hit the man, bumped the man, scraped the mans shin. The driver backed up into a fence. The driver hit the van.

That is the way the story was first reported.

The NYTimes article reports the story differently. They report the men got into their car, drove down 94th, turned onto Liverpool and Hit the unmarked van. They then backed up into the man (unidentified police officer). Someone got out of the van and started shooting. The driver hit the van.

So, did Bell drive into the police officer going forward - as described in the first report - or going in reverse - as described in the NYTimes? Did Bell drive into the unmarked police van first, or hit the police officer first? Where was the unmarked police van when it was struck by Bell? There are two different reports - a) Bell came around the corner and hit the van - b) the van came around the corner and hit Bell's car.

Incidently, I work in Collision Repair, the picture I saw, with a bumper cover pulled of the front of a vehicle, does not indicate damage that is all that severe. Those covers are held on with plastic clips.

Let me ask you this ... if you were in your car, and some guys were shooting their guns at you ... what would you do?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

These cops may very well have been in a "bad shoot" I dont know, but I think the people going off half cocked with their ill informed opinions like a bunch of torch wielding villagers says something. There are plenty of ways this could have been totally justifiable but instead of waiting to find out if thats the case we get this. I think its telling about peoples real beliefs.

 

[michaeledward]

These cops may very well have been in a "bad shoot" I dont know, but I think the people going off half cocked with their ill informed opinions like a bunch of torch wielding villagers says something. There are plenty of ways this could have been totally justifiable but instead of waiting to find out if thats the case we get this. I think its telling about peoples real beliefs.

Who do you think is "going off half cocked with ... ill informed opinions"?

Cuz, those just seem like fightin' words, don'tcha think?

 

[Grenadier]

I did not see the photo of the crime scene until I posted that last link to the New York Times article. Combined with the text from the NYTimes, I have said there is a different frame of events.

And yet, other sources state differently.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0

In a nutshell...

The police officer put his foot on the hood of Bell's car, and yelled at him, telling him that that he was a police officer, and pointing his pistol at the car.

Bell then floored the gas pedal in an attempt to run over the officer.

The driver may have hit the man, bumped the man, scraped the mans shin. The driver backed up into a fence. The driver hit the van.

When you floor the gas pedal in an attempt to hit someone, that's vehicular assault (a felony, if my memory serves me correctly), regardless of what damage was inflicted.

Bell then hit a metal door covering when going in reverse, and when he tried to go forward again, ended up trying to perform yet another vehicular assault.

Let me ask you this ... if you were in your car, and some guys were shooting their guns at you ... what would you do?

The police officer didn't start shooting until after Bell tried to run down the police officer(s) a second time. That's hardly in the class of "pulling forward."

The police officer gave Bell and co. a chance to stop. Had he not wanted to give them a chance, he could have simply started shooting without announcing that he was a police officer, much less putting his foot on the hood of the car.

Given the criminal pasts of Bell (two drug charges and an unlawful weapons possession charge), Guzman (busted 9 times for criminal activities, including armed robbery), and Benefield (an unlawful weapons charge), I am even that much more inclined to believe the police officers' accounts of the incident.

 

[michaeledward]

So, now there is a third representation of what happened Saturday morning. One wonders why you choose this as the definitive version. All the quotes are un-sourced. It may very well have happened just as described in this article. Then again, maybe not.

This story has an non-uniformed officer putting his foot on the hood of a car. That is different from the NYTimes, which indicates Mr. Bell backed into (or toward) the non-uniformed officer. Hmm? Curiouser and Curiouser.

This story talks of Mr. Bell's and Mr. Guzman's prior arrest. While that does not surprise me, coming from Murdoch/O'Reilly. There is no way that could have been known by the undercover police. it is Irrelevant.


Lastly, according to this article ... one cop shoots through a vehicle, and cops on the other side start shooting back? Is that acceptable? Is that normal practice? Cops just start shooting in the direction they think is a threat? They don't identify the threat? Isn't one of the rules of operating a weapon is that you always know what you are aiming at, and what is downrange?

Good Grief --- a circular firing squad?

 

[Don Roley]

So, now there is a third representation of what happened Saturday morning. One wonders why you choose this as the definitive version. All the quotes are un-sourced. It may very well have happened just as described in this article. Then again, maybe not.

I don't think anyone is taking this as the definate version of events.

But if you are going to accuse someone of something there is a little thing called burden of proof and reasonable doubt. So if it reasonably looks like there is a good chance that one of these versions that make it a good shoot is true, then our law system says to let them go. The police are being charged here, and the burden of proof is on those accusing them of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is not going to go over well with rascist rabble rousers like Sharpton. In cases like this there is always some problem with the story. People remember things differently and evidence paints contradictory views. It just happens in even the best of cases. But people like Sharpton with his desire to jump to power by leading the lynch party can take any problem like this and paint it as some sort of conspiracy or miscarriage of justice.

Race relations and violence, deaths even, will probably result from the hate he is helping to spread. But that does not matter to him as long as he gets the power he desires.

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0

In a nutshell...

You know, I thought more about this article, and was going to reply according to a different tact, but decided against that. That decision was a bad one, so let me amend my earlier remarks with this.

From the NY Post - a NewsCorp paper - owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FoxNews - the company that was going to bring us the O.J. Simpson "confession".

Dramatic new details of the deadly mayhem

Don't you love the phrase 'deadly mayhem'. Does this report news, or does it tell a story. And don't we all wish that our law enforcement officers always acted with 'deadly mayhem'.

"Police! Turn off your car! Let me see your hands!" said sources who talked to some of the cops involved in the shooting.

Other news reports indicate that the officers involved are not supposed to talk to anyone about the incident, because of the Grand Jury investigation. Since the Judith Miller imprisonment, most news organizations takes steps to explain why an anonymous source's identity is being withheld, and they attempt to describe the source's position, so that the reader can interpret the intent of the source.

This attribution does not help me determine the spin. Did these sources speak to the officers who fired their weapons? Or Did they speak to the officers who did not fire their weapons. Are these sources employed by the New York Police Department? Are they related to the officers who fired their weapons? Are there two sources, or more? Are all the anonymouse quotes throughout this article attributed to the same sources?

The undercover watched as an argument erupted between Bell's group, which included three male pals and the beefy man with the gun, and four other men - with the woman in the middle of them, the sources said.

The undercover, thinking there was about to be a drive-by shooting in front of the club involving Bell's group, followed Guzman, Bell and two others to their car.

So, the cop walks away from the group that is armed, to follow the group that is not armed? Does that make sense? Doesn't make sense to me.

And how does this reporter know what the undercover officer was 'thinking'?

But Bell floored the gas pedal and headed for the cop,

Floored the gas pedal? How does the reporter know that? Maybe Mr. Bell only pressed the gas pedal 3/4's of the way to the floor. Maybe only 1/2. "Floored"?

It makes for 'great' story telling, doesn't it.

One of the Altima's passengers - who possibly had a gun - jumped out of the back of the car, the sources said.

Who possibly was Bill Gates. Who possibly had a million dollars. Who possibly was wearing stolen Nike's. I can not help but wonder how the source, or reporter, is determining this?


You know .... as I said ... the description of events may be true. But that is some really lousy news reporting. Murray Weiss and Stephanie Gaskell need an editor.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I tend to think the cops are justified until they are proven wrong.

Others tend to think the cops are always wrong until they are proven right, and even then its always some sort of conspiracy with the DAs office.

 

[mrhnau]

"If Sharpton wants a Lynching" ? ? ?

I don't know about Sharpton, but I was watching some news last night and there are some elected officials really upset and calling for violence if they don't get what they want (ie punishment for those horrid cops). Sure sounds like lynching to me. My original post was mildly sarcastic, but it looks like my statement was about right...

Source

City Councilman James Sanders said patience was wearing thin.


"Anger is justified," Sanders said. "Patience is not necessarily justified. These people have been told for 400 years to be patient."

So, any time a black man is shot by a cop, patience is no longer needed? I wish I could find some quotes from the program last night... was kind of scary to watch. The above quote hardly does it justice. I'll look further when I get time.

 

[Grenadier]

James Sanders is being ignorant of the fact that three of the five officers involved in the incident are minorities (two black, one Hispanic). Eventually, he'll realize that this has nothing to do with race.

From the NY Post - a NewsCorp paper - owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FoxNews - the company that was going to bring us the O.J. Simpson "confession".

Now you're getting off track, but since I'm waiting on that next pot of coffee to finish, I have a bit of time. Since you've repeatedly referred to the New York Times, maybe a few reminders are in order about their shortcomings:

How about the New York Times that kept Jayson Blair on their staff for several years, and repeatedly promoted him, despite his repeated garbage reporting and plagiarism?

How about the Duranty incident? Quite disgusting, especially since the Times still honors him for his ill-deserved Pulitzer.

How about this year's Hassan Fattah incident?

What about their coverage of the so-called Katrina refugee living in the hotel?

Should we call the entire New York Times a worthless publication because of the hundreds of Jayson Blair garbage pieces? Should we call Fox News a complete trash organization because they brought in a flake the likes of Geraldo Rivera?

News agencies, be they left, middle, or right-leaning, are going to make mistakes along the way.

 

[KarateKowboy]

These guys came out of a bar at night and were confornted by someone with a gun, who said he was a police officer but apparently did not show a badge or police ID.
We don't know that the guys in the car even heard him say he was a police officer. They just sw someone pointing a gun at them and ran hmi over. This is exactly what I tell my students to do. This cop screwed up big time and caused this whole situation.

Then they shot him 50 times? Why not just 40 or 30? Why not stop at 10?
Why not stop firing the first time he was hit.

At best, it's case of very poor Police training. At the worst it looks like another black guy murdered by the NYPD. Very likely, it's a combination of one cop being suspicious of black people and feeling the need to check up on them, followed by poor training, followed by a major CYA.

 

[michaeledward]

Now you're getting off track, but since I'm waiting on that next pot of coffee to finish, I have a bit of time. Since you've repeatedly referred to the New York Times, maybe a few reminders are in order about their shortcomings:
...
Should we call the entire New York Times a worthless publication because of the hundreds of Jayson Blair garbage pieces? Should we call Fox News a complete trash organization because they brought in a flake the likes of Geraldo Rivera?

News agencies, be they left, middle, or right-leaning, are going to make mistakes along the way.

Reporting news does not require a left, middle, or right bias. It does require reporting facts. Facts are not biased.

The Post reported stated a "fact" - Bell "floored" the vehicle - which he could not have known if it was true. He made it up, for the benefit of a story.

I am not pointing to the Times a definitive event of what happened. Nor do I address the Associate Press report as a definitive event of what happened. Nor do I dispute the assertions of the Post.

What I do question, specifically about the Post, is that the reporter is dramatizing events for the effect of a 'story'. The Post reporter also does not properly identify the anonymous sources - a lesson I think the Times has learned.

A story is not news. Being able to discern the difference between a 'story' and 'news' is a skill that can always be improved, I think.

 

[mrhnau]

Reporting news does not require a left, middle, or right bias. It does require reporting facts. Facts are not biased.

Facts are not biased. The presentation of facts most likely becomes biased.

Lets say a woman wore a green dress. This can be presented several ways.

1) The woman wore a green dress
2) The woman, lacking style, wore a putrid green dress
3) the woman wore a fashionable green dress

all three are stating facts. she wore a green dress. in this situation, the bias is blatantly obvious. Impressions are clearly given that may not be relevant or necessary. When reporting news, its not always the case. Also, reading 2) is alot more interesting than reading 1) and probably 3). News reporters have just a few aims. 1) report news 2) keep a paycheck coming. If noone listens, they get fired or their paper/show gets canceled. They have to keep it interesting. Even when stating something that is true and clearly fact bias can easily be inserted.