Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.
Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.
That being said. Rule number one in dealing with police officers is do what you are told. If he/she says get on the ground, you get on the ground. Many of the abusive incidents that make the news are the result of someone not following instructions. If I'm in a situation with officers, I do what I'm told. In another lifetime, I expected the people I dealt with to do what I told them. It's better to get dirty laying in the dirt than to taste a nightstick. Ask the FMA guys (and ladies) about that. Of course, today it's pepper spray and a stun gun.
As for Sharpton, his actions say more than I ever could. Start with the Brawley case and work forward.
That the police officers lost their training is not obvious.
There are no "stages" that an officer must follow when using force, if indeed you are referring to some type of steps (first A, then B, then C) that they must follow. The only standard, other than departmental policy, is that the force be reasonable and necessary to the average officer at the time of the incident, given the facts that the officer has at the time. Case law espressly forbids the use of 20-20 hindsight.
I don't have to try to spray you with pepper spray, and if that doesn't work, hit you with a baton, and if that doesn't work, shoot you, if you are pointing a firearm at me.
And what do you know of the NYPD's procedure? And if it was followed, how then, do you know that they would have realized that the only ones shooting were cops? Were you there? Are you a police officer, or have some insight into combat psychology above the average layperson (and I don't mean simply martial arts training).
Also, it is not neessary to show whether the cops
could have done something else, rather than shoot their firearms. It is only required that they show that it was reasonable and necessary to stop a threat.
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.
It is amazing to me that you can have several different accounts of the situation by new groups, police and law enforcement agencies, and private organizations, all of whom have people in the area, at the scene, and interviewing witnessess, but you seem to have all the answers, and know exactly what happened.
And please, tell me how you know, in the fury and unpredictability of combat, how a person is supposed to tell the exact moment a person is hit, and which bullet hit out of the many fired? Oh, that's not to mention whether that one bullet would actually stop the threat.
A famous incident (to law enforcement anyway) is know as that Platt and Maddox / FBI shooting in Florida. In that situation, one of the suspects, although he received a fatal wound, continued to fight, killing an FBI agent
after he received the fatal wound. Should the FBI agents have stopped firing then after they knew he was hit?
It appears that you have an extreme lack of information on the way gunfights occur, or the psychology of of life and death situation. I suggest that you learm more before making statements made out of ignorance.
