I am far from a bleeding heart liberal, and I totally respect the job that urban cops have to do. That said:
41 Shots…
Not guilty…
Fuck the jury who could not see what the most obvious person could see.
Fuck the cops who did this.
But most importantly:
Fuck the fascist mayor who allowed a city I love more than anyplace else on the planet to turn into a giant strip mall with a bunch of lawless thugs who are supposed to protect it.
Shame on ALL OF YOU!
Yer pal,
Satan
I think I’m going to stay out of this one.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
I’ve been following this case, and like everyone else, thought a conviction was a foregone conclusion.
Another dark stain on one of the most villifiesd police departments in the nation. I thought the Princes of the City were extinct.
It’s ironic that some of the best cops, and some of the worst, are known collectively as
New York’s Finest.
That moniker was a badge of honour once.
But that was a long time ago. Now it’s used almost exclusively as a sarcasm.
Pity.
41 shots and 19 hits. Bad cops that were bad shots.
I’m guessing there will be a civil suit.
Okay, I’m opening a door here, throw whatever you want at me but I know cops and I feel for the bastards.
They should NOT have been charged with murder in the first place. That was purely a politically motivated charge. Manslaughter, okay. Reckless endagerment, sure. But not murder.
All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people.
I can’t bring myself to read the details of this - I’d get too angry for too long. But I gather this truly was an acquittal and not just that the prosecution didn’t prove its case. Some thing are simply beyond comprehension. What a travesty!
Perhaps this says more about juries than anything else. Is it time to abandon them and let a judge or judges decide?
As to the incident itself, it seems strange that one of the officers fired 16 shots. Did he reload and start again or do I not understand handguns sufficiently well?
I do think that put in such a situation myself where I felt I had cause to open fire, I would assume that the ‘victim’ would die and so it would be (almost) incidental how much lead I put in him or her.
The story that I read in the paper today has it that the victim fled when approached, entered a doorway, then “in a combat stance” pointed something at the police.
Last week, I read an account that said one of the officers was so surprised that he stumbled and fell backwards off a step. The others assumed that he’d been shot. Once the shooting started, it didn’t quit, as they assumed he had a gun (he didn’t).
This morning’s account also mentioned the defense strategy of not allowing the police to testify to the grand jury–which guaranteed that they’d be brought to trial, but lessened the possibility that one of them would contradict previous sworn testimony.
rocks
After you’ve been a policeman for a while, then you should be able to pass judgement on them. It went to the jury and they took the facts and decided the verdict. My brother was on a jury for a very controversial murder trial. A lot of what went on in the courtroom as far as testimony and what was presented was a long way from what the media printed. The public thinks they know the whole story, but unless you take the time to read the whole trial transcript I wouldn’t post judgement until then.
I’ve learned that if someone says something unkind about me, I must live so that no one will believe it.
I’m filled with rage at this decision. It’s the whole damn system that sucks. Four white cops in plainclothes are looking for a rapist and rush into the vestibule where an innocent man, lawfully trying to enter his own domicile is killed in a bloody mess.
Amadou Diallo would be alive today if the cops were not racially profiling.
I believe in my heart that none of the four cops set out to murder an innocent man, but that’s the end result. I would have convicted sean carroll for man 2 and found the other three guilty of reckless endangerment.
Renee
What the cops did was horrible, but I can understand how a jury might not find the criminal intent needed for a murder conviction. Why they didn’t convict on a lesser charge puzzles me, but they – and not me – were the ones who heard all the evidence.
Four words: “shadow of a doubt.” If the jurors heard any testimony from either side that brought with it the tiniest sliver of a doubt that these cops did not believe they were firing in self-defense, then their verdict of acquital is just and fair. I don’t think we can pin this one on the jury this time. There’s obviously something wrong with the NYPD training if their cops instinctively empty their weapons into an unarmed man reaching for a wallet.
“My hovercraft is full of eels.”
“Take that, OJ jury !”
From what I’ve read, a key factor was the judge’s explicit instruction to the jury which was that if the jury believed that the officers were firing in self-defense (had a belief that their own lives were in danger), they were to find them not guilty.
Considering that one of the officers did shout out “Gun” when Diallo pulled out his wallet, I think that self-defense was a reasonable conclusion.
I do, however, have trouble believing that 41 shots were necessary. Obviously, it is inappropriate in such a situation to stop & reassess the situation after each & every individual shot, but I agree that training needs to be revamped if officers are exhausting all available ammo before stopping & reassessing. Apparently, the force of the bullets somehow kept the victim upright, and ricochets confused the officers into believing that he was firing at them.
I don’t know if 12 rounds would have had any less deadly results, however.
Here is an excerpt from an MSNBC story http://www.msnbc.com/news/363985.asp?0m=-219
explaining the self-defense issue:
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
I believe the threshhold is “reasonable doubt.” Significant diference.
I’m saving “f’s” against future consonant shortages.
Probably among all the posters on this board, I would be one of the most qualified to judge the actions of fellow cops. I won’t.
I know somewhat of the incident. Rest assured, if I am ignorant in some of the aspects of it, I won’t be for long. The aftermath of this case will reverberate in after-action reports and training in law enforcement agencies throughout the US. I fully intend to read it, understand it and draw my own conclusions should I be placed in a similar situation as well. Hopefully I will be able to learn from it and it will influence any actions I may take.
Note, this doesn’t mean I will be any more reluctant to pull the trigger. I have been in situations where I aimed my service weapon at a person and fully intended to use deadly force. Training, experience, and common sense (a cop’s best weapon) made the decision for me in refraining from pulling the trigger. Next time around, it may cause me to take a life.
My first, and *foremost* interest in these situations was not the protection of public order, justice rightfully served, or any other abstract concepts I learned at the academy. My first thought was that **I fully intend to survive and return to my wife and children at the end of my shift**. It doesn't get much simpler than that. We're people too, when we take off the badge, and we have families, dreams, and fears like everyone else.
I won’t get up in anyone’s faces, no matter what they feel about this tragedy. For the most part, most everyone here on this board are educated, mature, and very articulate. That’s what I like about this forum, no matter if I do or don’t agree with the opinion.
The actions by these officers are split-second decisions based on their training and experience. They have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. I won't judge them, and I have *walked* in their shoes.
…send lawyers, guns, and money…
Warren ZevonYou do not understand handguns sufficiently well.
You do not understand panic/reflex situations sufficiently well.
Go skydiving. Or play paintball. These activities might give you some small inkling.
Failing that, read “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by Lt.Col.Dave Grossman US Army(ret). The moment is not one of rationality.
Less arrogance and more explanation might lend more credence to your response.
Didn’t at least one of the officers have a Glock…which holds 17 rounds in the magazine?
And, I have been skydiving. I was scared (at first), but still rational. I’ve played paintball, too. Nothing irrational about that. In fact, my concentration was quite sharply focused.
Congratulations. Have you ever killed anyone?
I was trying to make the point that moments of fantastic intensity, life-and-death moments, cannot be understood in the same way as moments of calm rationality.
Activities that get the adrenaline flowing such as skydiving or paintball (the very FIRST time you play) might be helpful in understanding the nature of panic/reflex reactions.
I apologize for spelling this out with insufficent clarity.
Have you read the book?