Now, so far, we don’t really have enough info to determine whether or not Bell was going to committe a crime (not counting the hitting the officer and the van,) but this part is what gets me:
It definitely seems like they forgot about that rule when the decided to fire almost a whole clips worth of bullets each into the car. :rolleyes:
I’m still not 100% convinced all the cops were completly in the wrong here, but it sure seems like it. I don’t think merely thinking that one of them was going to get a gun from his car is reason enough to fire a barrage of bullets at them. Yes, Bell broke the law and endangered the life of a police officer, but seeing as the article didn’t even mention if the officer was injured, I’m guessing he wasn’t, at least not that much, anyway, so it sure seems like the use of deadly force was way out of line.
I’m interested in hearing what others think of this. I know we have both a lot of people here who tend to automatically side with the law no matter what, and those who almost always side against it, but hopefully we can get a larger amount of people that try to be as objective as possible.
What the hell are they supposed to do when a car charges at them? Outrun it? Surely the police have the right of any citizen to defend themselves when their life is endangered?
As to this particular case, it may be overkill, it may be legitimate self-defense. I’ll reserve judgement until all the facts are in.
*The officers opened fire on the three men in a car near the club, apparently in the belief one of them had gone to fetch a gun in order to settle a dispute that arose at the club, police said.
An undercover officer who had been in the club confronted them in the car, drawing his gun and displaying his badge, police said. According to police, the driver – Bell – struck the officer with his car, then crashed into a police minivan that had come to back up the undercover officer.*
Something just doesn’t smell right here. There almost has to be more to this story than we know right now. If NY cops are not allowed to shoot as a car charging them, I’m not seeing anything else that would justify the shooting…
NY cops are specifically prohibited from shooting at cars, even if it is being used as a weapon. They’re also trained to stop after firing three rounds to assess the situation. One cop emptied 16 shots into the car, then reloaded and emptied the second clip–15 more rounds.
Maureen made a point to me, about Al Sharpton, and his media-hogging ways. I defended him, but it made me think, tho. If they had been white guys, would he be involved?
Is what I wondered. I’m not usually a defender of cops… but if they can’t defend themselves in the face of a deadly weapon, being used against them, what are they supposed to do?
I was willing to defend the police until this bit. Any confirmation? Then like in Bernhard Goetz case, any support for the police is gone after shooting a would be attacker again after he is down.
Yeah, I was thinking of that, myself. Whatever–after the thread about the APD shooting that 90+ year-old woman, I just knew that I wasn’t going to be the one to start it off, especially since I’ve never even started a thread before.
Well, maybe not (IMHO), but I couldn’t say for certain. Remember–well, not remember, 'cause maybe you don’t even know this–but “X” number of blacks feel, and with good reason, I think, that something like this *wouldn’t ever happen * to white men in a *similar * situation. Are they right? I don’t know. I honestly *do * believe, however, that it is less likely that this would happen to similarly situated white men, but who really knows?
And it cracks me up to hear people claim that this *absolutely, positively could **not ** * be racial since two of the officers were black, and one was Hispanic. Are they fucking kidding me? As if racist thinking is really that (no pun intended) black and white. As if it’s not possible for blacks and Hispanics to make unfounded and unflattering assumptions about each other based on racist thinking. Simple. Fucking. Asses.
Yeah, I’ve wondered about that, too. I read in one of the local papers, though (The (NY) Daily News, I think), where a police source said that the thinking behind this rule was that if an officer has time to line up a shot at an approaching vehicle, he probably has time to get out of the way of said vehicle.
[QUOTE=Li’l Pluck]
Well, maybe not (IMHO), but I couldn’t say for certain. Remember–well, not remember, 'cause maybe you don’t even know this–but “X” number of blacks feel, and with good reason, I think, that something like this *wouldn’t ever happen * to white men in a *similar * situation. Are they right? I don’t know. I honestly *do * believe, however, that it is less likely that this would happen to similarly situated white men, but who really knows?/QUOTE]
I’m not saying that racism by the police doesn’t happen, but a police office did shoot and kill an unarmed white teen in suburban Virginia not too long ago
The family disputes the police version of events and say he didn’t try to run over the police. The article doesn’t mention race, but I remember this incident and saw reports on DC area news that the teen was white and so was the officer.
Mind you, I’m not saying (and I wouldn’t claim) that unarmed white guys could *never * be shot by the police. I’m just saying that I believe that it’s *less * likely to happen to white guys than it is to similarly situated black guys. And, given news reports that one sees about this kind of thing, either it really doesn’t happen as often to white guys as it does to black guys, or the media is being highly selective in terms of which stories of potential police brutality–especially fatal–they put out there.
I wonder how people outside of NY saw this story evolve. It looks VERY suspicious here. For one thing, it took the police over 2 days to come up with the story of a 4th, armed passenger who got away. And then-- oops, no fourth guy with a gun. Our bad.
Yes, one officer emptied his pistol, reloaded, and emptied it again. Gotta make sure you get them all.
Sounds like a good GQ thread Shodan, maybe you should start one with that very question.
Around the NYC Media area, it has had heavy coverage and much talk. I guess it is a little surprising it took 4 days except for the fact that it is very hard to be on the police side in this case when they shot the car with 50 rounds. I am normally a supporter of the police and admire the job the NYPD has done over the last 14 years, but these officers have exceeded any rational level of response.
I am happy that it was not three white cops that gunned down these men, as there may have been violent protests already if that had been the case. As others have pointed out, there is at least a perceived feeling that the NYPD still does racial profiling and are more trigger happy with young black males than any other group. This makes the shooting a racially charged incident, even if there was not actual racism involved.
As far as Sharpton, it is a race issue. There is no way around this nasty little fact. Well Rev. Al is self-appointed in the NYC area to ensure race issues like crazed police shootings do not have any chance of not being covered and investigation are seen through to the end.
He does not appear to be doing anything wrong in this case and people have a tendency to knee-jerk against Al Sharpton based on legitimate beefs about his past. In the last 10 years, he has mostly been a positive figure. A figure that has made it his own duty to remind the democratic party that they need to continue to pay attention to racial issues and cannot just assume that blacks will automatically vote for Democrats. Unfortunately, too many people see Sharpton and dismiss him immediately as media hogging.
I think the idea is that deadly force (and the use of a gun is, to my knowledge, always considered deadly force) is only authorized when their life is in danger and they cannot otherwise resolve the situation. If someone is attempting to run them down they can generally get out of the way. Also, getting out of the way and using a vehicle to box them in is probably safer for the officer than standing there and shooting while the perpetrator attempts to run over them.
Attacking an officer with your car is definitely in the “very, very bad” category, no doubt. But for the officer to fire 31 shots, essentially firing back at his own echoes, if in no way justifiable. At the scene, the officer who fired the 31 shots was unsure if he fired his weapon.
(sorry, can’t find the specific article on Newsday’s website). The article goes on to explain that the officers are trained to fire 3 times and reasses before firing again. Obviously, in the chaos of the situation, the training went away.