NYC police kill unarmed man by firing 50 bullets

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=Debaser]
I just don’t understand this logic. The same attitude came up in another thread about the cop shooting a guy in a restaraunt parking lot.

The cops are already on site. What good does calling the cops do? If he’s driving a car into them repeatedly, how would it help to have more cops present? If there are three cops standing around with guns, or 1,000 cops standing around with guns, what’s the difference? Either way, they can’t do much except for shoot at the person trying to kill them, or not.

(I’m not saying that this is certainly the case here. We don’t have enough info to go on yet.)

But, I just don’t get this attitude of people who want cops to quietly back away from a bad guy and call the cops. What would this accoplish?
[/QUOTE]

There are Pros and Cons about calling it in.
PRO:

  • You are not firing wildly at a busy strip club in a very densely packed neighborhood

CON:

  • Potentially dangerous, and extraordinarily likely drunk, driver gets away and is on road

Big difference between this and the VA incident is that, if memory serves, the VA officer was in uniform. At a NYC club, when someone makes any kind of statement about going out to get his gun, these statements should be taken quite seriously, and the victims might not have realized the person waving a gun at them was a police officer. Obviously the police officer paniced. Do we have any reason to believe that those on the business end of a handgun wouldn’t or shouldn’t panic?

I will amend, as more details have become available, that there were multiple officers in the vicinity, not just those shooting. As I’ve never visited Kalua Cabaret, (and never paid much attention when I’ve passed by it), I can’t speak to the ease or difficulty of potentially blocking the vehicle, staying out of its path, and trying to resolve the situation without, again, firing 50 shots at a busy club in a dense neighborhood.

To clarify - I’m not in any kind of position to say that firing his pistol at the car was totally, 100% wrong. But 4 officers firing a total of 50 times, with one of the officers accounting for 31 of the shots, is inexcusable by any measure.

122

Looking at the crime scene photos again, what’s amazing is that none of the cops hit each other. There were five cops on the scene, two in the van in front of the victim’s car, one on foot beside the car, and two behind the car.

That’s a circular firing squad if I’ve ever seen one. Given that LESS THAN HALF of the bullets fired hit the car, I’m amazed the cops didn’t kill each other. Especially Officer Thirty-Rounds-Spray-And-Pray.

123

[QUOTE=ExTank]
There’s few if any training methods that can realistically simulate a life-or-death situation (even if it’s not really one, but merely perceived to be one). No matter how realistic the training, there’s always that little thought in the back of your mind saying, “it’s only training; it ain’t real.” Theefore, people an pass training with flying colors, and go completely to pieces in a real-life situation.

[/QUOTE]

I have no firearms experience whatsover, but based on the reports that I read about this sort if thing, it seems that when people unexpectedly find themselves in a bullets-whizzing situation, everything goes to hell except the muscle memory, i.e. pulling the trigger and banging in magazines. Unfortunately, those are pretty much the only situations where normal cops would end up using their guns rather than letting the specialists handle it with a proper amount of mental set-up time first.

Which would suggest that when you have a bunch of armed people standing around in a dark car park or hallway or whatever and suddenly a shot is fired, the default expectation should that a total fuckup will ensue. Unfortunately, I don’t think making ‘count to ten backwards and have a good look round before drawing your weapon’ part of the firearms drill will ever be practical, for obvious reasons.

It would be nice if the boys in blue could do a health & safety assessment before whipping their guns out in fear of their lives, but I think these sorts of mass shootings are an inevitable part of the gun culture that exists in the US. Everyone will do their best to minimise their occurrence, but they will keep happening as long as everyone is walking around packing heat, which is one of the reasons I’m a little sceptical of the whole CCW concept - I suspect one day we will have a situation like this where a dozen ordinary citizens blaze off a hundred rounds in all directions, and then the SD servers really will melt down.

124

[QUOTE=Count Blucher]
People, This is a bad event. One person is dead, a few others are critical. Several cops careers are over and a few of them are probably going to jail as a result. That being said, this event is starting to be promoted by some unelected ‘community-leaders’ like a riot flash-point and I really don’t appreciate that.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t really believe that for a moment, do you ?? Several cops careers are over? Jail time? -snerk-

You don’t know a lot about Mayor Bloomburg. These ace shots are on full PAID leave. They get to hang around, firming up their One True Version with the PBA’s attorneys and waiting for the next atrocity to come along so it can quietly go away and they can get back out on the street.

No jail time. No careers over. Just wait, and see.

Cartooniverse

125

[QUOTE=slaphead]
I have no firearms experience whatsover, but based on the reports that I read about this sort if thing, it seems that when people unexpectedly find themselves in a bullets-whizzing situation, everything goes to hell except the muscle memory, i.e. pulling the trigger and banging in magazines. Unfortunately, those are pretty much the only situations where normal cops would end up using their guns rather than letting the specialists handle it with a proper amount of mental set-up time first.

[/QUOTE]

But, in this instance, the only shots fired were from the policemen. As with Diallo. He had no gun. These policemen caused their own panic. And the dog? He didn’t have a gun either.

126

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
You don’t know a lot about Mayor Bloomburg. These ace shots are on full PAID leave. They get to hang around, firming up their One True Version with the PBA’s attorneys and waiting for the next atrocity to come along so it can quietly go away and they can get back out on the street.
[/QUOTE]
At least it isn’t Guiliani. If it were, he’d have sided with the officers before the last echoing round faded, have released everyones juvenile records, and have made some up if there weren’t any.

127

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
You don’t really believe that for a moment, do you ?? Several cops careers are over? Jail time? -snerk-

You don’t know a lot about Mayor Bloomburg. These ace shots are on full PAID leave. They get to hang around, firming up their One True Version with the PBA’s attorneys and waiting for the next atrocity to come along so it can quietly go away and they can get back out on the street.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not Bloomberg’s fault; he’s actually said things Giuliani never would have: “it sounds to me like excessive force was used,” “inexplicable,” “unacceptable.” The cops would be on paid leave no matter who was Mayor.

128

The NY Times has a damning update that if correct can mean some serious consequences for the officers involved.

Jim

129

[QUOTE=slaphead]

I have no firearms experience whatsover, but based on the reports that I read about this sort if thing, it seems that when people unexpectedly find themselves in a bullets-whizzing situation, everything goes to hell except the muscle memory, i.e. pulling the trigger and banging in magazines. Unfortunately, those are pretty much the only situations where normal cops would end up using their guns rather than letting the specialists handle it with a proper amount of mental set-up time first.
[/quote]

Which “specialists?” :confused: In any case, you’re extrapolating one incident to the whole of American law enforcement. Considering NYPD’s track record, and the recent shooting in Atlanta, there would seem to be something to suggest that some of the major metro PDs might have a problem.

[QUOTE=slaphead]

Which would suggest that when you have a bunch of armed people standing around in a dark car park or hallway or whatever and suddenly a shot is fired, the default expectation should that a total fuckup will ensue. Unfortunately, I don’t think making ‘count to ten backwards and have a good look round before drawing your weapon’ part of the firearms drill will ever be practical, for obvious reasons.
[/quote]

That should never be the default expectation. But, I’m not a law enforcement instructor, so I cannot speak as to what training methods might be more effective in preventing these sorts of occurances. But I’m fairly sure that they exist.

[QUOTE=slaphead]

It would be nice if the boys in blue could do a health & safety assessment before whipping their guns out in fear of their lives, but I think these sorts of mass shootings are an inevitable part of the gun culture that exists in the US. Everyone will do their best to minimise their occurrence, but they will keep happening as long as everyone is walking around packing heat, which is one of the reasons I’m a little sceptical of the whole CCW concept - I suspect one day we will have a situation like this where a dozen ordinary citizens blaze off a hundred rounds in all directions, and then the SD servers really will melt down.
[/QUOTE]

Two separate issues, which you are attempting to link together. “Whipping out your gun and blazing away” is never acceptable; not for cops, not for CCW holders, not for private citizens. You say “…everyone is walking around packing heat…” Do you have some numbers about how many CCW holders there are in the US? Do you have some data that suggest that widespread civilian ownership of firearms causes police to fire 50 rounds at unarmed civilians?

This ain’t about the guns. I smell a fish, and I’m willing to bet it’s red in color.

It’s about a breakdown in law enforcement.

130

[QUOTE=ExTank]
Which “specialists?” :confused:

[/QUOTE]

Well, I thought most police forces have firearms specialists that they call up when they have a reasonable expectation that there is going to be a need for shooting. Those chaps with the sub-machine guns, helmets, stun grenades and whatnot. Isn’t it the case that cops generally just carry pistols for emergency use when it turns out that pepper spray, baton and cuffs are insufficient? Or are they expected to engage in gunfire on a regular basis?

[QUOTE=ExTank]

Two separate issues, which you are attempting to link together. “Whipping out your gun and blazing away” is never acceptable; not for cops, not for CCW holders, not for private citizens.
[/QUOTE]

And yet, it seems to happen with reasonable regularity, no? Several armed people, one or more shots are fired for whatever reason, everyone breaks out their guns and open up on what appears to be a threat in the heat of the moment. Afterwards everyone is baffled by how several seemingly rational people can have rattled off dozens of rounds at a dog/van/man armed with wallet/whatever.

It’s just a function of people+guns+stress. So far it seems to have only occured in situations with police officers, but I can well imagine that if there was to be a shooting near a group of armed civilians you would get exactly the same dynamic. Shots fired, people draw their weapon to protect themselves while looking around for the maniac who is shooting at them, see wide-eyed gun-wielding person(s), misunderstanding ensues. I’m not particularly bothered one way or the other, since I don’t live in the US, but it would seem to me that such a situation is more likely to happen the more people carry weapons, unless there is some special way of making people behave calmly under stress that I am not aware of, or unless police officers in the US are more prone to mistakenly shooting at people than the rest of the population.

131

[QUOTE=D_Odds]
At least it isn’t Guiliani. If it were, he’d have sided with the officers before the last echoing round faded, have released everyones juvenile records, and have made some up if there weren’t any.
[/QUOTE]

Mmm-hm! You ain’t never lied!

132

[QUOTE=Li’l Pluck]
Mmm-hm! You ain’t never lied!
[/QUOTE]

-cackle- True, true. He’s a stand-up Doper. I understand he’s also kind to woodland animals and small birds.

As the cops were quoted as saying back in the day, " This is Guiliani’s New York ". Were he still mayor, the officers would already have been handed their new Detective’s badges for putting their lives at risk in the performance of their…their…oh god one just fucking chokes on this. :mad:

Anyway, my thanks to Marley for the correction on Bloomberg. I am glad to hear he’s being a bit cautious about this one, and I didn’t know he’d said any of those things.

Anybody know under what circumstances an NYPD officer would be placed on UNpaid leave? I mean, these guys were clearly in the middle of something where shit went very very wrong- and NY’ers are still paying their rent. Hmph. :dubious:

133

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
-cackle- True, true. He’s a stand-up Doper. I understand he’s also kind to woodland animals and small birds.
[/quote]
You take that back!

My google-fu is weak, but I believe they get unpaid leave for being caught (i.e. arrested) engaging in an illegal activity, such as selling drugs, DUI, non-police related shooting, etc. As this was in the course of duty, and while excessive, has not yet been officially termed illegal, the department can only use administrative leave.

134

As if on cue, today’s Salon has an article on Guiliani: Two parts hubris, one part paranoia (short ad to view article):

And my favorite, as a NYC resident and a ferret owner:

Like any NYer whose memory exceeded two months, I was overjoyed to see him go, as should anyone who ever ends up on the wrong side of an overzealous police officer.

135

Yeah, Guliani was a nasty piece of work. I like how NY’ers gave him the foot in the ass when he tried to undo his own term limits law. The rest of the country could not understand why NY’ers were so willing to give him the heave ho. Could have been his abysmal civil liberties record, his spiting of all boroughs except Manhattan, his policy of political payback against communities whose representatives he didn’t like or the fact that he, personally, was a raging asshole.
Unlike Bloomberg, who I love and have voted for twice (don’t tell me I vote straight party!) who seems to actually care about the well being of this city and it’s citizens. Even those who end up on the wrong end of a cops gun.

136

[QUOTE=D_Odds]
As if on cue, today’s Salon has an article on Guiliani.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure “article” is the right word. Perhaps “polemic” would be better.

But i loved it, and agreed with every bit of it.

137

[QUOTE=mhendo]
Not sure “article” is the right word. Perhaps “polemic” would be better.

But i loved it, and agreed with every bit of it.
[/QUOTE]

My 2008 nightmares have started: Rudolph Guiliani (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)

It’s the kind of Presidential ballot that makes me long for the days of Walter Mondale! :eek:

138

[QUOTE=slaphead]

Well, I thought most police forces have firearms specialists that they call up when they have a reasonable expectation that there is going to be a need for shooting. Those chaps with the sub-machine guns, helmets, stun grenades and whatnot. Isn’t it the case that cops generally just carry pistols for emergency use when it turns out that pepper spray, baton and cuffs are insufficient? Or are they expected to engage in gunfire on a regular basis?
[/quote]

You’re talking SWAT. I’ll leave it to LE Dopers to address this issue, and the various policies concerninguse of deadly force (firearms).

[QUOTE=slaphead]

And yet, it seems to happen with reasonable regularity, no? Several armed people, one or more shots are fired for whatever reason, everyone breaks out their guns and open up on what appears to be a threat in the heat of the moment. Afterwards everyone is baffled by how several seemingly rational people can have rattled off dozens of rounds at a dog/van/man armed with wallet/whatever.
[/quote]

And yet, outside of law enforcement, it actually doesn’t happen with regularity. Or even very seldom.

[QUOTE=slaphead]

It’s just a function of people+guns+stress. So far it seems to have only occured in situations with police officers, but I can well imagine that if there was to be a shooting near a group of armed civilians you would get exactly the same dynamic. Shots fired, people draw their weapon to protect themselves while looking around for the maniac who is shooting at them, see wide-eyed gun-wielding person(s), misunderstanding ensues. I’m not particularly bothered one way or the other, since I don’t live in the US, but it would seem to me that such a situation is more likely to happen the more people carry weapons,…
[/quote]

Ah. I think I see your misunderstanding. If 39% of the US populace is “armed” (owns a gun), that doesn’t mean 39% of the populace is carrying concealed at any given time. Concealed carry represents a very tiny fraction of the gun owning public, and it’s not universal nation-wide.

If you’ve ever seen a bunch of US cops on a public shooting range, you might be suprised (and appalled) at their arrogant disregard of even basic firearm safety, and “range courtesy” to other shooters.

In over 34 years of shooting, I have rarely met the stereotypical civilian fuckwit with a gun (yes, they do exist, yes, I have seen and met them, but they are either rare, or infrequent visitors to public shooting ranges); I have seen numerous examples of cops scaring the bejeebus out of everyone on the shooting range.

139

Even for the vast majority of defensive gun uses by non-law enforcement, which typically result in no shots fired.

I’ve seen cops mishandle firearms, I’ve seen them ‘play’ on the range in unsafe ways, seen them brag about still having the original ammunition they started with their first day on the job, and seen them basically unable to hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet as they joke about how they only fire enough rounds in a given year to retain their qualifications.

And these are the people who are supposed to be more trusted with guns than an average Joe like me.

I’d far rather the average Joes have guns.

And how about the cop who was showing his gun to an elementary school class and shot himself in the foot?

If you follow firearms safety rules, you can’t shoot yourself in the foot (or anywhere else)!

140

[QUOTE=catsix]
And how about the cop who was showing his gun to an elementary school class and shot himself in the foot?
[/QUOTE]
[nitpick]

DEA Agent

[/nitpick]