| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:04 am Post subject: Police fire 50 rounds, kill groom on wedding day |
 |
|
| Quote: |
NEW YORK (AP) -- Police fired 50 rounds Saturday at a car of unarmed men leaving a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day in a shooting that drew a furious outcry from family members and community leaders.
The spray of bullets hit the car 21 times, after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would not say if the collisions were what prompted police to open fire.
It was too early to say whether the shooting was justified, Kelly said.
Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun. But police found no weapons.
"Although it is too early to draw conclusions about this morning's shootings ... we know that the NYPD officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement.
Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret, and five were involved in the shooting. The gunfire also hit nearby homes and a train station, though no residents were injured.
A veteran officer fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said. All the officers carried 9 mm handguns. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/25/nyc.shooting.ap/index.html
That's a shame.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Saw that.
Taser one, police were wrong.
Grandma druggie one, I think they were in the right, but still waiting for more info on that one.
This one, I can't say yet either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Amount of rounds fired": not central; police are trained and authorized to fire until their targets go down and stay down.
"Wedding day": makes for good, dramatic copy; and distracts us from the actual fact pattern.
But...
| Quote: |
| Police fired...(a) at a car of unarmed men (b) [who were] leaving...[lettering added] |
Will be very difficult to justify resorting to deadly force if these facts are indeed accurate. And shooting at vehicles is a no-no, unless you're in a war zone or on The A-Team. But professionals should know better.
Bloomberg's comment seems to suggest there might be more to this story. Let's wait and see what turns up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting to find out what exactly went on to prompt a fire fight, but if the dudes in the car rammed the unmarked police vehicles on purpose due to some criminal activity (organized crime), they should have spend 50 more rounds to make it even 100. If not, it would be another terrible mistake being at wrong place at wrong time.
Gonna have to wait and see the result of the investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like they were armed with a very fierce automobile.
Striking first the undercover Sedan and then striking twice at the van.
If someone were repeatedly ramming you with a car...........
Sounds like the wedding party was armed with a deadly weapon and using it. The automobile is a particularly deadly weapon when operated by a drunk driver.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The automobile is a particularly deadly weapon when operated by a drunk driver.
|
Therefore you shoot to kill. Excellent stuff... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
If attacked with a deadly weapon respond with like force.
The motor vehicle was being used as a deadly weapon.
When attacked with a motor defend with deadly force.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
No wait a minute I want to meditate on that.
I think maybe one should wait until being run down before firing a weapon.
Just the mere fact that the vehicle I am occuppying has been rammed twice, I should stop and think about the intent of the driver.
Good thing they didn't taser the guy.
[Facetious off]
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Just the mere fact that the vehicle I am occuppying has been rammed twice, I should stop and think about the intent of the driver. |
Actually it would be virtually impossible to kill someone in a stationary car by ramming it with a car in close quarters. The time it would take to back up far enough to get up lethal speed ( assuming there was even space for that ) would allow the cops to jump out of the car and move to a protected area. Or, shoot at the tires, or fire warning shots. Was the car even going for a third ram while it was being pumped full of 50 bullets? If not, that was a punishment killing and not a self defense killing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the OP:
"rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice"
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just watched the police briefing.
"Yo! Go get my gun!"; "Let's *beep* him up!" were sufficient probable cause to detain a suspect on firearms charges. Secondly, it was reasonable to assume, especially given the club's history, that this suspect was indeed armed and dangerous.
When he attempted to use his vehicle as a weapon to harm the police, this could only make the situation worse. And it did.
I do not believe that police officers should fire at vehicles under any circumstances, especially in urban environments. Call in back-up; call in air; execute a felony stop and deal with the suspects then. Police also later failed to recover any weapon from this vehicle. This is tragic.
However, we are here and they were there; none of the five officers who determined deadly force was necessary have been involved in any shootings before; and these are experienced and not rookie officers. I think, subjectively, at the time, they probably had good reason to shoot.
Although I think it clear that something went wrong here, I do not see this as a case of "police brutality" either.
New York City's African-American community will make this a race issue. That is unfortunate, for all of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
From the OP:
"rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice"
cbc |
I can read thanks.
You dont use deadly force to punish for something already done. You use deadly force to stop a continuing threat. They're not going to kill anyone in a confined space by ramming a car. Why didn't they shoot the tires? Fire warning shots? Get out of the car? Show thier guns and yell that they were police?
Coming out of a seedy club with a bad rep is not sufficient reason to suspect someone has a firearm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| You use deadly force to stop a continuing threat. |
Correction: to stop an imminent threat. And the test is whether X appears as an immiment threat at the time the officer resorted to deadly force; not an ontological test whether there actually was an imminent threat. It is a test of reasonableness and not objective reality.
There are other possible justifications for police officers' resorting to deadly force, though. Does anyone know whether New York State has "a fleeing felon" doctrine?
| Satori wrote: |
| They're not going to kill anyone in a confined space by ramming a car. |
So it appears to us, far away in space and time, without the heat of the moment pressing upon us. Have you considered this variable?
| Satori wrote: |
| Why didn't they shoot the tires? |
Goes against policy. Trained not to. Shooting the tires will cause the car to go out of control and possibly kill unintended others. Could not reliably hit the tires anyway -- not anymore than one could hit a suspect in the leg or shoot the gun out of his or her hand...
This is real life and not Starsky and Hutch.
| Satori wrote: |
| Fire warning shots? |
Illegal, unless you're a battleship. Because what goes up must come down. In a dense, urban environment?
| Satori wrote: |
| Get out of the car? Show thier guns and yell that they were police? |
Again, how do you know what kind of time they had, and how do you know that they did not yell "stop police!" before shooting as they are all trained to do?
| Satori wrote: |
| Coming out of a seedy club with a bad rep is not sufficient reason to suspect someone has a firearm. |
Not in and of itself, but in combination with the totality of the other contributing factors...? "Yo go get my gun!" would not alarm you, Satori? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Could not reliably hit the tires anyway -- not anymore than one could hit them in the leg or shoot the gun out of their hand...
This is real life and not Starsky and Hutch.
|
Obviously they were able to hit the vitals of the driver. I do believe that with 50 shots being fired at the tires they could have hit them. I understand you dont shoot the tires of a vehicle on the open road, but this was in a parking space. I think they could have broken protocol to prevent being rammed again as a judgement call. As we know, police do occasionally break break protocol on a judgement call ( three taser limit ).
"Get my gun" would have alarmed me. I dont think it would have prompted me to immediately shoot to kill. If we're talking protocol, don't they have to see a gun or at least see you going for a gun ( excluding the fleeing situation )? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Illegal, unless you're a battleship.
|
I loved that. First time I actually laughed at any of your posts. I hope to use that one sometime  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
