Grand Jury: 50 shots to kill an innocent man is wrong--- NY police....sends the wrong message.

[spanone]

OH MY.

What message would they prefer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/nyregion/17grand.html?hp

[Retired AF Dem]

1. Well it could

considering the horrible trigger pull that the NYPD requires on their issue guns.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Care to elaborate? -nt

[Retired AF Dem]

10. Google Glock and New York trigger

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Oh, I see now. Your point is that it couldn't have happened because the trigger is too heavy.

Well, tell that to the judge and jurors.

That was what I could understand, since I know next to nothing of firearm mechanics.

[Retired AF Dem]

16. Since you know next to nothing about firearm mechanics

I would be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. There are many other people here, who know a bit more. Why don't you explain, for THEIR benefit? -nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Consensus seems to be it doesn't have anything to do with the case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x135567

What say you?

[rman]

29. You'd be wasting your time explaining it to someone who already knows.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. By the way

Why didn't you make your point directly instead of veiledly and "google this and that?"

[shield20]

2. One reason why we don't want only the police and govt to have guns;

Bush is the other - 'nuff said!

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Isn't that backwards

shouldn't we all arm ourselves since the cops have no requirement to protect us and we clearly need protection from the Gov, cops, and thugs?

[FogerRox]

5. That might be what shield20 was tryin to say

[shield20]

6. Absolutely! nt

[ComerPerro]

7. yeah, cause having a gun when a bunch of cops are gonna murder you is really gonna save your life

[Retired AF Dem]

15. So it is better just to die

without the ability to fight back?

[ends_dont_justify]

22. Exactly

When only YOU have a gun against an army of officers, you will most likely die. When you, your roommate/neighbor/family has a gun and the police realize they're walking into a beesnest, they may decide not to have fun by murdering you on your wedding day.

Anything less than equality for all people is less than equality for all people ;) I myself worry more not about rogue police officers having guns, but the public not having them to ward off would-be trigger happies (not even with the use of violence. Just having it can be enough).

[FogerRox]

4. 'bout time

The jury charged two of the detectives — Gescard F. Isnora, an undercover officer who fired the first shot, and Michael Oliver, who fired 31 shots — with manslaughter, two people with direct knowledge of the case said. The third detective, Marc Cooper, who fired four shots, faces a lesser charge of reckless endangerment, those two people said.

Detectives Isnora and Cooper are black; Detective Oliver is white. They were among five police officers who fired into a gray Nissan Altima carrying the bridegroom, Sean Bell, and two friends during a chaotic confrontation in Jamaica early on the morning of Nov. 25. Neither Mr. Bell nor his friends, both of whom were wounded, were armed, although the police officers apparently believed that they were.

[aikoaiko]

9. Didn't the driver of the car, Bell, try to get away from the police and hit a detective with a car?

If that's true, then I don't blame the police for using lethal force to stop the driver. If it took 50 rounds to stop the threat, then so be it.

Perhaps there is more to the story. It should be an interesting court case.

[prole_for_peace]

11. they were undercover and there is no evidence that Bell knew they were cops

as far as he knew some thugs were pulling guns on him. IMHO his response was totally appropriate.

[aikoaiko]

12. I thought there was testimony that the detective was wearing his shield?

[prole_for_peace]

17. he had it around his neck but it was dark and he pulled it out

when he stepped in front of them. i don't think i would have noticed. those things aren't that big and it isn't neon.

[ellacott]

20. How many stories have you heard about having fake shields

They have been quite a few. I probably would have reacted the same way. There is no justification for shooting 50 times. The police are supposed to be required to shoot so many times then stop and access. This was not followed.

[ManiacJoe]

21. The amount of time needed to properly assess

can be (and often is) very short. If your target is still a lethal threat, you keep/resume shooting. Handguns are poor man-stoppers; they are just more convenient to carry than long guns.

[Irreverend IX]

18. The victims thought they were being carjacked.

A plainclothes cop approached them as they left the bar, saying "Hey! Hey!" and produced a gun. I'm not fully sure whether or not he announced that he was a cop, but even if he did there are plenty of robbers and carjackers who do the same. And if you live in a place where concealed carry is prohibited, a two-ton hunk of metal makes a pretty good anti-carjacker weapon.

[ends_dont_justify]

23. you're not required to use lethal force. You're actually meant to do the opposite

Lethal force is only necessary when the target is dangerous. Obviously he wasn't as dangerous as these cops. Especially when tires are easy targets or shooting the grill would also stop the car. Obviously lack of training and a don't care attitude...this is queens, not the bronx. It isn't the same level of danger (and yes, I've been to queens to judge that. Manhattan is worse and I haven't even been to the bronx).

edit: spelling

[aikoaiko]

27. I disagree.

Using the ends of the altercation is no way to judge who was more dangerous. How ironic given your username.

It appears that you have watched way too much tv about cops stopping cars dead in their tracks with a shot to the tire or to the engine. Even if successful, those shots wouldn't stop the vehicle.

It really comes down to whether or not the police reasonably believed that someone was trying to criminally harm them. Given the facts as I know them, I say yes.

[alarimer]

24. Why do (some) cops and their defenders think they are above the law?

Clearly at least some of them were in the wrong here. But just like with those border patrol agents who killed someone and tried to cover it up, there are people (some even on these message boards) who will excuse whatever cops do, no matter how bad it might and no matter if they are convicted.

[NorthernSpy]

26. the authoritarian personality strikes again!

Some people really get off on this sort of thing. It makes them feel powerful by proxy.

[Occulus]

37. Looks like it's time for this link

The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer. All seven chapters are free for download in .pdf form. I'm only into Chapter 2 thus far, but it's been quite interesting reading.

And yes, this is precisely the sort of behavior this book talks about. Authoritarians, such as the rabid police defenders here and elsewhere, often have a "Mommy and Daddy know best" worldview; for them, Authority is not only to be obeyed, it is not even to be questioned.

For example, I've seen people in these threads say things like "I think there's more than one side to this story", "The police definitely had their reasons", or even going so far as to say that "criticism of police demeans the job they do every day" (does that sound familiar, by chance?). What's laughable- to the nonauthoritarian- is that they say these things even when the facts quite clearly state the progression of the actual events in question in a very clear and objectively indisputable way- as they have in many a 'cop thread' on this board.

Fortunately, authoritarians are easy to spot if you know how to spot them, and Chapter 1 of the above book does do a very good job in describing some of the sorts of reactions and assumptions that authoritarians have regarding the world around them and the people in it. This isn't to plug the book- how can I, when it's free?- but just because it's an interesting book thus far.

[aikoaiko]

28. What exactly did the cops do so clearly wrong?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. They murdered a guy.

It's not OK to do just because they're cops and the victim's black, you know.

[aikoaiko]

31. "They murdered a guy" wow

No one is saying cops can murder people -- black, white, or otherwise. To imply such a thing about my post is low-life race baiting.

Again, I think there are two important questions. One: Did the police have reason to approach the occupants of the car as a part of a criminal investigation? They had no gun, but they had reason to believe they had one. Two: Did the cops reasonably believe that the driver was using lethal force to evade the police. Yes, they did.

Its hard to see why they are being prosecuted, based on what I know from newspaper articles.

[alarimer]

32. The cops were in the wrong here

They deserve jail time for this. Just like the Amadou Diallo case and many, many others. Cops are so often not held accountable for their actions.

The articles in newspapers do not reveal all the details and in fact are biased in favor of cops generally.

[aikoaiko]

41. You do Diallo wrong by the comparison.

Diallo did not attempt to flee the police.

Diallo did no strike the police with a object that could have killed them.

I agree that police are often let off the hook, but that doesn't mean anything in this particular case.

[High Plains]

33. Dude, they shot an unarmed man 50 times!!

And you don't have a problem with that?

You make it sound like Sean Bell was trying to kill them with his car. I don't think that was the case. I guess a jury will have to figure it out, and this is certainly a case that deserves to go before a jury. But at the very least, the cops seriously fucked up, and an innocent man is dead.

[aikoaiko]

40. They shot a man 50 times is factually incorrect.

They shot their guns 50 times, most of those bullets missing, and hit the driver FOUR times.

Yes, I can believe that Sean Bell might have thought it was holdup or car jacking, but its not what he was thinking that is the problem under investigation. Were the police acting lawfully and reasonably when they approached the car in the process of their investigation? From what I've heard, yes. If they did have probable cause to think that the men had a gun, and they attempted to flee and in the process hit one of the detectives with the car, is it reasonable that they needed to use lethal force to defend themselves. From what I've read, I say yes.

If there is any evidence that Bell had stopped moving his car and had his hands up, then that would be damning.

[HamdenRice]

34. Prosecutors are going to focus on: empty pistol; reload; empty pistol again!

The DA seems to be playing it safe because he has a sure fire case with at least one of the cops who shot over 30 times.

He emptied his automatic while the other officers were also shooting.

Then he reloaded his pistol.

Now consider the condition of the victim at this point. Can he possibly have posee a threat?

This officer then emptied his pistol into the victim AGAIN. At that point, the only inference we can make about the officer's criminal intent is an unlawful intent to kill.

This bypasses any argument about the officer reasonably believing the victim was a threat.

[aikoaiko]

39. Bell was only hit 4 times.

I say it again. FOUR times. Yes, the police shot many more bullets, but they MISSED more than they hit. I think their aim was horrible, but thats not the issue here.


I agree the 50 rounds sounds like a lot until you learn that the driver was only hit 4 times. I most certainly think its possible that it might take 4 rounds to stop a drivers from attempting to get away and running down police in the process.

To answer your question, yes, I think the driver could pose a threat if he continued to move his car. He already hit one of the detectives and almost hit him a second time with his vehicle.

If there was testimony that the car had stopped moving and his hands were in the air, then I would say the police did wrong.

[krispos42]

42. Their aim may not be much of an issue

They are trying to shoot through a car. The various and sundry parts of a car either block or deflect bullets. For example, it may have taken four or five shots to just get through the windshield. Then the cop is trying to hit a dark-skinned man, in a dark car, at night, probably ducking and dodging, through a pane of cracked and shattered glass.

If all five cops had empied their guns, I could kind of see the 50 shots being fired. That's ten rounds each, takes about 4-5 seconds to empty the clip. That's pretty fast.

But the guy who fired 30 rounds...

If his gun had a 10-round clip, that meant he fired for 5 seconds, reloaded in about 3 seconds, fired again for 5 more seconds, reloaded again in about 3 seconds, and fired again for another 5 seconds. That's 21 seconds, at minimum.

If his gun had a 15-round clip, that meant he fired for 7 seconds, reloaded in about 3 seconds, and fired again for 7 more seconds. That's 17 seconds, minimum.

In both cases, that also means that there was a large period where he was the ONLY one shooting. It wasn't a general chorus of shots, it was one officer continuing to lay into the groom with his pistol.

THAT'S what I have a problem with.

[aikoaiko]

43. I would have a problem if the car had stopped moving and Bell had his hands up and then the new mag

...was unloaded. But he started firing while the car was still moving, then I don't see it as a problem. If the threat remained, then a reload is justified, no?

[krispos42]

45. My problem is that everybody else had stopped shooting

And he was still going full-bore. That's usually an indication that the action's over.

Of course, the specifics of the case may vindicate him. But in general, when a fellow officer starts shooting, you join in, and when they stop, so do you.

[HamdenRice]

35. Utterly. Weird. Twist on this story: Accused cop celebrates with $4,200 meal

Michael Oliver, the police officer accused with the most egregious use of force in the Sean Bell case -- the officer who emptied his pistol, reloaded, and emptied it again, landing 31 of the 50 shots that killed Bell -- "celebrated" his indictment with a very expensive meal at one of New York's most exclusive restaurants, Nello.

Oliver, with five companions, had dover sole, pasta with truffles ($180 a plate) and five bottles of Brunello di Montalcino wine, at $575 per bottle.

The tab, which was picked up by one Jose Garcia, Oliver's friend from Spain, came to about $4,200.

Oliver was known as "Undercover Mike" during his days in plain clothes in the Vice Squad, investigating nightlife crime. During the grand jury investigation, Oliver was seen partying in Chelsea nightclubs.

This raises interesting questions: With friends like Oliver's who can pay $4,200 for a meal, should we expect Oliver to be able to afford outstanding legal representation and hence a greater chance at acquittal? Why was Oliver so unconcerned during the grand jury deliberations that he went partying regularly? What social or legal "chits" might Oliver have picked up as a nightlife officer enforcing New York's notoriously draconian night life regulations?

Details in the NY Post

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03182007/news/regionalnews/havin_a_blast_regionalnews_lawrence_schwartzwald__angela_montefinise_and_melissa______jane_kronfeld.htm

[butterfly77]

36. I see that some people think that...

just because someone is a police that gives them the right to shoot anyone they want, if they found that it was necessary to shoot why did they reload...

[Occulus]

38. See my link above

Explains a lot. Tries to, anyway; I think it's a decent read.

[ManiacJoe]

44. The "why to reload" is an easy answer:

Once you have decided to start shooting, you stop only for one of two reasons: (1) you are out of ammo, or (2) your target is no longer a lethal threat. A moving vehicle is a deadly weapon that is hard to stop.

The real question that needs to be asked is, "What errors in judgment lead the cops to believe that shooting was necessary in the first place?"