apuszczalowski Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Unarmed? I thought the guy had a car... And according to a video, one guy saying to get his gun, IIRC I like how Sharpton is involved making it a race issue when only one of the 3 cops was white, was it even the white cop that fired the 50 shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Correct. Bad judgement on the part of the unarmed dead guy. Assaulting cops with a motor vehicle at 4am in a sh--ty part of town isn't exercising much judgement. ... As opposed to the well-thought-out, carefully reasoned act of firing two full clips into a car full of unarmed people? Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 ... As opposed to the well-thought-out, carefully reasoned act of firing two full clips into a car full of unarmed people? Hmmm... Let me drive a car at you and see if you still don't understand how a car is a weapon in that situation. How many times does it need to be stated that you are not an "innocent unarmed" victim if you are trying to kill someone with your vehicle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Let me drive a car at you and see if you still don't understand how a car is a weapon in that situation. How many times does it need to be stated that you are not an "innocent unarmed" victim if you are trying to kill someone with your vehicle! And yet ... Oddly enough, if you did "drive a car AT me" ... despite being a decent shot ... I would find it difficult to fire 31 rounds into the front side and rear-side windows. Call it a vectoral equation issue, I guess ... Look, I guess we're always going to disagree on the Bell case. For the record, though, I come down clearly on the side of placing the greater responsibility for measured action in the hands of the party who actually was in possession of loaded guns. We have created a situation now in America where a cop can basically shoot anyone as many times as they see fit - and all they have to do to get off is say something like "well, I thought I heard him say to his companion that a guy at a party he was at once said something to his buddy about reading a magazine article about a guy who said he was maybe considering buying a GUN" and ... it's justified! It's got to stop. It's simply got to stop. Let me throw a hypothetical at you - using myself as an example. I am partially deaf. And I find it very hard to tell what someone is saying if I can't see their lips while they're speaking. The way things are now, a cop standing behind me could say "Freeze. Hands up, now." When I did not comply in .0000045 seconds, he can then shoot me 167 times and ... get off? I think not. Oh, don't take that the wrong way... He probably WOULD get off. But I wouldn't consider it 'justified." The cops have too much leeway. Way too much. As long as they're never held accountable, it's BOUND to happen again. Maybe not next week ... maybe not even next month. But it WILL happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 28, 2008 Author Share Posted April 28, 2008 ... As opposed to the well-thought-out, carefully reasoned act of firing two full clips into a car full of unarmed people? Hmmm... Not only was he armed, but he was actively using his 4,000 pound weapon to endanger the lives of the officers. And by the time the officers finished firing, their lives were no longer in danger. So yes, I agree that the decision to fire was sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Not only was he armed, but he was actively using his 4,000 pound weapon to endanger the lives of the officers. And by the time the officers finished firing, their lives were no longer in danger. So yes, I agree that the decision to fire was sound. See my posting above. Even for a trained marksman, it's not easy to fire 31 rounds into the side and rear-side windows of a car being driven AT you. I think the "he drove a car at me" excuse is just the new version of "I thought he was going for a gun." In the case of the latter, often (as was the case here) there WAS NO GUN. But it's much easier to prove the guy had a CAR. We had a New Year's Eve killing in Albany a few years back where an innocent bystander got killed by a cop firing a gazillion rounds at a guy trying to evade. The cop got off because he used the "he was trying to kill me with his car" routine. It's an excuse. If someone's driving a car AT you, you're getting out of the way - NOT firing 50 rounds at the driver. A typical car weights about 2,800 -4,000 pounds. A shell - or even fifty shells - from a Sig 9mm isn't going to stop it or change its course ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 The officers did what they had to do in firing on the guy. Their lives were in danger b/c Bell was using a deadly weapon (a car) against police officers. The one problem I have here...50 shots? From one officer? Five probably would have done the trick. I'm sure many police officers are questioning the need to fire 50 shots...even stopping to reload. Many of the cops I've known are decent people. One officer I know killed a guy who shot at cops -- this guy swore he'd never be taken alive. This officer was so physically distraught that he vomited after it happened. Later, this officer was shot in the face himself, but survived. He also had a leg badly broken when a car hit him during a DUI stop. Believe it or not, he's still a police officer today. He's earned respect. That's an extreme example, I know, but remember that 95% of these people put their lives on the line for the rest of us every single day. The other 5% may not be able to be trusted, but guess what? 5% of people in everyday life are douchebags, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 And yet ... Oddly enough, if you did "drive a car AT me" ... despite being a decent shot ... I would find it difficult to fire 31 rounds into the front side and rear-side windows. Do you know where the other cops were when he was firing into the side of the car? I don't, but would need to know that before catagorizing a cop as a murderer. Let me throw a hypothetical at you - using myself as an example. I am partially deaf. And I find it very hard to tell what someone is saying if I can't see their lips while they're speaking. The way things are now, a cop standing behind me could say "Freeze. Hands up, now." When I did not comply in .0000045 seconds, he can then shoot me 167 times and ... get off? I think not. Oh, don't take that the wrong way... He probably WOULD get off. But I wouldn't consider it 'justified." The cops have too much leeway. Way too much. As long as they're never held accountable, it's BOUND to happen again. Maybe not next week ... maybe not even next month. But it WILL happen again. Are you kidding me? That is beyond stupid. Whatever you do, please do not call the cops that you have so much contempt for and expect them to risk their lives for any emergency situation you may find yourself in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 He also had a leg badly broken when a car hit him during a DUI stop. Apparently he should have just "got out of the way" since a car is so easy to avoid and is not a deadly threat when driven at someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Apparently he should have just "got out of the way" since a car is so easy to avoid and is not a deadly threat when driven at someone. My understanding is that he was busy putting the DUI offender in the squad car at the time. He heard the car, but couldn't get out of the way soon enough. Either way, cars can and do hurt, maim, and kill. It is a weapon when used at someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 28, 2008 Author Share Posted April 28, 2008 See my posting above. Even for a trained marksman, it's not easy to fire 31 rounds into the side and rear-side windows of a car being driven AT you. I think the "he drove a car at me" excuse is just the new version of "I thought he was going for a gun." In the case of the latter, often (as was the case here) there WAS NO GUN. But it's much easier to prove the guy had a CAR. We had a New Year's Eve killing in Albany a few years back where an innocent bystander got killed by a cop firing a gazillion rounds at a guy trying to evade. The cop got off because he used the "he was trying to kill me with his car" routine. It's an excuse. If someone's driving a car AT you, you're getting out of the way - NOT firing 50 rounds at the driver. A typical car weights about 2,800 -4,000 pounds. A shell - or even fifty shells - from a Sig 9mm isn't going to stop it or change its course ... Wasn't it established as fact at the trial that 1) he actually hit one cop with the car and 2) he then rammed the cops' van? How long are they suppose to let the guy continue before doing something? Are the cops just supposed to try to jump out of the way and then hope the guy doesn't start shooting or put the car in reverse and try again? Even though you seem to think it would be a good idea, police are not required to give the bad guy a clean opportunity to kill them first before taking defensive action. A typical car weights about 2,800 -4,000 pounds. A shell - or even fifty shells - from a Sig 9mm isn't going to stop it or change its course ... Well at least you finally recognize that he was armed. And the point isn't to stop the car, it's to stop the driver. Maybe the problem is the people who insist on lionizing drug dealing thugs grooms-to-be when they get shot as a direct result of their reckless and/or illegal actions. Perhaps if we save our outrage for those cases where it is justified, rather than looking for any opportunity to vilify cops, we can find a better balance. I seem to recall NYPD officers receiving long jail sentences (and rightly so) in the Abner Louima case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 28, 2008 Author Share Posted April 28, 2008 The one problem I have here...50 shots? From one officer? Five probably would have done the trick. I'm sure many police officers are questioning the need to fire 50 shots...even stopping to reload. No, not 50 shots from one officer, 50 shots from four officers. I'm still waiting for one of the resident police experts to tell us what the allowable # of shots is for police when facing a life threatening situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 A typical car weights about 2,800 -4,000 pounds. A shell - or even fifty shells - from a Sig 9mm isn't going to stop it or change its course ... It will if you hit the driver with a good shot. It may take a lot more shots than normal due to the difficulty in piercing sheet metal or safety glass and continuing with enough force to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 awww, that was cute. Would you have felt better about it if he told you that you are a jerk off? Let's give it a try.... You are a jerk off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Would you have felt better about it if he told you that you are a jerk off? Let's give it a try.... You are a jerk off. Why, because I have an unpopular opinion? I grew up around cops and have worked with cops for most of my life. I don't have a bad opinion of the profession and I am almost always on their side when it comes to situations like this (as I am with this specific situation). But my opinion of "most" cops as people is pretty much set and comes from lots of experience. So basically, kiss my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Would you have felt better about it if he told you that you are a jerk off? Let's give it a try.... You are a jerk off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Why, because I have an unpopular opinion? I grew up around cops and have worked with cops for most of my life. I don't have a bad opinion of the profession and I am almost always on their side when it comes to situations like this (as I am with this specific situation). But my opinion of "most" cops as people is pretty much set and comes from lots of experience. So basically, kiss my ass. My opinion of "most" cops as people (and I know plenty), are that they are just decent hard-working poeple trying to do right by their families. Your view any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 My opinion of "most" cops as people (and I know plenty), are that they are just decent hard-working poeple trying to do right by their families. Your view any different? No, as very general view, that's about right. When talking about their individual personalities, I don't have a very high opinion of them. There is a certian character type that's drawn to police work, and even those that don't fall into that category become that way by being surrounded by it. Like I said, most of my life I"ve been surrounded by cops, and to this day still have lots childhood friends that are cops. And they all know how I feel, and most, once I can focus them long enough to actually hear what I"m saying instead of flying off the handle right away, agree with me. It's a testerone driven career that is full of dominant peronalities. Add to that the stress that the job adds to their lives, it just becomes a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Why, because I have an unpopular opinion? I grew up around cops and have worked with cops for most of my life. I don't have a bad opinion of the profession and I am almost always on their side when it comes to situations like this (as I am with this specific situation). But my opinion of "most" cops as people is pretty much set and comes from lots of experience. So basically, kiss my ass. I guess that didn't sit well either. Sorry about that. Douchebag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I guess that didn't sit well either. Sorry about that. Douchebag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts