New York Shooting...Opinions?

namaarie

namaarie

Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
1,499
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/nyregion/27fire.html?hp&ex=1164690000&en=1bba0a79a094ed61&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I know we have some LEO types here, and I highly value everyone here's opinion. I have been noticing that this story is causing quite a bit of controversy.

So, opinions? 5 officers fired, 50 rounds total. That number seems to be the rallying cry: 50 rounds for a group of unarmed men, killing one and injuring two.

But my opinion is mixed. The car hit a cop (who had identified, ordering them out of the car, gun drawn) and then plowed into a minivan containing police twice. But as I read the article, I realized that one of the officers fired 31 shots at the car. I might add that their car was only hit 21 out of 50 times, and other officers were injured by glass from an errant bullet breaking a window. Clearly something went very wrong here, but I have to admit that I hate how everyone's demonizing the police here. Surely at least a couple of them acted improperly, but I don't think it warrants this reaction.

Thoughts?

Chris
 
I am so out of the loop on that one I will abstain from a direct comment.

All I know is it isn't always easy being a cop.
 
not to judge what the officers did in any way, but on the surface, it is possible there was what is known as 'sympathy fire', gunfire becomes contagious, and some fire their weapons as a result of another firing.

and the suspect was armed, with a 3000 lb piece of rolling steel.

50 rounds sounds like a lot. but if the threat persisted, then I would fire until the threat was neutralized.

moving targets are very difficult to hit. and when that moving target is a car coming directly at you, after ramming other officers, that difficulty is magnified. not to mention the stress induced tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills, etc. these are unavoidable in a stress situation and training can help to minimize them but never totally eliminate them.

perhaps the officer who fired the most was directly threatened by the van, or had the best angle at the suspects, or had reason to believe that the van posed an immediate danger to those nearby, or any combination of circumstances can contribute to his/her decision to fire that many rounds.

there is no determinate number of rounds, ie some mathematical formula, that tells us how many rounds to fire in a given situation. you fire until the threat is no longer a threat. sometimes ugly, definitely.

but with much that we do, people only want to know that we do our jobs, not how we do our jobs. using force is never pretty, but often becomes a necessity. no police officer is required to meet force with equal force, we meet force with greater force. if we were required to abide by the former, the number of officers killed would increase exponentially.
 
Waiting to see if this will end up in the political forum or the W&C...

Gently gentlemen...
 
It's hard to tell what exactly happened without more facts. Sympathy fire was probably a factor. I will add that running over police officers and repeatedly ramming their vehicles is not a good course of action to pursue if one does not want to be fired at, generally speaking.
 
Nasty said:
Waiting to see if this will end up in the political forum or the W&C...

Gently gentlemen...
Click to expand...

Sorry, Nasty. Didn't think about it - just saw it on the news and though I'd go for some input. Of course, feel free to move as necessary.

Good points, all, and I generally agree. I think this is certainly a question with no easy answer. And honestly, I'm upset that the city leaders were so quick to jump on the cops without first thoroughly investigating.

Chris
 
Dave Rishar said:
It's hard to tell what exactly happened without more facts. Sympathy fire was probably a factor. I will add that running over police officers and repeatedly ramming their vehicles is not a good course of action to pursue if one does not want to be fired at, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned the car counts as a weapon; and the suspects were armed and dangerous.

n2s
 
namaarie said:
Sorry, Nasty. Didn't think about it - just saw it on the news and though I'd go for some input. Of course, feel free to move as necessary.

Good points, all, and I generally agree. I think this is certainly a question with no easy answer. And honestly, I'm upset that the city leaders were so quick to jump on the cops without first thoroughly investigating.

Chris
Click to expand...


also consider the public may never know all the facts. most of this investigation will be kept confidential, probably.

city leaders, activists, and media. thats what they do. monday morning quarterback and snap judgements while the incident is still fresh in everyones memory. once more facts are in and a better picture of what happened is available, most people will have forgotten or no longer care.
 
N2 beat me to it. A vehicle is a dangerous weapon. I just grind my teeth when I keep reading that the mean old cops shot up an unarmed innocent bachlor-party (that was leaving a strip club)....

I was a bouncer at a strip club back when I got out of the AF and had to deal with a drunken bachlor party of 36 one night. It ended up turning into a melee in the parking lot because they didn't appreciate being told to leave after harrassing one of the dancers, going up on stage (big no-no), and threatening the staff. Go figure. They preceded to block the main entrance to the building with a Suburban and started throwing rocks at the building. It got bad after that.

I'm not saying the police were justified... or that the party did anything wrong. I just don't have enough information to make that call. But I do know from experience that that mixture (bachlor party, strip club, authority figures) can lead to things getting out of hand quickly. It is a shame that someone died.
 
i was recently in manhattan visiting my 'cuz who let me stay in his suite at the waldorf (company perk).

hadn't been to ny in a looong time, but they've really cleaned it up some.

i remember going to a drug store to buy some water. i was in front of a lady who was fumbling around her purse looking for change, i think she delayed the cashier for maybe... 30 secs?

the people behind me were getting vocal and profoundly impatient. she turned around and apologized to me. i smiled and said "no worries!"

after i bought my water and left the store, she was in front of me on the street. she turned around, smiled, put her hand on my shoulder and said, "your kindness will be repaid back on you"

i thought to myself, i didn't realize that showing patience for being delayed in line for 30 secs was considered such an incredible act of kindness.

ny is a tough and tense city man.
 
ACStudios said:
N2 beat me to it. A vehicle is a dangerous weapon. I just grind my teeth when I keep reading that the mean old cops shot up an unarmed innocent bachlor-party (that was leaving a strip club)....

I was a bouncer at a strip club back when I got out of the AF and had to deal with a drunken bachlor party of 36 one night. It ended up turning into a melee in the parking lot because they didn't appreciate being told to leave after harrassing one of the dancers, going up on stage (big no-no), and threatening the staff. Go figure. They preceded to block the main entrance to the building with a Suburban and started throwing rocks at the building. It got bad after that.

I'm not saying the police were justified... or that the party did anything wrong. I just don't have enough information to make that call. But I do know from experience that that mixture (bachlor party, strip club, authority figures) can lead to things getting out of hand quickly. It is a shame that someone died.
Click to expand...

agreed a bachelor party can get waaay out of hand. it has been implied (in the media) that because he was getting married soon that somehow what he did is less serious, or his death more tragic. bad guys get married too.

i dont mean to diminish your sympathy, but its not always a shame when someone dies, unfortunately some folks need killing. most people dont want to acknowledge this.

he was at the very least dui, at worst attempted murder of a police officer.
 
i am normally very supportive of police, they do a fine job in difficult circumstances, and i have been a federal leo myself, albeit for an agency that rarely gets shot at, at least not back then, and was firearms qualified. had a PI license for a while in delaware and did armed security also.

however, just to add a note of caution here, as the facts are unclear, the police were not in uniform & were undercover on a stake-out, did they properly identify themselves to the revelers, did the revelers get scared they were being attacked by a gang - it was an unsavory area? if they had been attacked by a gang and tried to get away would you expect them to stop if one of the gang got in front, or would you expect the gang member to duck? what did the surviving revelers say as to why they tried to get away - did they know the gunman were cops?

having just read about the plain clothes cops who broke into a 93 year old womans house late at night on a no-knock, and shot her 15 odd times because in her panic she fired back at what she thought was a house invasion (there had been a number of gang break-ins in her area by thugs posing as police), could she hear any ID they shouted as they broke down her door and could she believe the gang of plain clothes people with guns was there legitimately? knowing the history of gang breakins, why did they not use uniformed police?

we had a case over here not too long ago where hundreds (really) of police in uniform & full body armor broke into a flat where two muslim 'terrorists' were hold up, they caught one and shot him after he'd been restrained. the cop said his finger slipped cause he was wearing gloves. after a few days handcuffed to a bed, with his brother being interrogated in jail, their flat being ripped apart, it was decided it had been a mistake and they were not terrorists after all. so sorry. policeman got a warning in his file not to shoot handcuffed suspects in future. also had the world famous menendez thingy where they saw a dark skinned man running for a train, jumped him, held him down then emptied a mag into his head, oops, sorry, brazilian student late for class.

while i suspect the news stories on all these were a bit short of detail and may have been slanted, it's best to find out all the facts, tho it may be a bit hard for the 93 year old woman to give her side as she is dead.

even cops are human, operate in fear, on adrenalin, and can get it wrong, when they do, it does not help to close ranks and protect your own, Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
All I know is that being a cop takes a huge amount of patience while dealing with morons in general, not to mention drunk morons and especially armed,
drunken morons. Been in that situation and decided it did not pay enough to risk my life. And these particular morons fit the last category. I would say sympathetic firing was the reason for the high round count. Someone starts firing and in the heat of the moment others believe they are the ones being fired at.

But, this is the same town who had an officer engaged in a running gunfight at ranges from 8 to 17 FEET, expending 31 rounds and never hitting the criminal (who expended 6 rounds). This occured in the open, on a street. For the firearms deficient that is two full magazines plus the initial chambered round. Afterwards, the officer was PRAISED by her superiors for her calmness under fire, given a medal for valorous service and promoted. Oh, the scumbag got away. This happened in 1999 and is a matter of public record. Bigk6
 
It does appear they went against Dept. policy by firing on a moving vehicle. I agree that the number of rounds fired is not really relevant, but the fact that some of the under cover officers had been drinking alcohol(legal under current law, but still not good) and it appears they were not following policy about firing on the vehicle should raise some suspicions. IMHO

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/27/1164476100085.html?page=2

The police department's policy on shooting at moving vehicles states, "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

BTW - No weapons were found in the car.
 
just looked over the article, i dont know if the policy quote is accurate. but i am wondering why the references at the end are made. what do those situations have to do with the current incident? they imply prematurely that the officers were wrong and fired on an 'innocent'.
 
The reason the city officials (the mayor) criticize the police so quickly is to preempt the activists from taking over the media to claim the city is stonewalling them.

Notice that some activists called immediately for the Police Commissioner to be fired. This is meaningless verbal violence, simple anti-authority posturing. But it can't be allowed to dominate the debate.

Until there is some investigating, no one knows what really happened, and that can even include the people involved. Adrenalin is tricky stuff.
 
So far so good...:thumbup:

FWIW, I hesitate to use what is seen by some as deadly force in moving threads...as long as it remains at Cantina level and consists of respectful and intelligent discourse, it will stay among friends here.
 
Just being in a vehicle doesn't make that vehicle a dangerous weapon. If the driver was operating in a manner where he was threatening the safety of the police then it seems like a righteous shoot. 50 shots isn't that many when five officers are involved. Less than a 50% hit rate on the vehicle is probably about average. It's a wonder anybody can hit anything in those high stress situations.
Al Sharpton is an opportunist. I wonder what his game is in this case?
 
Sutcliffe said:
If the driver was operating in a manner where he was threatening the safety of the police then it seems like a righteous shoot.
Click to expand...

They could also have gotten out of the way, gotten his license number, called for backup.

New York at any hour can be a very densely populated area. Bullets also kill bystanders.

Al Sharpton is an opportunist. I wonder what his game is in this case?
Click to expand...

Publicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top