New York Shooting...Opinions?

Where there is smoke there is fire. I'll side with the LEO's every time. There is always a problem dealing with drunks.
 
To me the whole incident shows to me that the gun control advocates argument that only police should have guns because only they can use them responsibly is not entirely valid:D
 
There aren't enough facts in for me to weigh in on this one. Personally, I think it's a gray situation where everyone involved did something very wrong. We may never know what "wrong" thing or things that they did. One thing that I DO get worked up over is the media spin on the man that was killed. "Police shot and killed a young man just hours before he was to wed the mother of his children." :rolleyes: Okaaaay...These are the facts, but what does it have to do with the actual actions of the police? I mean, would this be getting nearly as much attention if it had been a car full of buddies just out for a good time. The spin is the tearjerk angle. It is very, very sad for a joyous day to be ruined in such a violent manner. I do feel very sorry for the family of the man that was shot...However, being a fairly recently married guy I can tell you that the DAY of my wedding was NOT spent in a strip club. My hands were too busy shaking:D

Jake
 
kronckew said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well put. It is very easy to say that the officer had his badge hanging around his neck when he approached them and they should have known that he was a cop, but realistically, late at night, after having been drinking, in a bad neighborhood, where a lot of the locals go around with 'bling' i.e. big shiney metal medalions and chains around their neck, if a guy comes running up on you, not in uniform, no blue/red lights flashing, with a gun pointed at you, screaming what you may or may not actually understand because of the volume of your radio, are you going to calmly open the door and step out or are you going to try to get the hell out of there??? I am not saying that the cops are wrong but we only know a small amount of details about a very confused situation. Most likely everybody in this situation is wrong to a certain extent.

I am a big supporter of law enforcement and work for an agency that provides logistical and technical support to most of the larger law enforcement agencies in this state. I am very much a believer that an officier's first priority is to come home alive at the end of the shift. That said, I have a huge problem with no-knock warrants. Plainclothes officiers executing no-knocks are inviting gunfire, because how can the inhabitants of the house know that they are actually police, esp. in high crime areas where home invasions and people impersonating LEO's are known problems. I personally am not letting ANYBODY into my home, period, at all, badges or warrants or not, in the middle of the night unless there are police cars out front and I can call 911 and verify that they are legit.
 
Not enough facts. But if you use an auto as a deadly weapon, you are going to get treated as such.



munk
 
I was going to start a thread on this myself but as this one is taking of so well:

1. Investigation isn't finished and no one knows exactly what really happened yet so any knee jerk reaction by certain "leaders" is just ignorant.

2. If in fact the driver did attempt to run the police over, then shots should have been fired. PERIOD.

3. 50 Shots, 30 or so coming from one gun(so I hear) IS excessive. However, being that you have several men, resisting you, attempting to run you over, etc in the heat of conflict, it is not unreasonable to believe your survival instincts will take over and fire many shots to live to see your family and friends.

4. So far this doesn't seem to be at all racially motivated. To call it such in any way is ignorant until all the facts have been revealed. It was apparently an ethnically mixed group of officers.

Lastly, Charles Barron has been incredibly irresponsible for making statements which could create further racial tensions. Claiming that the potential for violent response from the black community is a reasonable response to Police brutality. He's a complete idiot for making such a statement so soon without being fully educated on the incident.

Even so, if there was race motivation at all, there is no reason for inflaming the community any further and potentally incite violence. That is detrimental to race relations.

One of my best friends has had much experience with Barron lately and knows first hand that he is a completely full of sh*t politician who is looking for any reason to scream Racism in order to further his own career.

While I support some radical ideas and sympathize with the struggle of the poor and issues of race, racism, etc. I cannot in any way understand why anyone would listen to a man who stated

"I want to go up to the closest white person and say, ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health."

We all know there are just some things we cannot completely fathom as we have different experiences in this world but, to make a public statement about slapping someone for their race is truly ignorant.
 
‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health."
Click to expand...

He does need to do SOMETHING about his mental health. I don't think he picked the right thing, either, though. :D
 
RDT said:
"I want to go up to the closest white person and say, ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health."
Click to expand...

Wow. Who's this moron? Talk about racist.

Chris
 
You're from Iowa. Come to NYC some time -- give me a call first.
You don't want to go into the city without a guide.

It's a great place to visit AND to live. But we got some crazy people there.
 
The hit on target ratio is a bit embarassing and unacceptable (from a former marksmanship instructor perspective). The NYPD should really look into remedial training for the officers involved.
 
Perhaps I read the article wrong.

One citizen said to go get his gun.

Plainclothes officer clearly identified himself.

The car struck one officer and rammed the police vehicle twice.

I rarely support LEO's, but it rather sounds like the citizens got what they asked for.

If I struck a cop with my car and rammed their vehicle twice I'd expect the same.

You don't do that.
 
Seems like the guys shoulda been more careful with their vehicle regardless. I don't know about remedial training for officers using pistols on moving targets. That aint easy shooting. # of shots seems irrelevant to me.
 
I thought the number of hits was pretty good compared to many other shootouts we've read about. Of course, we don't have a picture of the scene, but they must have been fairly close to their target. Still, the distraction factor would have been high also.

The question should may down to whether they had to shoot, not if they were somehow justified. It's like classifying accidents as At Fault, Not At Fault, and Preventable. Not everything you can do is a good idea.
 
As a LEO if I or one of my fellow officer's had been hit or attempted to be hit by a moving car/ suv ex cetera, I would consider that attempted murder/ assault on a LEO and IMHO would be justifyed in using deadly force . Especially if they were not obeying commands to stop the vehicle. I was trained that I was justified in using deadly force to protect myself, other officers and bystanders/civilians.
 
I was trained that I was justified in using deadly force to protect myself, other officers and bystanders/civilians.
Click to expand...

Cool. But firing on the vehicle is not always an effective way to protect yourself, other officers, and bystanders/civilians. Especially when those civilians are in more danger from stray bullets than from the vehicle.
 
Undercover police (Under the Influence??) shoot 50 rounds at a careening and colliding vehicle in densely populated bad NY neighborhood. Inside the vehicle, are unarmed Black men. Collateral casualties.
Oh how I wish this was a unique tragedy. :(
 
they werent unarmed or collateral.

nationwide the average for hits is around 17 percent.

tragedy? how so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top