What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NY Police free to kill again

  • #21
Ok, physics 101: shooting someone in a car is stupid movie crap.

If a car is going to hit you in a few seconds, even if you draw, fire, and blow the driver's head to bits, the sheer momentum will still make you roadkill. A car with a dead driver will just keep moving however fast it was going. Sure, it'll slow or veer *eventually*, but if you're far enough away for either of those possibilities, you didn't need to shoot.

I'm not saying the cops were wrong or right, I'm saying they've watched *WAY* too many action movies. I'd like to hear any incidence where shooting the driver of a moving vehicle seconds away from splattering you has done a damned bit of good, rather than simply demonstrating a fatal lack of understanding of basic physics.

Mokele
 
  • #22
Ok, physics 101: shooting someone in a car is stupid movie crap.

Also, law enforcement 101: recruits learn this in basic handgun training (or at least, it's in the training; whether or not they listened...)

If a car is going to hit you in a few seconds, even if you draw, fire, and blow the driver's head to bits, the sheer momentum will still make you roadkill. A car with a dead driver will just keep moving however fast it was going. Sure, it'll slow or veer *eventually*, but if you're far enough away for either of those possibilities, you didn't need to shoot.

Not to mention that if you do have time to hit the target, you've just put everyone in the area at risk by incapacitating the vehicle's driver. Now the car is under the control of someone's death throes; obviously, MUCH better than someone who may or may not have had a rational reason for driving at you. Good thing you gave up your opportunity to dodge.

Thank you for your ever cogent contributions, Mokele.
~Joe
 
  • #24
News Flash:

Cars can be used as weapons. Don't try and use a weapon against a police officer.
 
  • #25
Do not have time right now to read everyone's replys, but I saw this in the Orlando paper and it made me so upset.:censor:

-Josh
 
  • #26
Am I the only one who noticed that these officers fired over 50 rounds at these guys? The victim was shot like 16 times!! Thats "self defence"?

31 shots!! Thats intent to kill, not to wound, not disarm, not defence. To KILL plain and simple.

Imagine that. They had a JUDGE decide the case rather than a jury. And guess what, they got off. hmmmmmm

Sorry to all of you police friendly people out there, but cops lie in court, and judges will ALWAYS agree with them first regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Exactly WHY does the number of rounds expended matter to you? You have a misconception. At least, that is obvious to me that you do, no offense. You do NOT shoot to wound or incapacitate. You shoot to stop the threat. If that means killing, so be it. It's better to be judged by 12 at a trial rather than carried by 6 while you're in your coffin at your funeral. That kind of thinking gets you killed when the person you shoot in the kneecaps continues to be a threat and can still shoot you. It's also rather hard to incapacitate somebody in a car without killing them. Usually only their upper chest (heart) and head (brain) are exposed and able to be shot at reliably. Glass is more easily penetrated by pistol rounds than metal door panels or engine compartments. ;) They continued firing until the threat was no longer a threat.

Should you only be allowed to shoot at a dangerous person a predetermined number of times? It's thinking like that that makes people hesitate and gets them killed. I can link you a graphic video with an example of what I mean. It's of an officer that continues to hesitate and is gunned down by a suspect armed with a rifle. This happened after he had a complaint about excessive force used on another suspect. He was too scared he'd be grilled on using excessive force on what was quite obviously an eminent threat.

I am far from being a police apologist and I'm not defending the actions of the officers given the circumstances. I'm simply explaining what happens in a real world situation rather than what would happen in the perfect world that only exists as an idea.
 
  • #27
I can't imagine how, unless you have terrible aim, you would need to fire FIFTY shots. If your aim is that bad, you should not be a cop. This is not Grand Theft Auto. If some random group of people in ordinary clothing came up to you at 4 in the morning, took out guns, and did not identify themselves as cops, what would you do? Would you try to get away? I would. If you could not back out, would you try to run them over? I would. Was this man trying to run them over? No. He was trying to get away, and they killed him because they panicked. This was their fault entirely. If they had Id'd themselves as cops, this would not have happened. It makes me sick. America is becoming worse every god damned day.

I'll be fair. If I was a cop, and someone was trying to get away but I felt that they were going to try and run me over, I would shoot. HOWEVER, if I was a cop I would have let that person know EXTREMELY clearly that I was an officer. If the cops were doing their job properly, this would not have happened. Like Al said, this was an abortion of justice. The cops aren't terrible monsters. They just didn't do their job. They should not be on the force any longer. Do I believe they should be in JAIL? I actually don't know because this instance involved a vehicle and that really changes things.

The woman who told the cop to stop working for the "masters" is retarded. We need cops. There are good cops and bad cops. You know she won't be saying that when something bad happens to her.
 
  • #28
I can't imagine how, unless you have terrible aim, you would need to fire FIFTY shots. If your aim is that bad, you should not be a cop. This is not Grand Theft Auto. If some random group of people in ordinary clothing came up to you at 4 in the morning, took out guns, and did not identify themselves as cops, what would you do? Would you try to get away? I would. If you could not back out, would you try to run them over? I would. Was this man trying to run them over? No. He was trying to get away, and they killed him because they panicked. This was their fault entirely. If they had Id'd themselves as cops, this would not have happened. It makes me sick. America is becoming worse every god damned day.

I'll be fair. If I was a cop, and someone was trying to get away but I felt that they were going to try and run me over, I would shoot. HOWEVER, if I was a cop I would have let that person know EXTREMELY clearly that I was an officer. If the cops were doing their job properly, this would not have happened. Like Al said, this was an abortion of justice. The cops aren't terrible monsters. They just didn't do their job. They should not be on the force any longer. Do I believe they should be in JAIL? I actually don't know because this instance involved a vehicle and that really changes things.

The woman who told the cop to stop working for the "masters" is retarded. We need cops. There are good cops and bad cops. You know she won't be saying that when something bad happens to her.

A total of 50 bullets were fired by five NYPD officers. Average that out and it's 10 rounds each. That's not a lot in the heat of the moment when you're pulling the trigger. It's not like 1 cop reloaded 2-3 times, which is how you make it out to sound. They weren't conferring with each other as they were shooting to see how many rounds each one had fired and trying to guess whether it was "enough."

As for the not identifying part, that is what the deceased man's friend assert. There is the possibility that they are telling the truth, are outright lying, or are even mistaken and simply did not register/hear the officers do so. Personally, I have a hard time believing that FIVE officers approached the vehicle without a single one of them announcing that they were the police. Do you really sincerely believe that the police conspired to open fire on the car for no reason and without identifying themselves?

The reality is it's an impossible situation. If somebody tried to run me over, hell yes I'd shoot them. If I had 5 people draw their firearms and didn't identify themselves to me while I'm in my car, I'd keep my head down and try and get the hell out of there. I'd probably try and avoid hitting one because that could hurt your chances of escape and won't make much difference when there are 5 people. If they did identify themselves, I'd keep my own firearm at the low and ready while I call 911 to verify. If they open fire without provocation you can probably assume they aren't police and you need to get the hell out of there.
 
  • #29
Some facts in regards to the amount of bullets fired:

Source MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24317738/

With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers said they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again. Isnora fired 11 rounds, and Cooper four. Two other officers who fired weren't charged.

A total of 50 bullets were fired by five NYPD officers. Average that out and it's 10 rounds each. That's not a lot in the heat of the moment when you're pulling the trigger. It's not like 1 cop reloaded 2-3 times, which is how you make it out to sound.

But that is what happened...

As for the not identifying part, that is what the deceased man's friend assert.

Again according to the article:
Isnora claimed that after he warned the men to halt, Bell pulled away in his car, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene. The detective also said Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.

-bumped, undercover officer, plain clothes- -unmarked van- Trying to get away, not trying to kill an officer.
 
  • #30
Some facts in regards to the amount of bullets fired:

Source MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24317738/

With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers said they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again. Isnora fired 11 rounds, and Cooper four. Two other officers who fired weren't charged.



But that is what happened...



Again according to the article:
Isnora claimed that after he warned the men to halt, Bell pulled away in his car, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene. The detective also said Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.

-bumped, undercover officer, plain clothes- -unmarked van- Trying to get away, not trying to kill an officer.

That information wasn't in the original article.
 
  • #31
WE have a similar situation here... A young man (just turned 21) had a warrant for his arrest. When they found him (the officers) he RAN. Stupid thing to do. Anyway, he ran and they cornered him. Here's the debate issue: Police said he had a gun and shot the officer with the warrant then ran. Happily he (officer) had a vest on. When cornered he tried to shoot other officers and was shot and killed in the process. Now I am NOT being racist but it is an issue in this case. The guy who was shot was black and the whole black community is upset because they are saying he was unarmed. If you see his record I would doubt he was unarmed. The officers claim that he was armed and they did what they had to do. Personally I think they were in the right. Now the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) is getting involved. This was a month ago. I dont know anything else about it.

EDIT: I also agree with scotty
 
  • #32
Swords, I live down here. It was big news.

Scotty is right this time. Belligerent, but right nevertheless.

This guy was bad news. Being a cop in NYC means you have to make split second decisions to keep yourself alive. Sometimes they turn out to be the wrong choice, but cops are still human, and many of those they chase don't qualify as that any more.

And cops DON'T get away scott free. Amadou Diallo (sp?) anyone?
 
  • #33
And cops DON'T get away scott free. Amadou Diallo (sp?) anyone?

While I agree with your general sentiment, I don't understand how this is an example of cops being punished:

On March 25 a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.

I still think the problem is that the officers were wrong in their judgment. Yes, operating on snap judgments is a part of being a cop, and yes, these cops aren't (necessarily) deserving of first degree murder or manslaughter. But they still killed a man, and that is an offense in our society no matter who you are. It does nobody good to just give these cops bad publicity and a paid vacation; a slap on the wrist and glossing over the trial just tells the public that the cops don't care and are above the law. This fact often escapes the consideration of many pro-police types, but the people ultimately determine everything about being a cop; how much it pays, how safe it is, and whether the job is actually there or not. The idea behind paying police and lawfully empowering them to carry out their duties is that they actually make our lives better. Abuse the public too much and there will be no more niche for police, period;

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

If the people charged with enforcing the law enforce it inconsistently, then it really does no good in the long run; if you can't rely on the police without being on their good side, then they're really no more useful than thugs asking for protection money. I think there should be some sort of action by the law; even if it isn't traditional criminal punishment, there needs to be a response which assures that these mistakes happen less.
~Joe
 
  • #34
Well there are some facts that can't be disputed. These facts are none of us were there, none of us knows what either of the involved people saw, heard or were thinking, and none of us sat through the trial and saw and heard all the evidence. So none of us have the right to decide if the men are guilty or innocent. The only facts we have are the ones provided by the media, who only care about writing a really good story.

In the other case mentioned, if those facts are true then there is no case.

The NAACP don't see in wrong or right, they only see in black and white.

I think the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a very outdated and no longer needed organization. First of all if you call a black person colored, you will be accused of being racist. They have advanced about as far as they can go. The proof is Barrack Obama. The only way they can advance any more is if he wins, which is very possible. So how can they as a race advance anymore in this country? He could not have gotten where he is without the white vote. It's time we move past what happened 200 years ago and come together as Americans. In my opinion the biggest hurdle to that is the NAACP. Every generation of black people seem to want to be called something different. Negro, colored, black and now African American. I don't understand that.
 
  • #35
I think the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a very outdated and no longer needed organization. First of all if you call a black person colored, you will be accused of being racist. They have advanced about as far as they can go. The proof is Barrack Obama. The only way they can advance any more is if he wins, which is very possible. So how can they as a race advance anymore in this country? He could not have gotten where he is without the white vote. It's time we move past what happened 200 years ago and come together as Americans. In my opinion the biggest hurdle to that is the NAACP. Every generation of black people seem to want to be called something different. Negro, colored, black and now African American. I don't understand that.


Here you go ozzy...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24588813/

A whole laundry list of racism, threats of violence, and intolerance he's still facing as well as his supporters.

On your note, why don't we get rid of the girl scouts too? Do girls need to have a group to be inspired to be leaders anymore? There's one running for president, isn't that good enough?
 
  • #36
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that there is no longer racism. Racism exists between all races.

I'm just saying judging by the name of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) that with Obama's win of the presidency, there can be no further advancement in this country. Their goal will be achieved.

The Girl Scouts main goal is not to the advancement of women, so that comparison is invalid.

I personally think that the NAACP's will always take the black side no matter what is right. I think that is doing more harm than good with race relations. Like the Duke lacrosse team **** situation. The alleged victim was black so the NAACP got involved and demanded immediate expulsion of the students and that they be charged with ****.
When it came out the the victim was lying, where was the NAACP?

This has gotten this thread off topic and if you want to continue this conversation make a new thread. I'll be glad to talk about it further.
 
  • #37
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that there is no longer racism. Racism exists between all races.

I'm just saying judging by the name of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) that with Obama's win of the presidency, there can be no further advancement in this country. Their goal will be achieved.

The Girl Scouts main goal is not to the advancement of women, so that comparison is invalid.

I personally think that the NAACP's will always take the black side no matter what is right. I think that is doing more harm than good with race relations. Like the Duke lacrosse team **** situation. The alleged victim was black so the NAACP got involved and demanded immediate expulsion of the students and that they be charged with ****.
When it came out the the victim was lying, where was the NAACP?

This has gotten this thread off topic and if you want to continue this conversation make a new thread. I'll be glad to talk about it further.
wow this did get way off...Ozzy all i was saying is that the NAACP was getting involved (actually they were rumors...) because of the typical "white police vs black man". Thats how a lot of blacks were viewing it as; murder (im talking specifically bout the local case here).
 
  • #38
I'm really tired of people always sayin that the police are brutal etc. i'm not sayin it doesnt happen, but not as often as everyone thinks. sometimes they have to use brutal tactics to prevent killings when in riot situations. it may injure people but when people dont listen to the law it kicks them in the rear...pure an' simple.
 
  • #39
True, but have you ever met a smart cop (basic "street" cop, not detective...who in some cases are still complete fools)? I sure as hell haven't. I don't think someone that got all C's in highschool and never went to college should have that kind of power (or any, for that matter). When they start requiring police to have college degrees, then maybe I'll respect them....

just noticed this.... Thats BS mate. Thats like saying you wont respect a soldier who hasnt killed and was the bottom of his HS class..And what would a college degree prove? Those are way over rated IMO.
 
  • #40
A college degree proves "I'm THIS" smart. And the one after than proves "I was that smart. Now I'm THIS smart." I wouldn't want a doctor or lawyer or accountant or stock broker without one of them there hoity-toity edumacational degrees.

I don't think being a cop should require a degree. Yeah, it's a tough job an all so send your letters elsewhere, but there's not TOO much thinking involved that would require a college degree.
 
Back
Top