NY cops acquitted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, time for my $.02. And that is as much as my opinion is worth.

These cops were in plainclothes, with an unmarked police car. From what I read right after it happened. The people in the car probably thought a group of thugs was trying to take them. Sure the people in the car may have contributed a bit, but for all they knew they were talking crap to another group of people like them.

The cops screwed up, an innocent man is dead. Losers all around. The cops put themselves into the position when they could have probably walked away and reported the incident later. I don't know. To me, it seems that the cops didn't know when to back down and got in over their heads. They knew they were cops and perhaps under the stress of the situation forgot that they were plainclothes and that everyone else DIDN'T know that.

Doesn't matter what I think, a man is dead and nothing is going to bring him back.
Click to expand...

The cops testified they ID'ed themselves. These were seasoned plainclothes detectives. Do you believe them or the 3 recidivist felons, ALL of whom were drunk, and one of whom admitted that he smoked pot EVERYDAY for 6 years. not to mention their extensive criminal history involving guns and drugs, AND their 50 MILLION dollar lawsuit (each) that would go down the toilet if they admitted the cops did ID themselves?

Let's placate the liberal cop haters. End ALL plainclothes operations. Put the cops back in uniform and direct them to respond to 911 calls. Let the savages see how life is like without the cops trying to rid their neighborhoods of thugs like Bell and his friends. That's the way it's heading anyway. NONE of my friends still on the job are being aggressive anymore. Much easier to let them kill themselves and take a report. Had they not had a fair minded judge, they could have been looking at 25 years for doing their job!
 
Had these men cooperated and done what the cops told them there probably would not have been anyone killed. They chose to go against what they were told and paid dearly. Put yourself in the cops place and what would you do if a drunk (or anyone else for that matter) wouldn't cooperate. If we hand cuff the cops who is going to do their job. The number of shots fired may or may not have been excessive. You and I weren't there so we don't know. If I felt my life was in danger I would use whatever means I needed to to stay alive and you probably would also.
 
I consider myself to be an expert shooter. At 25 yards, I can put a full magazine into a fist sized grouping. At 15 yards, I can shoot rapidly and blow out the entire head area. The ONE time I fired my gun was at a charging pitbull, and out of the 11 shots I fired, THREE hit the dog, one fatally, the other two just would have pissed him off more. And that was at a DOG. Unless you have been in a real life shooting, with REAL risk to you, you have no comment to make. Period.

Look at Chicago last weekend. Something like 35 people dead. Over what? A steet corner? A basketball game? A look? THESE are the type of people that Bell and his freinds were. You give them a second, they'll cut your heart out. One of the "victims", Joseph Guzman, just got out of jail for armed robbery, in which he fired a shot at the running unarmed victim!

They all should have unloaded The life of one respectable cop or civilain is worth more than 1000 of the dregs that these three victims were. I only wish the other two thugs joined Bell on that morgue slab. God only knows their criminal life is not over, and they certainly have more victims in their path.
 
If it took 50 shots for the guy to hit the ground, I wouldn't say it's excessive.

Bonnie and Clyde caught quite a bit more than that, and from tommy-guns too!

I'm not a gun owner (yet) but I wouldn't stop shooting just because I hit the guy. I'd think it would be smart to keep shooting until the guy hits the ground and can't hurt you anymore.
 
excessive, according to who?

Since when is there a "magic" number of rounds it takes to "stop" a threat? Especially with a inferior handgun. So would 49 been enough? People who think a certain amount of rounds are excessive do not have a clue of what WE in L.E are required to do during deadly force situations. If it takes one round to stop the subject from causing you death or serious bodily harm then that's reasonable. If it takes five magazines to stop a threat then that too is reasonable. The time it is "excessive" is when you go beyond what is needed to stop the threat, in other words your threat has ceased movement and stopped presenting a danger then you continue to shoot. I have been in situations where ive emptied two magazines into a pit bull and did a tactical reload on the second magazine because I was not counting rounds I was watching the vicious huge pit bull chew at me then flip around to walk away then turn and charge me again. I hit the dog ten times before it finally stopped and collapsed with a 40sw and I shot atlest eightteen to twenty rounds and I shoot consistently in the 98% usually100% range and that was at very close up. The point is, when the poop hits the fan you pull that trigger until you are not in danger. Hollywood is not real life. A handgun is an inferior weapon but most times in the heat of the moment it is all we have readily at our disposal. Instead of looking at the amount of rounds shot look at the amount of times the threat was actually hit. If you fire a certain amount of rounds and miss your target you dont say "well i met my quota for rounds fired because the idiots in the press will crucify me if I shoot too many' instead you do what you have to do to go home. Just so you guys know a person trying to run you down in their car is just as dangereous as a person waving around a gun and does require immediate action.
 
I have no idea of what the real facts were in this case, but I do understand SOP. If the "investigation" followed standard operating procedure (a good bet) here's how would have played out. The department would have spent the next several months doing everything they can to put together a case that the shooting was justified or at least not criminal. The hope would have been that the case would have fallen through the cracks and that the officer would get off. The dead and their friends and family would per SOP be demonized as at least thug associates thus lessing the value of the lives taken to being little more than taking out the trash. SOP.

If publicity and public outrage becomes too great for a complete whitewash then they will generally go ahead and present as luke warm a case as they can possibly get away with to the district attorney's office. The hope that he will decline to file charges, but the important thing will be that the buck has been passed without risk to the officer. They know that it's a pretty safe bet that once the case is in the hands of the DA that the officer will be as safe as a baby in his mother's arms. Deputy DAs rarely get arrested for weaving their way home from a bar falling down drunk, and officers are rarely charged for misdeeds short of child molestation, and for all intents and purposes are almost never successfully prosecuted. It's just an understanding. A form of professional courtesy. SOP.

Anyway if the evidence is so overwhelming and the outcry and publicity are so great that the DA's office simply cannot avoid filing charges then they will (per SOP) simply neglect to present key evidence at trial. They will then blame 'brain damaged jurors' or in this case the judge for letting the officers walk. They "did their best" and cannot be held responsible. SOP.
 
Patrol, thank you! I have been watching this thread and you have just made a very intelligent point. I am glad I continued to read. I appreciate your point of view. I also appreciate others pro and con but your's just makes a ton of sense in the real world. Thanks. And thank you for what you do. It is not a job for everybody and I for one am d_ _ M glad you guys and women do it for us.

No sane person want's anyone to be hurt of die but it is so sad to know that LE is always, always second guessed when they are the ones we pay to protect our lives and property. A Judge decided, I will figure he knows more of the facts of the case and made a better decision than I can.
 
I have no idea of what the real facts were in this case, but I do understand SOP. If the "investigation" followed standard operating procedure (a good bet) here's how would have played out. The department would have spent the next several months doing everything they can to put together a case that the shooting was justified or at least not criminal. The hope would have been that the case would have fallen through the cracks and that the officer would get off. The dead and their friends and family would per SOP be demonized as at least thug associates thus lessing the value of the lives taken to being little more than taking out the trash. SOP.

If publicity and public outrage becomes too great for a complete whitewash then they will generally go ahead and present as luke warm a case as they can possibly get away with to the district attorney's office. The hope that he will decline to file charges, but the important thing will be that the buck has been passed without risk to the officer. They know that it's a pretty safe bet that once the case is in the hands of the DA that the officer will be as safe as a baby in his mother's arms. Deputy DAs rarely get arrested for weaving their way home from a bar falling down drunk, and officers are rarely charged for misdeeds short of child molestation, and for all intents and purposes are almost never successfully prosecuted. It's just an understanding. A form of professional courtesy. SOP.

Anyway if the evidence is so overwhelming and the outcry and publicity are so great that the DA's office simply cannot avoid filing charges then they will (per SOP) simply neglect to present key evidence at trial. They will then blame 'brain damaged jurors' or in this case the judge for letting the officers walk. They "did their best" and cannot be held responsible. SOP.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on? Are you an expert in police procedure? I can assure you that the nonsense you posted is NOT the case. EBRYTIME a cop fires a weapon in the NYPD (and I'm sure most other PD's) his weapon is taken and a FULL investigation is conducted. My pitbull shooting got me a desk for two weeks while they tested my gun, my ammunition, interviewed the homeless crackheads who witnessed it, EVERY cop who was there, etc. And our Mayor Bloomerg (the same guy who sent "undercover agents to the south to sting gun stores into selling guns to people) and police commsioner Kelly made statements HOURS after the shooting that they deemed it "excessive" before the investigation was even completed! PC KElly even made a publci statement that cops are trained to shoot 3 times and assess, which is a complete fabrication not supported by ANY documents or training manuals.

You seem to think cops get away with murder. Next time you need one, call the fire department. This was a good shooting, from start to finish.
And by the way, cops I know LOVE locking up ADA's! They're the ones who plea baragin good felony collars to misdeameanors to inflate their conviction rate and tell the cop that "getting hit is part of your job" before they drop a felony assault to a misdemeanor. ADA"s and cops are NOT friends. Try to get your expertise from sources other then "Law and Order"
 
What are you basing this on? Are you an expert in police procedure? I can assure you that the nonsense you posted is NOT the case.
Click to expand...
Throwing a hissy fit won't change facts. As I stated I do not know the facts in this case but I do know how these thing are handled in California and it's exactly as I described. You are correct only in that his weapon is taken and an investigation is started. That investigation goes exactly as I described.

Based on your claims I can only assume that NY is an exception. As far as your statement to call a fireman next time - well if you can't deal with having procedures questioned then you sir are in the wrong line of work. You hold peoples lives in your hands and as such are accountable for your actions. My problem with the SOP system isn't that police are bad guys, most are good people trying their best to protect all of us. My problem with the system is that it makes all LEOs look bad and I find that unacceptable! How can the public ever have complete confidence when SOP is a white wash? How many officers can you name nation wide that were successfully prosecuted for a shooting or criminal assault anywhere in the last 10 years. Leave out federal prosecutions... How many were convicted by local prosecutors? Do you think that the second Rodney King jury was smarter than the first or was it that the feds just tried a tad harder?
 
Lets walk through the scenario:

- 3 obviously drunk strip club attendees
- A group of armed police detectives dressed similarly to the drunk strip club attendees
- Setting is late at night in a dense urban environment. (Remember that good ole box’o truth website where 9 mm go through 8 wallboards, hint hint)
- The drunk strip club attendees have words with an individual outside the club where they both posture and one mentions a pistol in what is obviously a bad bluff.
- The un-uniformed detectives then chase the 3 drunks down in an apparently a hostile manner with pistols drawn and then open-fire.
- Stray 9 mm bullets are found in a subway away. Security cameras reveal passengers from the trains running and diving as if the station is under attack.

So what could we have done better?

First, the detectives should have known their audience…obviously 3 drunks coming from a strip club probably with a lot of adrenaline and talking tough. It wouldn’t have mattered what you yelled at these guys because the adrenaline and alcohol would have made them deaf. Even if the detectives did pull out badges and were screaming “police” the 3 drunks would not have heard them and would have focused on the pistols drawn. They would have never seen the badges or heard the words yelled, if they were indeed yelled.

Second, the detectives had no uniformed backup and they didn’t call for backup. They attempted to handle the operation by themselves. Smart undercover detectives usually have at least two uniformed officers hidden somewhere so that when there is an arrest being made then there is no question that these are officers. The detectives also attempted to handle the situation without uniformed backup. This reminds me of that movie of the Chicago detectives who never seemed to call for backup and always handled gun fights on their own. Wreckless…

Third, it is absolutely insane to discharge 9 mm weapons that have the capability of busting through 8 wallboards in such an urban environment. Thank God no one in that train station was killed.


My opinion is the following:
- The detectives should have had a patrol car with at least two uniformed officers ready to come on the scene.
- The detectives should not have handled the situation without uniformed backup present.
- The detectives should have let the 3 drunks drive off, followed them in the van and then had uniformed backup pull over the Altima.
- It was insane to draw weapons and discharge them in such a crowded environment.
 
''And since when does "brushing" up against someone leave an imprint of your jeans on the bumper? The cop was struck while he was jumping up onto the hood of the car that was driving at him.

And the officer who fired 31 shots fired AFTER the initial officer yelled "GUN", was struck and fired. How many shots will you fire when you think you're about to die? In that cop's mind, the possibility of a gun was no longer reasonable belief, but a certifiable fact. And the law doesn't specify how many shots you can fire, so whether it's 1, 31, or 131 is irrelevant. ''

+111111111

YEAH.....UM - Gun or not the second that car "brushed" the officer and then continued to ram an unmarked car, the need for the gun went out the window - the car became the deadly weapon. try this - next time an officer tries to pull you over, wait until he is out of his car than try and run him over, better yet try and brush him. then watch him move out of the way and draw his weapon. :barf:
 
My opinion is the following:
- The detectives should have had a patrol car with at least two uniformed officers ready to come on the scene.
- The detectives should not have handled the situation without uniformed backup present.
- The detectives should have let the 3 drunks drive off, followed them in the van and then had uniformed backup pull over the Altima.
- It was insane to draw weapons and discharge them in such a crowded environment.
Click to expand...

I'll say it again:

Your opinion is worthless. You don't get to question the actions of veteran detectives who have done this before while you haven't. Do you tell your doctor what your opinion is?

So they let them drive off. You say the drunks wouldn't have listened to the cop's commands? Why would they obey the commands to pull over? You want a pursuit of a drunk driver? What will you say when they run over an innocent person? "They shouldn't have let a known drunk drive off!"

The environment wsn't crowded at all. Some of the rounds missed, but you'll get that in an urban shooting. The fault for any of those rounds being fired at all likes at the feet of the recidivist criminals, NOT the cops doing their job.
 
Everyone seems to believe here that the police in this matter were clearly identified.

In fact, it was just 3 officers dressed like gangsters in baggy jeans wielding Glock 9 mms. Honestly, if 3 black guys in baggy jeans, 9mms out and a beat up van approached me then Im going to floor it in the Altima.

This wasnt a traffic stop, but an arrest that was conducted in a wreckless manner.
 
Throwing a hissy fit won't change facts. As I stated I do not know the facts in this case but I do know how these thing are handled in California and it's exactly as I described. You are correct only in that his weapon is taken and an investigation is started. That investigation goes exactly as I described.

Based on your claims I can only assume that NY is an exception. As far as your statement to call a fireman next time - well if you can't deal with having procedures questioned then you sir are in the wrong line of work. You hold peoples lives in your hands and as such are accountable for your actions. My problem with the SOP system isn't that police are bad guys, most are good people trying their best to protect all of us. My problem with the system is that it makes all LEOs look bad and I find that unacceptable! How can the public ever have complete confidence when SOP is a white wash? How many officers can you name nation wide that were successfully prosecuted for a shooting or criminal assault anywhere in the last 10 years. Leave out federal prosecutions... How many were convicted by local prosecutors? Do you think that the second Rodney King jury was smarter than the first or was it that the feds just tried a tad harder?
Click to expand...

Do you have facts to base this on or are you basing this on what you see on Hard Copy? And the Rodney King trial was a good verdict the first time out. King was high on PCP and alcohol and his passengers who didn't resist weren't touched. if you ever saw the FULL video (not the one that was played over and over again on TV) you would have seen King repeatedly charge the officers. Will you pull your punches for a 300 pound man high on PCP? You throw around terms like "SOP" as if that gives you credibility. And maybe the reason that cops aren't often prosecuted for shootings is because by and large, they're good men and woman doing a tough job dealing with the dregs of society, and courts recognize that and don't give in to media fanfare?

But then again, you're the expert. Care to enlighten us how these veteran detectives with 15 plus years in the worst streets of the USA did their jobs without firing a shot BEFORE the Bell incident?
 
Everyone seems to believe here that the police in this matter were clearly identified.

In fact, it was just 3 officers dressed like gangsters in baggy jeans wielding Glock 9 mms. Honestly, if 3 black guys in baggy jeans, 9mms out and a beat up van approached me then Im going to floor it in the Altima.

This wasnt a traffic stop, but an arrest that was conducted in a wreckless manner.
Click to expand...


In FACT?! How do you know this to be a fact? And they weren't carrying Glocks. One had a S&W and Oliver (31 shots guy) had a SIG. Do you have proof that they didn't ID themsleves, or are you just taking the words of the three recidivist felons with a 50 million pending lawsuit? IS there video that we haven't seen? So what does that leave us? Reasonable doubt! The judge didn't say the cops were inncoent. He said there was reasonable doubt that they were! I guess you want to hang cops right off the bat?

Now you know the cops choose bench trials. Imagine leaving my fate up to a boob like you with an axe to grind over a speeding ticket!
 
Edit: Obviously you you are too close to the situation to see things without a bias. That's very clear from your insulting tone. As I've said I wasn't there and don't know all of the details and can only comment on what's been said. A uniform or two should have been there before they made their move. Short of a life threatening emergency any other course is irresponsible. Only a fool assumes that anybody dressed like a gang banger and waving a gun is the police. He might be or he might not be. I wouldn't have made the assumption. Show me badges and uniforms.

Based on the totality of your statements I'll just bet you weren't a fan of Serpico... ;) Anyway you're too close to the situation to see anything but friends being picked on so I'm dropping out of what is just going to degenerate into a name calling match. I wish you well in your career.
 
crackdealers? Some people. I don't know if you just didn't grow up in an urban environment, or you just remain ignorant in spite of what you have seen, but you sound like you just don't know what you are talking about. If you don't have any perspective on this then stay out of it.
 
Some people? You're right. I should have said crackdealers, armed robbers, and burglars, but I was kinda shortening their criminal histories a bit for breviy's sake.

I know all you Starbuck drinkers don't have much of an attention span.
 
I'm aware they had criminal histories. Doesn't mean they were all crack dealers, or they were doing anything illegal at the time. You don't know what the situation surrounding those charges are, but if it makes you feel better to call them crack dealers, go ahead. I'm pretty sure there was no crack involved in this situation.
I wonder why you get so angry. Tell me to go fist myself; whoa buddy. Do you have some insecurities? If you need someone to talk to you can PM me. We can be best friends.

Hhaha, I just saw you edited your post where you told me to go fist myself at a Starbucks. You shouldn't have changed that. It was so clever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top