NYPD Shooting

[michaeledward]

Impressions are clearly given that may not be relevant or necessary. When reporting news, its not always the case. Also, reading 2) is alot more interesting than reading 1) and probably 3). News reporters have just a few aims. 1) report news 2) keep a paycheck coming. If noone listens, they get fired or their paper/show gets canceled. They have to keep it interesting. Even when stating something that is true and clearly fact bias can easily be inserted.

That is why reporters do not get to decide what is published, and where the published article appears in the paper. Reporters are overseen by editors. The editor's job is to ensure that facts are reported, and not exaggerated or made up. The publishers job is to make sure the editors get stories in the paper that sell advertising space.

Let's take a look from two articles on this story.

Union officials insist the detective took out his badge, identified himself and ordered the men to stop before the car, driven by Bell, lurched forward and bumped him.

But Bell floored the gas pedal and headed for the cop, the sources said, striking him and badly cutting his knee.

Which more clearly represents facts available to a reporter when assembling a story? Is there a difference between 'floored the gas pedal' and 'lurched foward'?

Now I know MSNBC is "Liberal" ... but what in the article represents that bias? My opinion is nothing in these quotes represents a liberal bias. The NY Post has a sensationalist bias, perhaps a 'pro law and order' bias.

The MSNBC article - which was published today, so therefore has more information, as more information will naturally become available with the passage of time - has this interesting point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15935239/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15935239/page/2/

“We stress when officers go to the range that they fire no more than three rounds and then assess what the situation is,” Kelly said.

Recall that one officer fired 31 times. According the NY Police Department, that officer should have stopped shooting ten times to assess the situation. That is a question and answer session that I would love to hear.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think that everyone just needs to wait and let the facts come out in this case. Particularly the public figures who are talking way to much when the facts as of yet are unknown. Just my opinon on this.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Then they shot him 50 times? Why not just 40 or 30? Why not stop at 10?
Why not stop firing the first time he was hit.

Its not paintball. People dont raise their hands and say "Im hit!".

 

[Don Roley]

I think that everyone just needs to wait and let the facts come out in this case. Particularly the public figures who are talking way to much when the facts as of yet are unknown. Just my opinon on this.

And I happen to agree. In the case of the poisoning of the ex Russian spy in England, one of the guys in government said he was not going to even speculate about something still under investigation. Then you look at what Sharpton is doing. Score one for the Brits over the Americans.

 

[michaeledward]

This article is intersting ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15950574/site/3000001/from/RS.5/

Especially this quote.

His rhetoric is totally acceptable in my judgment. I haven't read a single statement on his part that is demagogic. I think he's conducted himself in a statesman-like manner."

Mayor Koch is speaking of Reverend Sharpton. Mayor Koch, since 911, has become a very strong supporter of all things Republican. It would be highly unlikely that he would be elected as a member of the Democratic Party today.

Perhaps, not everyone is acting in a 'statesman-like' manner.

"I can tell you that it is to me unacceptable or inexplicable how you can have 50-odd shots fired, but that's up to the investigation to find out what really happened,"

and the Mayor also said this ...

"There is no evidence that they were doing anything wrong."

... and the Mayor was referring to Mr. Bell, and his friends.


Mr. Bloomberg's quotes can be found here ..... http://www.nbc11.com/news/10405874/detail.html

 

[Don Roley]

Originally Posted by Former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch
His rhetoric is totally acceptable in my judgment. I haven't read a single statement on his part that is demagogic. I think he's conducted himself in a statesman-like manner."

Then Koch has not been reading or watching the news very closely. Or maybe he is still in sympathy with the democratic party even if he has leaned a bit to the right. Or maybe he is trying to defuse a situation made bad by people like Sharpton by not attacking him and reaching out a bit.

Whatever the reason, on Japanese television I have seen Sharpton leading groups in chanting "No justice, no peace!" And I have read what he has said.

He is a racist rabble rouser seeking power.

I do not need to know much to interpet his words. I may not know what happend on that night, or a lot about what police do but in this case I don't need special or privelaged knowledge to make a judgement about what Sharpton says and does in front of the cameras and I will not defer to any authority even if they are a former mayor.

Sharpton is a jerk.

 

[MJS]

I think that everyone just needs to wait and let the facts come out in this case. Particularly the public figures who are talking way to much when the facts as of yet are unknown. Just my opinon on this.

Well, that opinion is very well stated, and I agree very much! We can have 10 news papers and I'll bet anything that we'll get 10 different stories. Does what happened seem excessive? Sure, but considering none of us were there, the best we can do is guess as to what happened. Its easy to say, and I'm guilty myself, what we would/would not do, but unless we're in that situation at that given moment, we really don't know what we'd do.

Mike

 

[Naha]

Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.

Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.

That being said. Rule number one in dealing with police officers is do what you are told. If he/she says get on the ground, you get on the ground. Many of the abusive incidents that make the news are the result of someone not following instructions. If I'm in a situation with officers, I do what I'm told. In another lifetime, I expected the people I dealt with to do what I told them. It's better to get dirty laying in the dirt than to taste a nightstick. Ask the FMA guys (and ladies) about that. Of course, today it's pepper spray and a stun gun.

As for Sharpton, his actions say more than I ever could. Start with the Brawley case and work forward.

 

[Don Roley]

Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training.

No, that is not obvious to me. I would like to know more about the case before I made a statement like that.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The Reverand Al Sharpton REQUIRES sensational race issues in order to stay in the public eye (see Tawana Brawley case), so I automatically discount his statements on such cases - while acknowledging that some of his criticisms of society have merit.

 

[michaeledward]

The Reverand Al Sharpton REQUIRES sensational race issues in order to stay in the public eye (see Tawana Brawley case), so I automatically discount his statements on such cases - while acknowledging that some of his criticisms of society have merit.

It is that 'automatically', that I keeps coming back.

Seems to me you are not alone in this regard concerning the Reverend. I am often accussed of 'automatically' "hating" the President, I believe the reflexive action is unfair. That so many here are judging the man based on 19 year old actions speaks to something.

Some have said that the Reverend was "leading" chants of "No Justice, No Peace", in attempts to incite the assembled. Two thoughts on that, first, is there anything wrong with that sentiment? Second, the early articles I read on the matter indicated that the "crowd" was chanting the phrase. There was no mention of Reverend Sharpton 'leading' the chant.

Either way ... there are times when instinct serves the human animal well. I'm not sure this is one of them.

Lastly, this issue may be 'sensational', but it is not a 'race' issue.

 

[MJS]

Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.

Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.

That being said. Rule number one in dealing with police officers is do what you are told. If he/she says get on the ground, you get on the ground. Many of the abusive incidents that make the news are the result of someone not following instructions. If I'm in a situation with officers, I do what I'm told. In another lifetime, I expected the people I dealt with to do what I told them. It's better to get dirty laying in the dirt than to taste a nightstick. Ask the FMA guys (and ladies) about that. Of course, today it's pepper spray and a stun gun.

As for Sharpton, his actions say more than I ever could. Start with the Brawley case and work forward.

There are a great number of Police Depts. throughout the world, each with their own policies. Before we can really say if they were in the right or the wrong, we need to know all the facts, and one fact would be the NYPD policies.

Mike

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Regardless of the other facts, there are a few things that are obvious. The policemen lost their training. They are not trained to open fire and bring down people in a hail of bullets, especially when they are not being fired upon. Actually, there are stages of force an officer is expected to follow. I know, given the circumstances, one might think that someone was firing back in the heat of the moment, but if they would have followed procedure, they would have realized that the only people firing were the cops. Remember the weapon was a car. Fifty bullets at a suspect with a gun gives the investigators a field day. One of the first things that will be looked at is why deadly force. Even though the suspects tried to run over an officer, could something less than deadly force have been applied? The car is a weapon, but the driver is the only one wielding it.

Also, the undercover officer broke procedure by confronting them. That was the job of the officers waiting outside in the van.

That being said. Rule number one in dealing with police officers is do what you are told. If he/she says get on the ground, you get on the ground. Many of the abusive incidents that make the news are the result of someone not following instructions. If I'm in a situation with officers, I do what I'm told. In another lifetime, I expected the people I dealt with to do what I told them. It's better to get dirty laying in the dirt than to taste a nightstick. Ask the FMA guys (and ladies) about that. Of course, today it's pepper spray and a stun gun.

As for Sharpton, his actions say more than I ever could. Start with the Brawley case and work forward.

That the police officers lost their training is not obvious.

There are no "stages" that an officer must follow when using force, if indeed you are referring to some type of steps (first A, then B, then C) that they must follow. The only standard, other than departmental policy, is that the force be reasonable and necessary to the average officer at the time of the incident, given the facts that the officer has at the time. Case law espressly forbids the use of 20-20 hindsight.

I don't have to try to spray you with pepper spray, and if that doesn't work, hit you with a baton, and if that doesn't work, shoot you, if you are pointing a firearm at me.

And what do you know of the NYPD's procedure? And if it was followed, how then, do you know that they would have realized that the only ones shooting were cops? Were you there? Are you a police officer, or have some insight into combat psychology above the average layperson (and I don't mean simply martial arts training).

Also, it is not neessary to show whether the cops could have done something else, rather than shoot their firearms. It is only required that they show that it was reasonable and necessary to stop a threat.

These guys came out of a bar at night and were confornted by someone with a gun, who said he was a police officer but apparently did not show a badge or police ID.
We don't know that the guys in the car even heard him say he was a police officer. They just sw someone pointing a gun at them and ran hmi over. This is exactly what I tell my students to do. This cop screwed up big time and caused this whole situation.

Then they shot him 50 times? Why not just 40 or 30? Why not stop at 10?
Why not stop firing the first time he was hit.

At best, it's case of very poor Police training. At the worst it looks like another black guy murdered by the NYPD. Very likely, it's a combination of one cop being suspicious of black people and feeling the need to check up on them, followed by poor training, followed by a major CYA.

It is amazing to me that you can have several different accounts of the situation by new groups, police and law enforcement agencies, and private organizations, all of whom have people in the area, at the scene, and interviewing witnessess, but you seem to have all the answers, and know exactly what happened.

And please, tell me how you know, in the fury and unpredictability of combat, how a person is supposed to tell the exact moment a person is hit, and which bullet hit out of the many fired? Oh, that's not to mention whether that one bullet would actually stop the threat.

A famous incident (to law enforcement anyway) is know as that Platt and Maddox / FBI shooting in Florida. In that situation, one of the suspects, although he received a fatal wound, continued to fight, killing an FBI agent after he received the fatal wound. Should the FBI agents have stopped firing then after they knew he was hit?

It appears that you have an extreme lack of information on the way gunfights occur, or the psychology of of life and death situation. I suggest that you learm more before making statements made out of ignorance.

 

[mrhnau]

I just watched a video at cnn.com. Larry King was talking to Nicole Paultre, the fiancee of the guy killed. She was suprisingly calm, cool and collected. She seems upset but optomistic about justice being executed. Unfortunately Sharpton was there, with his negative thoughts...

still, that was a great interview. If I get the link or transcript I'll try and post.

 

[michaeledward]

This in ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16063265/

One of two men wounded in a police shooting ... disputed a police account that a fourth person, possibly armed, fled the scene.

Lawyers for Benefield, 23, and Joseph Guzman, 31, say both men also claim that none of the five undercover and plainclothes officers identified themselves as police before opening fire.

Through his lawyer, the initial shooter has insisted he had his badge out and had identified himself when, believing Guzman was pulling a gun, he opened fire. He and other witnesses also have said there was a fourth man in or near the car who escaped on foot, possibly with a weapon.

No gun was found in the car or at the scene. No fourth man has been identified or found.

One wonders why, with no evidence, news reports continue to press the 'fourth man, possibly with a weapon'.

 

[mrhnau]

Fiance takes name of slain fiance

Kind of sad...

 

[Don Roley]

It is that 'automatically', that I keeps coming back.

Seems to me you are not alone in this regard concerning the Reverend. I am often accussed of 'automatically' "hating" the President, I believe the reflexive action is unfair. That so many here are judging the man based on 19 year old actions speaks to something.

I think that it is a fair assesment of the facts to do so. 19 year old incident, yes. But he has never changed and never apologized for what he did then. Some people still bring up stuff about Bush's military service over 30 years ago and try to make it relevent to discussions about politics today. Why should people on the other side of the aisle be left alone?

And I just found this,

No gun was found in the car, but witnesses and video footage confirm that a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began. Bell and the other men with him all had been arrested for illegal possession of guns in the past; one of Bell's companions that night, Joseph Guzman, had spent considerable time in prison, including for an armed robbery in which he shot at his victim.

I would like to see if this is confirmable. If it is true, it really kind of takes a lot of the credibility away from them as sources IMO. I have never known a criminal that has said they were doing anything wrong when the police picked them up. And if they were carrying illeagle guns, that kind of shows a possibility that they were living a lifestyle that required them to have them. I know guys that carry guns without a permit. But when you get a whol group of them like this that have been arrested for it, that sends certain signals to me.

I mean....honestly... if Guzman has been convicted of shooting at someone during a robbery, do you really think that his testimony that no one in their group was doing anything suspicious and the cops didn't ID themselves is going to carry as much weight with a jury as several police officers?

Edit, found This article. Of course, the families and friends paint a good picture of them. But if you look at the records these guys have, you wonder if you can trust anything the say about their dealings with the police. But that has not made it to a lot of the stories out there in the media.

Relatives and neighbors insisted that Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were family men whose friendship revolved around the positive things in life.

But all three also had criminal records, sources said.

Bell had been arrested twice in the past eight months on drug charges and he was busted in 2000 as a juvenile for possession of a firearm and three air pistols, sources said.

Guzman's record includes nine arrests for drug offenses, but he had not been collared since a felony drug charge in 2002. He pleaded guilty in that case and recently completed parole.

Benefield was arrested in connection with a gunpoint robbery in 2002 and a drug bust in 2004, and cops have three arrest warrants for him on mostly minor charges.

 

[Don Roley]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting

It looks like the guy that was killed and behind the wheel of the vehicle may have been over twice the legal limit for alchohol in his system.

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting

It looks like the guy that was killed and behind the wheel of the vehicle may have been over twice the legal limit for alchohol in his system.

from the linked article:

The two survivors have disputed union officials' and lawyers' claims that the first officer to shoot had identified himself as a policeman and ordered the victims to stop before he opened fire.

Having been out with an off duty officer or two before, and in this case no alcohol being involved on our side, (* not saying we do not or have not drunk together for we have, just not in the case listed today *), we identified ourselves (* me as the manager of the location that was closed and parking lot we were in *) and on of those with me identified himself as an off dut officer. The replies were "yeah right", or "We eat cops for lunch" or other such stupid comments. In that case I was able to knock some of them over (* they bunched together a group of 15 and 10 were together *) and they fell on each other, so I ran to the front door and opened it without shutting off the alarm. So they ran. And also no one got shot.

Having been in situations where people are just drunk or being stupid and their egos will not let them walk away, I have a hard time seeing this alcohol not being significant to the case. Now of course it could always turn out that the officers involved up front are not clean either, (* Having dealt with not so clean or bad cops myself *) and until that information is released, I will have to go with what I have.

 

[michaeledward]

So, the soon-to-be-groom had some drinks at his Bachelor Party? Imagine that.

I know I tell my children that sometimes, in conflict, the best thing to do is to 'walk away' or to 'run away'.

Looking at the evidence ...

Mr. Bell and company walked away from the club, and the 'words' reported outside the club, to their car. They got in the car and were attempting to leave. Even if they were under the influence of alcohol, it seems to me, that it was the right thing to do.

Those are the same instructions I give to my children.