NYPD Shooting

[MJS]

Well, this certainly brings up some interesting questions. Being that he was as drunk as he was, I'm sure that played a big part in his actions. We all know that being under the influence can make one not think or act clearly.

I also have to wonder if this will come into play as well:

Alcohol also was a potential issue for police: The officers were part of a team conducting an undercover vice operation at a Queens strip club, and police officials said two undercover officers working inside — including one of the shooters — were allowed to have two drinks each. Police officials have insisted a supervisor at the scene afterward found them fit for duty. It is unclear whether the officers were given blood tests.

Now, I'm not a LEO and I'm sure the policies vary from place to place, but I have to wonder if this is normal procedure in undercover operations. Had this been a drug bust, would the cops be allowed to do drugs as well? The fact that the suspect was tested and the cops possibly were not raises some questions with me. Also, if they were tested, how long after the incident did the test take place? Again, I'm not a cop, but I'd imagine that results would vary if they were given within a half hour or 4 hrs later.

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

Yes walking away is a good idea.

Having had a Dodge Daytona back up onto one of my feet, and having been hit by a car in a parking lot, I know it really hurts and this is not the thing to do to anyone. In the case of the Daytona on my foot I hit with a simple hammer fist into the windshield and it cracked just like a head into the windshield in an accident. The person then got off my foot. Note: I had asked them to get off my foot first and when the laughed and said no I reacted.

Having had people try to race and hit me, and being able to dodge out of the way and roll and take road rash away was being lucky.

One such case was the old Trail Blazers (* Read size of Yukon today *) full size truck vehicle. I tried to jump up and get on the hood instead of being pinned between the vehicle and a wall. The grill clipped me in the shins and I fell face first into the hood. Nice front fall as I did slap and turn my head and placed my tongue on the roof of my mouth. I grabbed the hood. Like I said it was one of those that was older so it had a nice gap for hands to grab. The person put it into reverse and before I coudl get off they took off and pulled out into traffic with me on the vehicle. Once they stopped swerving to get me off and was straight driving at speed, I swung at the windshield. No crack. But it did get the guys attention. I did it again, and it just put a little crack into the glass. I was yelling I was going to kill him. As he was obviously trying to kill me. He jerked / swerved and started to stop. When he was about 2+ miles per hour I rolled off into no traffic has he speed away. I then had a long walk back while being bruised in the shins and dealing with the situation.

So it is my opinion that the Groom was incorrect in getting behind the wheel in this case and then pinning the officer to a wall with his car. If he was too drunk to realize it then that is his error. If he did it on purpose it was his error. I have been to one bachelor party for myself, and many others for friends, and sober people drive. I repeat no one who had a drink drives. To leave a scene with a police officer is not the proper procedure. You wait until they are complete and take you away or let you go. Those are the rules. If you ignore them and leave anyways, then you are fleeing from an officer or something similiar depending upon local ordinance.


If you are getting married you are looking to the future with hope, why risk it for a drink or two. I have been the DD many times myself to make sure my friends get home and then later to their wedding.


PS: I know about bad cops. I have the memories of the beatings and the harassment and such, so yes there are bad people out there on both sides. But in most cases, until one has all the information one does not know. So, until the police are reviewed and if there is enough evidence for a grand jury and or a trial I will wait like I said, but error on the side of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well, this certainly brings up some interesting questions. Being that he was as drunk as he was, I'm sure that played a big part in his actions. We all know that being under the influence can make one not think or act clearly.

I also have to wonder if this will come into play as well:



Now, I'm not a LEO and I'm sure the policies vary from place to place, but I have to wonder if this is normal procedure in undercover operations. Had this been a drug bust, would the cops be allowed to do drugs as well? The fact that the suspect was tested and the cops possibly were not raises some questions with me. Also, if they were tested, how long after the incident did the test take place? Again, I'm not a cop, but I'd imagine that results would vary if they were given within a half hour or 4 hrs later.

If the officers were allowed to have two (2) drinks over the whole night 6 hours or so for example then their blood alcohol limits may be in the legal limits for driving and or handling a firearms for NY. I do not know.

I agree that when tested just like any other human would cause an issue. And I am sure the lawyers of the family will have their experts that will say it was "X" time after the event and they had "Y%" blood alcohol and based upon that the time tables for the body to process the alocohol.

So, like I said until I get this information I do not know, but I do know that if I was pinned by a car I would take action. What lead up to it is still in question.

 

[MJS]

If the officers were allowed to have two (2) drinks over the whole night 6 hours or so for example then their blood alcohol limits may be in the legal limits for driving and or handling a firearms for NY. I do not know.

I agree that when tested just like any other human would cause an issue. And I am sure the lawyers of the family will have their experts that will say it was "X" time after the event and they had "Y%" blood alcohol and based upon that the time tables for the body to process the alocohol.

So, like I said until I get this information I do not know, but I do know that if I was pinned by a car I would take action. What lead up to it is still in question.

Yes sir, I'm in agreement with you. A whole new page in the book, which means more questions, speculation, etc. I don't envy the investigators on this case.

As for the cops drinking...like you said, things may be in order, but I'm sure that this is something Bells family will be questioning, especially since it seems like no tests were given.

 

[michaeledward]

So it is my opinion that the Groom was incorrect in getting behind the wheel in this case and then pinning the officer to a wall with his car.

There is no evidence that anyone was "pinned ... to a wall" in this story. By using that language, others are going to pick it up, and use this erroneous language to justify what was going on.

If you believe that the officer was 'pinned to a wall', then I suggest you go back and re-read the articles on this incident.

 

[Rich Parsons]

There is no evidence that anyone was "pinned ... to a wall" in this story. By using that language, others are going to pick it up, and use this erroneous language to justify what was going on.

If you believe that the officer was 'pinned to a wall', then I suggest you go back and re-read the articles on this incident.

Then maybe you should also look into what you wrote as well and how you wrote it.

Just a thought.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The car, driven by Bell, was struck by 21 of the police bullets after the vehicle rammed an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan. Other shots hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no one else was injured.

I think the key statement I was trying to get to here was ". . . driven by bell, . . . after the vehicle rammed an undercover officer and hit an unmmarked NYPD minivan."

So no wall, just a hit and run.

 

[michaeledward]

So, we can agree that Mr. Bell, regardless of how much alcohol he consumed during his bachelor party, did not 'pin' ... anyone ... 'to a wall'. We can further agree that Mr. Bell walked away from a verbal altercation and to his car ... no matter how much alcohol he had in his bloodstream. We can further agree that the Police, who may or may not have been under the influence of alcohol, did fire 50 rounds into Mr. Bell, his associates, and his vehicle.

Are any of these fact, mis-represented, exaggerated, distorted, or magnified to put forth any agenda?

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

So in your opinion it was the right thing to do was to hit an officer undercover or not and also another car?

Your words are condemning the officer without a hearing or trial.

So we can agree that he did hit a person while driving away and also into another car, which to me makes me ask why was he behind the wheel in the first place.

Michael, you can try to place my misleading comments here as the issue, but they were made to get you and yes this is trollish behaviour if you want, or maybe debating by using the same tactics others use, but I have an issue with your words and implications just like you do with mine.

Where lies the truth, can you prove he was not pinned during being hit? I do nothave that information so I can guess the worse possible issue, just liek you can guess at the officer walk out and attacked someone who was different.

I hate racism and profiling being a victum of it all the time, but I wonder why it seems that you see more here? I do not have the all the facts and if you do I wish you would share them.

Can you prove he (* the undercover officer *) was not pinned between a wall or antoher car? From the links all we have was that he was rammed. to me that is being hit by a car, and yet they say the vehicle then collides with an unmarked police minivan, could not it be possible that the officer was pinned between a wall or another vehicle?

But, no you imply that he walked away and the police just shot him for nothing, or worse yet for just being different.

Which theory is better?

Who has the right to say that they are the correct theory?

How come you can theorize and I cannot ?

Are you discriminating against me? (* I do not know *)

I am very confused by your comments and actions.

 

[michaeledward]

So in your opinion it was the right thing to do was to hit an officer undercover or not and also another car?

Your words are condemning the officer without a hearing or trial.

Kindly do not state 'my opinion' for me. It is not my opinion that the right thing to do is to strike an undercover police officer with a vehicle, nor is it the right thing to strike another car.

What words are condemning 'the officer', without a hearing or trial?

So we can agree that he did hit a person while driving away and also into another car, which to me makes me ask why was he behind the wheel in the first place.

Actually, there is a disputed report on whether Mr. Bell's vehicle struck a police officer. See my earlier post. Also, there is some reports that say the police officer had his foot, or feet on Mr. Bell's car. A reasonable question is 'Why did the person put his foot on the car'? Recall, at the time, Mr. Bell according to the majority of reports, had no idea the person was a police officer.

Michael, you can try to place my misleading comments here as the issue, but they were made to get you and yes this is trollish behaviour if you want, or maybe debating by using the same tactics others use, but I have an issue with your words and implications just like you do with mine.

What comments are misleading?
Why do you accuse me of trollish behavior?
What words do you have issue with?
What do you think I am implying? And with what words?

Where lies the truth, can you prove he was not pinned during being hit? I do nothave that information so I can guess the worse possible issue, just liek you can guess at the officer walk out and attacked someone who was different.

There seem to be many inferences in this paragraph Mr. Parson.

First, there are no reports of anyone being pinned by Mr. Bell or his vehicle. Ergo, any such accusation is either made up or hyperbolic. When attempting to find out what happened for the purposes of discussion, both attitudes are detriments to further understanding.

I have no more information than in the news reports that we all have available to us. I have no information that Mr. Bell pinned a person to a wall with a vehicle. And so, I would not guess at any information. I would refer to the news reports.

That you are accusing me of attributing this attack was because someone is 'different', seems awfully close to calling me a racist. I have no idea why you are projecting these attitudes toward me, but I do not think you will find them in my posts.

I hate racism and profiling being a victum of it all the time, but I wonder why it seems that you see more here? I do not have the all the facts and if you do I wish you would share them.

I don't see 'anything' here; except for a young man being shot to death by the police force.

You need to be much more clear in your accusation.

Can you prove he (* the undercover officer *) was not pinned between a wall or antoher car? From the links all we have was that he was rammed. to me that is being hit by a car, and yet they say the vehicle then collides with an unmarked police minivan, could not it be possible that the officer was pinned between a wall or another vehicle?

But, no you imply that he walked away and the police just shot him for nothing, or worse yet for just being different.

Which theory is better?

Who has the right to say that they are the correct theory?

How come you can theorize and I cannot ?

Are you discriminating against me? (* I do not know *)

I am very confused by your comments and actions.

I am not theorizing, Mr. Parsons. I am referring to articles and reports we have available. I am not making up words to described the actions of anyone. I have already presented one dissertation on the unfactual nature of one of the news articles. That the posts here continue to comment with words that have inflamatory tone does not lead to clarity.

 

[Don Roley]

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

And they got behind the wheel of a car. :angry: And if the guys with him were also as under the influence, they were likely more beligerent than normal, not acting as calmly or clearly as they should and their memories would be influenced as well. Not to mention that the vast majority of people with police records like their just never seem to admit that they or their friends ever did anything wrong and you have what juries call "reasonable doubt" in regards to their version of events.

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.

It also looks like they nearly ran over a police officer in the process. There was also accounts of how one member of the party might have said something about going back to get a gun.

It is not really about if the guys in the van were innocent or not. What is important now is if the police had a reasonable excuse to use force like they did. If, under the influence of alchohol, they drove so widly that they hit a coulple of walls and nearly run down the police, then from the standpoint of the police they were correct in assuming that the use of firearms was justified.

That is what a jury must determine. Not if the guys in the van were bad, but if the police had reason to believe that they were as the event was going down.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Kindly do not state 'my opinion' for me. It is not my opinion that the right thing to do is to strike an undercover police officer with a vehicle, nor is it the right thing to strike another car.

What words are condemning 'the officer', without a hearing or trial?




Actually, there is a disputed report on whether Mr. Bell's vehicle struck a police officer. See my earlier post. Also, there is some reports that say the police officer had his foot, or feet on Mr. Bell's car. A reasonable question is 'Why did the person put his foot on the car'? Recall, at the time, Mr. Bell according to the majority of reports, had no idea the person was a police officer.



What comments are misleading?
Why do you accuse me of trollish behavior?
What words do you have issue with?
What do you think I am implying? And with what words?



There seem to be many inferences in this paragraph Mr. Parson.

First, there are no reports of anyone being pinned by Mr. Bell or his vehicle. Ergo, any such accusation is either made up or hyperbolic. When attempting to find out what happened for the purposes of discussion, both attitudes are detriments to further understanding.

I have no more information than in the news reports that we all have available to us. I have no information that Mr. Bell pinned a person to a wall with a vehicle. And so, I would not guess at any information. I would refer to the news reports.

That you are accusing me of attributing this attack was because someone is 'different', seems awfully close to calling me a racist. I have no idea why you are projecting these attitudes toward me, but I do not think you will find them in my posts.




I don't see 'anything' here; except for a young man being shot to death by the police force.

You need to be much more clear in your accusation.



I am not theorizing, Mr. Parsons. I am referring to articles and reports we have available. I am not making up words to described the actions of anyone. I have already presented one dissertation on the unfactual nature of one of the news articles. That the posts here continue to comment with words that have inflamatory tone does not lead to clarity.

Having been a witness to many a crime (* Assault/stabbing *) to take the word of many of the witnesses who did not see or hear the whole thing and only part of it, and having them all agree is something I have never seen.

You present your point of view.

I present mine, and some how I am all wrong, so it is only ok for you to express an opinion.

I do wish you the best Michael. I really do.

And in the spirit of the season, I will just add you to my ignore list. It seems you and only those that agree with you can have a valid point of view.

All I see from here is a continued disagreement, as in my opinion it seems from your actions it is alright for you to suppose and infer, but no one else can even express an opinion.

Enjoy the holidays.

I will.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Given the fact that an automobile can be a lethal weapon, these "gentlemen" were not, in fact, unarmed.

 

[michaeledward]

Having been a witness to many a crime (* Assault/stabbing *) to take the word of many of the witnesses who did not see or hear the whole thing and only part of it, and having them all agree is something I have never seen.

You present your point of view.

I present mine, and some how I am all wrong, so it is only ok for you to express an opinion.

I do wish you the best Michael. I really do.

And in the spirit of the season, I will just add you to my ignore list. It seems you and only those that agree with you can have a valid point of view.

All I see from here is a continued disagreement, as in my opinion it seems from your actions it is alright for you to suppose and infer, but no one else can even express an opinion.

Enjoy the holidays.

I will.

Mr. Parsons, I am not presenting 'my point of view'. I am relating information that has been reported by various news outlets. I am giving weight to those various news outlets according to the language they use.

I am not relating any personal information about the incident. I have no first hand knowledge. I have am not extrapolating from other events I have witnessed. I am not transferring personal experience into the situation. I have not spoken with anyone with first hand knowledge.

The only thing that I have stated where you were 'wrong', is when you described Mr. Bell as having "pinned" an person "to a wall" with his vehicle.

I have also asked that you not ascribe to me sentiments, or opinions, that are not mine.


Here are some more recent articles. These tend toward opinion pieces, because there are not many new facts coming out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/opinion/24neufeld.html

http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=2807

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20061225n

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/482062p-405614c.html

 

[Don Roley]

Mr. Parsons, I am not presenting 'my point of view'. I am relating information that has been reported by various news outlets. I am giving weight to those various news outlets according to the language they use.

To my eye, you only seem to be giving credence to the news sources that back the version of events you agree with. There is such a thing as "reasonable doubt" when you talk about dealing with crimes. And all the evidence that we have seen seems to be that there is a great deal of doubt about the outcome. In such a case, you have to let the accused (i.e. the officers) off. And you have not given even a single word to the effect that we don't know, so we can't convict.

Rich has talked about how several witnesses have given different versions of events. He is quite clear in saying that witnesses tend to do that. Listening to you, it seems that you automatically give credence to those that say there was no fourth person- etc, but cast doubt on anything that backs the police version of events.

You seem to take great offense at the use of the idea that an officer was pinned to the wall because it is not correct. But your calls for absolute truth and exactness do not continue to the idea that a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon when you say there was none involved on the victim's part. Why be so worked up about not saying that there was no pinning of an officer to a wall and yet not be concerned that intoxicated people behind the wheel kill thousands of people every year?

For that matter, why not be concerned that the guy that was killed seems to have been commining a crime by driving at over twice the legal limit? That is something that would give someone not thinking correctly to try to get away by any means they could- like going through the officers. And if you say that we don't know enough to say what the guys in the car may have done, why try to bring up the matter at all instead of waiting for things in court?

The articles you linked to also seem to show a bias. I scanned the first one long enough to see that is was written by someone who seems to make their living off of suing the police department. I myself would try for a more objective source when trying to lay out how the police should and should not react.

And I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider Al Sharpton anything other than a racist, hate mongering, rablle- rouser out to promote his political capital no matter the expense it causes the community.

In short, I have to agree with Rich's version of events. And I am concerned with the way you seem to be trying to make him out to be the bad guy instead of debating him honestly.

 

[HKphooey]

I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations. I am not siding with either yet. Not enough facts. But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision. You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect. I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second. I bet their families wish they had that second back.

 

[michaeledward]

Here are the events, as the news stories report them.

• Bell and Co have bachelor party at strip club.
• Bell and Co have drinks at bachelor party.
• Bell and Co may have solicited a prostitute at the strip club.
• Bell and Co leave a strip club.
• Outside the Club, there is a verbal altercation between Bell and Co, and some other group. It has never been clearly defined as a verbal altercation with the undercover police operation.
• Bell and Co may have said something about a gun.
• Bell and Co walk to, and enter their car.
• The Undercover police officer follows them to the car.
• The undercover police officer stands in front of the car; placing a foot on the bumper .... or steps on the hood of the vehicle.

The next sequence of events is very important, but is not very clear ... How one interprets the sequence of these events, will lead to very different attitudes about the shooting. For instance - switch the first two bullet points.

• Bell moves the vehicle forward toward ... or into ... the man standing on his bumper.
• A man pulls a gun and points it at the occupants of the car
• A car comes around the corner and attempts to box in Bells car.
• The man starts shooting his gun into the car.
• A second car comes around the corner, to box in Bell's car.
• Bell hits the second vehicle once.
• A man, having shot at 15 rounds from his weapon, reloads, and continues firing.
• Bell backs into a fence / wall.
• Five men are firing guns at the vehicle and its occupants, for more than 50 rounds.
• Bell hits the second vehicle a second time.
• Bell is shot to death. His two companions receive multiple gunshot wounds, and a taken to a hospital.

Items that are in dispute.



Did the undercover officer identify himself as a police officer?

The officers say yes. The men who were shot, and questioned from separate hospital beds, say no. Who is more served by their answer? Who had time to collaborate their answer?​

Was there a fourth person?

Although the evidence clearly shows there was no fourth person. The police have been attempting to locate one for over a month now. The police have made a claim about a fourth person, which they have not redacted. - why is it their faulty memories don't seem to be questioned?​

Was there a gun?

This is not in dispute. There was no gun. Mr. Bell and Co. may have talked tough, but there was no weapon found on the men, or in the vehicle. There are police statements that the undercover officer fired his weapon because he thought he saw someone reaching for a gun.​

How much alcohol was consumed?

Everyone invovled was a bar until 3:30 AM. Everyone had alcohol in their system; including the officers. That kinda levels the playing field on this issue, doesn't it? If Bell and Co were being belligerant because of alcohol, might not the undercover officer similarly behave in a belligerant manner? And, of course, we only know Mr. Bell's BAC because he died and the test could be performed.​

How fast Bell's car was moving?

It is unclear. Reports have the man placing his foot on the front of the car, at that point, one would assume the vehicle has no kenetic energy - it is not moving. The unmarked police vehicles reportedly attempted to box Bell's car in. As I reflect on it, the only vehicle speed listed in the reports I read, was how fast the unmarked police van was traveling when came around the corner to box in Bell. How much momentum could Mr. Bell gather while 'boxed in'? This question is important because, as many have pointed out, a car is a deadly weapon. As such, can this weapon be used for self-defense?

HYPOTHETICAL - You're in your car, and someone starts shooting at you. Do you get out of your car to draw your gun? or do you run them over? - END HYPOTHETICAL.​

​

Now, are any of the facts bulleted out above, in dispute? Other than the mentioned sequencing of events. Are there any facts left out from my list, that one may feel I am deliberately leaving out?

Of the items that I list as disputable, and offer explainations for the doubts to each of the questions, I don't think I make any direct assertions about what has happened, because I don't know. But, when someone takes one of those disputed items, and makes a definitive statement about it ... I question that statement. So words that describe the uncertainty ... such as 'rammed' ... I question. Words that describe something contrary to reports ... such as 'pinned' ... I question.


In the last ten posts, I have been accused of being racist. I have been accused of 'condemning' an officer. I have had my ethical compass challenged by defining attitudes as 'right' and 'wrong'.

I will admit, I am very much more skeptical of the police department on this shooting. Why did the undercover officer follow Bell to the car? Without a clear answer to that question, everything that follows is uncertain. Bell and company were leaving. What better way to diffuse a tense situation, than to walk away?





Questions that demand answers:

Was the undercover officer attempting to detain the young men?​

Why not identify himself as a police officer sooner?​

Why not just let them go?​

Why stand in front of a vehicle?​

Again, all I know, is that a young man has been shot to death by the police force. At least 50 rounds were fired, all by the police. Policy Policy is to fire three times, and assess the situation. Was that policy followed?

 

[Rich Parsons]

To my eye, you only seem to be giving credence to the news sources that back the version of events you agree with. There is such a thing as "reasonable doubt" when you talk about dealing with crimes. And all the evidence that we have seen seems to be that there is a great deal of doubt about the outcome. In such a case, you have to let the accused (i.e. the officers) off. And you have not given even a single word to the effect that we don't know, so we can't convict.

Rich has talked about how several witnesses have given different versions of events. He is quite clear in saying that witnesses tend to do that. Listening to you, it seems that you automatically give credence to those that say there was no fourth person- etc, but cast doubt on anything that backs the police version of events.

You seem to take great offense at the use of the idea that an officer was pinned to the wall because it is not correct. But your calls for absolute truth and exactness do not continue to the idea that a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon when you say there was none involved on the victim's part. Why be so worked up about not saying that there was no pinning of an officer to a wall and yet not be concerned that intoxicated people behind the wheel kill thousands of people every year?

For that matter, why not be concerned that the guy that was killed seems to have been commining a crime by driving at over twice the legal limit? That is something that would give someone not thinking correctly to try to get away by any means they could- like going through the officers. And if you say that we don't know enough to say what the guys in the car may have done, why try to bring up the matter at all instead of waiting for things in court?

The articles you linked to also seem to show a bias. I scanned the first one long enough to see that is was written by someone who seems to make their living off of suing the police department. I myself would try for a more objective source when trying to lay out how the police should and should not react.

And I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider Al Sharpton anything other than a racist, hate mongering, rablle- rouser out to promote his political capital no matter the expense it causes the community.

In short, I have to agree with Rich's version of events. And I am concerned with the way you seem to be trying to make him out to be the bad guy instead of debating him honestly.

Don thanks for the comments.

I have to agree, and hence why I put ME on ignore. It is ok for him to caqst doubt, and present as if it is the truth. I have said I need more information. Based upon the information I have now. Given my experience. I have no proble talking what if's. Yet if those one debates expresses their points as the only solution, then there is no room for a debate, as they most likely will not even acknowledge the other side of the arguement. Once again a reason for ignore.

Enjoy gentlemen

 

[Rich Parsons]

I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations. I am not siding with either yet. Not enough facts. But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision. You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect. I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second. I bet their families wish they had that second back.

Question(s):

Does having a gun pointed at your head by an unknown bad guy count as life and death decision making?

Does someone trying to stab you from a car count?

Does it count when you are being targeted by a car?

Does it count when there are multiple opponents? And at what number? i.e. 2 or 3 or more

Does it count when they have unknown weapons or known weapons in their hands?

To me with the exception of being in a gun fight, and or serving in the military (* Which I have most definitely not *), I think I have been in many a situation where my choices determined if I lived or if I died. And in others, it determined my state of injury(ies) and how long my recover might be.

Dealing with tunnel vision and adrenaline dump is rough.

The first time you think you have actually killed someone is tough as well. I know I wanted to puke. But instead I check pulse, and then his mouth for swallowed tongue, and took a pen and removed his tongue from the back of his throat where he began to breath. And yes jsut a few seconds before I had wanted to hurt him and of stop him permanently so as I would not get hurt.

Now, that being said, I have not had to deal with the in a few years. Yet, having been there, I still express my points as possibilities, not as absolutes.

It would be nice if this training was mroe readily available as I would like to take it from time to time.

 

[MJS]

I just wish "citizens" could just onece go through simulator training and see how they react to life and death situations. I am not siding with either yet. Not enough facts. But a police officer needs to make a split second, life and death decision. You can have all the reactionary training in the world, but that does not mean you will be perfect. I think of all the fallen LEO that decided to wait that split second. I bet their families wish they had that second back.

They had brought one of those simulators to the Middletown PD. I had the chance to check it out, and I have to say, that while you know you're not going to really 'die' if you get hit, putting yourself in the proper mindset, it really opened my eyes to a number of things.