NYPD Shooting

[jetboatdeath]

Man oh man....
Simple solution here. When stoped, confronted, questioned by police guilty or not some simple rules aply.
1) Don't "go for anything" put your hands on the wheel in clear view and wate for instructions from the cop.
2) Don't run them over don't even hit his car. A car is a weapon like it or not. And speed? Would you rather be ran into with 5000lb or have it parked on top of you?
3) Don't be stupid. Seems to be much eaiser to talk to your law team than making your family talk to a coroner.

Come on stop blaming the cops for reacting to a situation like this, yes they do overreact in some situations, yea they pull you over for " being out late" but like i said don't give them a reason to esculate things.
Deal with it in court....

 

[michaeledward]

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/81265.shtml

This article is kind of interesting. Just the premise of the blood alcohol content being released by an anonymous source should demand skepticism. What is the spin? Who is spinning? Why?

Also, I point to the Jean Nelson, December 2 report of the undercover officer firing "without warning".

 

[MJS]

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/81265.shtml

This article is kind of interesting. Just the premise of the blood alcohol content being released by an anonymous source should demand skepticism. What is the spin? Who is spinning? Why?

Yes, that is interesting. IMO, until a final report is issued by a named source, its all hearsay as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I point to the Jean Nelson, December 2 report of the undercover officer firing "without warning".

I wouldn't believe this guy 100%. How reliable of a source is he? If he is a close friend of the people in the car, whats to say that hes telling the truth?

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, that is interesting. IMO, until a final report is issued by a named source, its all hearsay as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't believe this guy 100%. How reliable of a source is he? If he is a close friend of the people in the car, whats to say that hes telling the truth?

There is no reason to consider his statement hearsay.

hearsay : noun : evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath
​

Mr. Nelson is named in the article, as his attorney. The statement is related directly to Mr. Nelson's personal knowledge of the events of the evening. The quote is ascribed, by name, to a person, who can be verified; unlike the references to Mr. Bell's blood alcohol content, which, originating as it does from an anonymous source, must be considered hearsay.

Further, as Mr. Bell's two associates have been in the hospital since the shooting, (one assumes they are in separate rooms) and they have both been questioned, and relate a similar description of the events of the evening, it may add some weight. One assumes that these three individuals have not had time, or ability, to speak with each other to 'contrive' a unified story.

I believe this is referred to as corroboration evidence.

In contrast, as referenced in one of the earlier articles; the officers involved in the evenings events were not separated and questioned individually about the shooting. The officers have, apparently, been able to sit together and discuss the events of the evening, because the Police Department does not have a policy that prevents that behavior. Further, the police department, apparently does not have a policy of immediately taking statements from the officers involved in the shooting immediately after the shooting.

 

[Don Roley]

Further, as Mr. Bell's two associates have been in the hospital since the shooting, (one assumes they are in separate rooms) and they have both been questioned, and relate a similar description of the events of the evening, it may add some weight. One assumes that these three individuals have not had time, or ability, to speak with each other to 'contrive' a unified story.

So you are assuming, instead of dealing with the facts. Let us just make that clear.

The problem I have with your assumption is that all these guys have criminal records. And I happen to know that one of the first things most folks who have had experience on the wrong side of the law is to ask for a lawyer before anything else. Aside from talking with a lawyer, they also have the ability to talk to relatives and get the story from them.

Oh, and I think that the hearsay comment was about the report, not what anyone says about it. You seem a bit confused over the matter. The story of the blood alchol content is not official and until it is released publicaly, it is all hearsay. We do not know who the source for the leak and if it is a real report or not. Hence, we can't treat it as fact- i.e. hearsay.

 

[jks9199]

I'm chiming in rather late on this... but I'm going to make a few comments.

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.

Undercover officers are, in some cases and when appropriate to the investigation, permitted to consume some alcohol. In some cases, they're permitted to consume a LOT of alcohol, but generally it's a limited amount because not to do so would be incredibly obvious... As to drug use -- it's a possibility, but each agency has its own response to it. Generally, the investigation is over, and the cop is getting to go to some form of "rehab-lite." If it's a choice of using dope, or getting killed... They're gonna use. (You might read Under & Alone, if you're interested in UC investigations. It's the true account of how Billy Queen went undercover with the Mongol MC.)

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.

Are you privy to the op plan for the case the officers were working? Or the NYPD Patrol Guide and other regulations and SOPs for NYPD. There are a number of instance where a plainclothes officer from any agency might make official contact with a suspect, with or without the support of an arrest team. Police op plans fall under the same subsection of Murphy's Law that military battle plans do; they NEVER survive contact with the "enemy."

There's little or no evidence that the officers failed to adhere to their training. There's plenty of evidence that something went very wrong -- but solid research also tells us that each officer makes his own decision to shoot, to continue to shoot and not to shoot based on their own unique perception of the mind-bogglingly rapid unfolding of events. You can find the research for yourself at the Force Science Research Center; http://www.forcescience.org/. (You might also find their research on shell casing distribution of interest.)

I can't help but note that you seem to be perfectly happy making some conclusions about this incident -- while condemning others who have made different conclusions. Might I suggest that there is far too little solid information, and far too many conflicting versions of the event available to make any conclusions at the moment?

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.

Similators are fantastic training tools -- and great tools for public education, too. In fact, I know that several agencies are making it a point to provide a "media training day" where they bring reporters in, and let them do a number of things like firearms simulators so that they have a better understanding of what the police do -- and why we do it. Most reporters, I've heard, are shocked by how much is happening how quickly during the simulator.

 

[MJS]

Oh, and I think that the hearsay comment was about the report, not what anyone says about it.

Yes, thank you.

 

[MJS]

There is no reason to consider his statement hearsay.

hearsay : noun : evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath​

Mr. Nelson is named in the article, as his attorney. The statement is related directly to Mr. Nelson's personal knowledge of the events of the evening. The quote is ascribed, by name, to a person, who can be verified; unlike the references to Mr. Bell's blood alcohol content, which, originating as it does from an anonymous source, must be considered hearsay.

Further, as Mr. Bell's two associates have been in the hospital since the shooting, (one assumes they are in separate rooms) and they have both been questioned, and relate a similar description of the events of the evening, it may add some weight. One assumes that these three individuals have not had time, or ability, to speak with each other to 'contrive' a unified story.

I believe this is referred to as corroboration evidence.

In contrast, as referenced in one of the earlier articles; the officers involved in the evenings events were not separated and questioned individually about the shooting. The officers have, apparently, been able to sit together and discuss the events of the evening, because the Police Department does not have a policy that prevents that behavior. Further, the police department, apparently does not have a policy of immediately taking statements from the officers involved in the shooting immediately after the shooting.

I for one do not know the location of any of the parties involved, if they are in the same rooms, or even if they're in the same hospital. The point I was trying to make is, the fact that these guys are not 'angels' by any means. Do you honestly think that the witness, even if he didn't have time to create a story with the other people involved, is going to say anything to incriminate the people he was with?? This guy left the scene right after the shooting. Who knows if he took a gun with him?

 

[michaeledward]

I for one do not know the location of any of the parties involved, if they are in the same rooms, or even if they're in the same hospital. The point I was trying to make is, the fact that these guys are not 'angels' by any means. Do you honestly think that the witness, even if he didn't have time to create a story with the other people involved, is going to say anything to incriminate the people he was with?? This guy left the scene right after the shooting. Who knows if he took a gun with him?

For the hearsay comment ... when I quoted you, my original quotes weren't included in the post window ... the reference you were making was lost on me. My bad. In the quote window, I thought you were saying Mr. Nelson's comments were hearsay. Sorry.

Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not. And, are we projecting the status of 'angels' on the police officers? and if so, why?


IF we are going to 'honestly' question if this witness (Mr. Nelson) had the time and motivation to 'create' a story .... which corroborates the information we have recieved from Mr. Bell's associates ....

THEN can we similiarly question the 'honesty' of the anonymous source reports of the police officers who stated the officer on the hood of Mr. Bell's car identified himself as a police officer before firing.



IF we are going to work under the assumption that Mr. Nelson would not saying anything to incriminate his friends.

THEN can we work under the assumption that the police officers are not saying anything that would incriminate themselves; such as the initially reported fourth occupant of the vehicle; such as the missing gun in the vehicle; such as the identification as a law enforcement officer before firing a weapon.


A couple of last thoughts:

It is not clear when Mr. Nelson left the scene of the shooting. He is reported as an 'eyewitness'. He may have left right away. He may have lingered to watch the proceedings. We don't know.

To speculate if Mr. Nelson took a gun with him, away from the scene, would add to its irrelevance. Mr. Nelson is not reported by any of the reports as having been in the vehicle when the first shots were fired. Those shots were fired because, reportedly, the officers felt that one of the occupants of the vehicle was reaching for a gun.

It would defy imagination to suggest that Mr. Nelson could get to the car, retrieve a weapon, and leave the scene with seven police officers on heightened alert, after having discharged more than 50 rounds.

 

[MJS]

For the hearsay comment ... when I quoted you, my original quotes weren't included in the post window ... the reference you were making was lost on me. My bad. In the quote window, I thought you were saying Mr. Nelson's comments were hearsay. Sorry.

No worries. Anytime there are online discussions, a number of things to look at within the discussion, etc., human error happens.

Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not. And, are we projecting the status of 'angels' on the police officers? and if so, why?

As far as the victims go, whats to say that the cops didn't recognize them? I for one, do not know the criminal record(s) of any of these people. However, if they do have records, then there is a pretty good chance that the cops will be familiar with them. I work as a dispatcher. Many times an officer will see someone that they know, someone that has committed crimes, and will ask for me to check to see if there are any outstanding warrants on the person. Sometimes there are none and sometimes one is in the system. As for the cops...I do not know the officers involved, but it should be no surprise that there are 'dirty' cops, just like there are good cops.

IF

we are going to 'honestly' question if this witness (Mr. Nelson) had the time and motivation to 'create' a story .... which corroborates the information we have recieved from Mr. Bell's associates ....

THEN can we similiarly question the 'honesty' of the anonymous source reports of the police officers who stated the officer on the hood of Mr. Bell's car identified himself as a police officer before firing.



IF we are going to work under the assumption that Mr. Nelson would not saying anything to incriminate his friends.

THEN can we work under the assumption that the police officers are not saying anything that would incriminate themselves; such as the initially reported fourth occupant of the vehicle; such as the missing gun in the vehicle; such as the identification as a law enforcement officer before firing a weapon.


A couple of last thoughts:

It is not clear when Mr. Nelson left the scene of the shooting. He is reported as an 'eyewitness'. He may have left right away. He may have lingered to watch the proceedings. We don't know.

To speculate if Mr. Nelson took a gun with him, away from the scene, would add to its irrelevance. Mr. Nelson is not reported by any of the reports as having been in the vehicle when the first shots were fired. Those shots were fired because, reportedly, the officers felt that one of the occupants of the vehicle was reaching for a gun.

It would defy imagination to suggest that Mr. Nelson could get to the car, retrieve a weapon, and leave the scene with seven police officers on heightened alert, after having discharged more than 50 rounds.

Mike, to be honest, there are so many reports, so many versions, etc, its hard to know whats fact. IMO, this is how many things get blown out of proportion and stories get started. There are a number of quotes in one of the last links you posted that say that the source spoke on condition of anonymity, because the investigation is still ongoing. Why is this person speaking at all? If he doesn't know all the facts himself, how can we really get a good picture? This is why I made the hearsay comment earlier.

 

[Don Roley]

Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not.

That is not the point MJS was trying to make and you seem to have twisted the meaning a bit. Here is his exact quote.

The point I was trying to make is, the fact that these guys are not 'angels' by any means.

In other words, you seem to be treating what they say as if it were fact, while ignoring their criminal records and expereince with the system as a criminal. MJS was not talking about their behavior at the time of the shooting. He was talking about how reliable they are compared with all the trust you seem to put in what they say.

To give an example, some people at the scene have said that there was another guy who left on foot and who may have had a gun or referenced having a gun. The guys in the hospital say there was not. It seems clear to me that if there was some truth to the existence of another guy, that they would have reason to coordinate their stories through family and lawyers to say differently. But it seems enough for you that they said there was no other person.

Me, I don't know if there was one or not. But I am not as quick to take their word and say there was not. Things are unclear and I can't say one way or another with as much of a tone of certainty as you seem to have. There was no gun found at the scene- that I am pretty sure of. But if there was one, or if one of the guys that were shot talked about having one is still pretty much a matter of debate.

 

[michaeledward]

As far as the victims go, whats to say that the cops didn't recognize them? I for one, do not know the criminal record(s) of any of these people. However, if they do have records, then there is a pretty good chance that the cops will be familiar with them. I work as a dispatcher. Many times an officer will see someone that they know, someone that has committed crimes, and will ask for me to check to see if there are any outstanding warrants on the person. Sometimes there are none and sometimes one is in the system. As for the cops...I do not know the officers involved, but it should be no surprise that there are 'dirty' cops, just like there are good cops.

I would assume that these officers, being undercover, and in a different bourrough than their normal duty stations, it would be a safe bet that in a city of eight million citizens and a police force of forty thousand, the officers in question did not recognize the young men.

I doubt that the officers involved would be 'dirty' cops in the manner of, let's say, 'The Shield'.

But, I am not willing to extend to the officers any assumptions that I will not similiarly extend to the young men. The cops don't get a pass because they are in uniform. And, that a young man is dead on his wedding day, the questions directed toward the officers are going to be more severe, and demand more thorough and complete answers.

Why did the officer follow the young men to the car?
Why did he stand in front of the car with his foot on the hood/bumper?



EDIT - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/n...tml?ex=1167368400&en=97d75b13f39ecade&ei=5070

This link is to a New York Times Slide Deck. It is pretty interesting. Slide 4 is of note, because it shows the distance that Bell and Co walked to get to the Altima. During this walk - which appears to be past at least four building lots - the undercover officer followed them quite a distance. Recall the reports of identification as a police officer differ, and at best, say the officer displayed his badge at the Altima, and not before.

Sorry, this link does require an account at NYTimes web site. It is free.

END EDIT

 

[MJS]

I would assume that these officers, being undercover, and in a different bourrough than their normal duty stations, it would be a safe bet that in a city of eight million citizens and a police force of forty thousand, the officers in question did not recognize the young men.

Again, so many reports, I can't keep track. Was there a report that stated who or what the cops were investigating? I ask this, because if the people involved in the shooting were the subjects of the sting, then yes, it is possible that the cops had descriptions, etc., of the people in question.

I doubt that the officers involved would be 'dirty' cops in the manner of, let's say, 'The Shield'.

Again, I don't know the officers involved, and I never said that they were dirty. I simply responded to this:

Is it fair to assess the victims as 'not being angels'? At the time of the shooting, the police department could not have known whether they were angels or not. And, are we projecting the status of 'angels' on the police officers? and if so, why?

Why did the officer follow the young men to the car?

Were they in some way involved in the sting? If someone heard mention of a gun, I'd imagine that the cops would follow them.

Why did he stand in front of the car with his foot on the hood/bumper?

Again, so many links, but I can't seem to recall the cop putting his foot on the car. If you could direct me to that link, that would be great. In any case, if that were me, and it appeared the car was not stopping, I would move out of the way.

 

[michaeledward]

Again, so many reports, I can't keep track. Was there a report that stated who or what the cops were investigating? I ask this, because if the people involved in the shooting were the subjects of the sting, then yes, it is possible that the cops had descriptions, etc., of the people in question.

Again, I don't know the officers involved, and I never said that they were dirty. I simply responded to this:

Were they in some way involved in the sting? If someone heard mention of a gun, I'd imagine that the cops would follow them.

Again, so many links, but I can't seem to recall the cop putting his foot on the car. If you could direct me to that link, that would be great. In any case, if that were me, and it appeared the car was not stopping, I would move out of the way.

The reports are that undercover officers did not have specific targets at the club. They were on that location to look for drug violations. One of the club bouncers seemed to indicate to one of the entertainers that he was armed. There have been no reports that Mr. Bell, Mr. Benefield and Mr. Guzmen were targets in any way. There have been no reports that the young men were subject to any police 'sting'.

The reference about the officer putting himself at the front of the car was first mentioned by Grenadier, in post #31. He referenced this article from the Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0

From the article, it sounds as if the car was not moving at the time the officer placed his foot on the vehicle.

I think I later ripped into this article because, in my opinion, it sensationalized the events for a Sunday Night Movie.

 

[MJS]

The reports are that undercover officers did not have specific targets at the club. They were on that location to look for drug violations. One of the club bouncers seemed to indicate to one of the entertainers that he was armed. There have been no reports that Mr. Bell, Mr. Benefield and Mr. Guzmen were targets in any way. There have been no reports that the young men were subject to any police 'sting'.

The reference about the officer putting himself at the front of the car was first mentioned by Grenadier, in post #31. He referenced this article from the Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1127200...n_queens_regionalnews_murray_weiss.htm?page=0

From the article, it sounds as if the car was not moving at the time the officer placed his foot on the vehicle.

I think I later ripped into this article because, in my opinion, it sensationalized the events for a Sunday Night Movie.

Taken from the original article I linked.

According to Kelly, the groom was involved in a verbal dispute outside the club and one of his friends made a reference to a gun.

I'd imagine this is what brought attention to themselves. To be perfectly honest Mike, I really don't even know what to think anymore. I mean, there are so many stories, and un-named sources running around telling 'their' version of what happened. This most likely will take a very, very long time to investigate. Hopefully, in the end, all of the facts will be brought out.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, there was a reference to a gun, according to many of the reports. One of the first questions I raised, was who was involved in the 'verbal dispute' ... It appears that the dispute was between 8 young men, none of which was the police.

The undercover officer reports having overheard Mr. Guzmen say 'Yo, get my gun', during that dispute. We know now that there was no gun in the car. Additionally, the preliminary official report, released on December 11, makes no mention of the mysterious fourth man. So that claim, thrown about by anonymous sources, seems to have evaporated.

Did you see this link .... I amended it to an earlier post, but, the you had replied before I edited, so you may have missed it. The graphic shows how far the undercover officer followed Bell and Co. Which goes back to one of my questions - 'why was the undercover officer following the young men?'

EDIT - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/ny...9ecade&ei=5070

This link is to a New York Times Slide Deck. It is pretty interesting. Slide 4 is of note, because it shows the distance that Bell and Co walked to get to the Altima. During this walk - which appears to be past at least four building lots - the undercover officer followed them quite a distance. Recall the reports of identification as a police officer differ, and at best, say the officer displayed his badge at the Altima, and not before.

Sorry, this link does require an account at NYTimes web site. It is free.

END EDIT
​

I'm not sure there are all that many 'un-named' sources. Maybe, all those anonymous quotes are from the same source. And many of those anonymous quotes have apparently been rendered "no longer in effect" - like the report of a fourth man. Once those quotes get out in open, however, it doesn't matter if they are proved ineffective. The well has been poisoned. Some people will continue to insist there was a fourth man, with a gun, to reinforce their belief that the cops were justified, even though the December 11, official preliminary report makes zero mention of this supposed fourth man.

That's the SPIN factor. As you yourself have said, you can't keep track of the story, the quotes, the sources. Maybe, that's the point.

And ... the story moves on. Mr. Bell's death is a month old now. It is no longer on the front page. Other stories take precedence. People, having formed their opinioins, check out. The story fades into history. And when the 'facts' do come out, they will be a footnote on page A-18.

Really, this is a small tragedy. Especially, with all the other destruction going on all around us. There are going to be 3,000 dead in Iraq by Tuesday. But, we still don't know why this young man is dead.

 

[MJS]

Yes, there was a reference to a gun, according to many of the reports. One of the first questions I raised, was who was involved in the 'verbal dispute' ... It appears that the dispute was between 8 young men, none of which was the police.

Agreed.

The undercover officer reports having overheard Mr. Guzmen say 'Yo, get my gun', during that dispute. We know now that there was no gun in the car. Additionally, the preliminary official report, released on December 11, makes no mention of the mysterious fourth man. So that claim, thrown about by anonymous sources, seems to have evaporated.



Did you see this link .... I amended it to an earlier post, but, the you had replied before I edited, so you may have missed it. The graphic shows how far the undercover officer followed Bell and Co. Which goes back to one of my questions - 'why was the undercover officer following the young men?'

EDIT - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/ny...9ecade&ei=5070​

This link is to a New York Times Slide Deck. It is pretty interesting. Slide 4 is of note, because it shows the distance that Bell and Co walked to get to the Altima. During this walk - which appears to be past at least four building lots - the undercover officer followed them quite a distance. Recall the reports of identification as a police officer differ, and at best, say the officer displayed his badge at the Altima, and not before.​

Sorry, this link does require an account at NYTimes web site. It is free.​

END EDIT​

Yes, I missed the link but did take the time to look thru it now. A few things that interest me. 1) There was mention of a gun, but what I'd like to know is, where was it? Its stated that he says, "Yo, go get my gun." but we don't know the location of it. 2) As for the 4th person...yes, that is a mystery. I recall an earlier post which said something about one of the dancers at the club possibly being that person. Also what about Mr. Nelson. Could he have been the 4th? I really don't know.
​

I'm not sure there are all that many 'un-named' sources. Maybe, all those anonymous quotes are from the same source. And many of those anonymous quotes have apparently been rendered "no longer in effect" - like the report of a fourth man. Once those quotes get out in open, however, it doesn't matter if they are proved ineffective. The well has been poisoned. Some people will continue to insist there was a fourth man, with a gun, to reinforce their belief that the cops were justified, even though the December 11, official preliminary report makes zero mention of this supposed fourth man.

Well, IMO, 4th person or not, the main focus should be on the people that were shot, if policy was followed, etc.

And ... the story moves on. Mr. Bell's death is a month old now. It is no longer on the front page. Other stories take precedence. People, having formed their opinioins, check out. The story fades into history. And when the 'facts' do come out, they will be a footnote on page A-18.

Really, this is a small tragedy. Especially, with all the other destruction going on all around us. There are going to be 3,000 dead in Iraq by Tuesday. But, we still don't know why this young man is dead.

Yes, that true, I hardly hear much about this anymore. Reminds me of Natalie Holloway. Seemed like she was in the news every day, and now we don't hear anything. They had so many supposed leads, but yet there is no body. The world sure would be a better place if we didn't have so much violence.

Mike

 

[Blotan Hunka]

City of 8 million or not, Im guessing that the NYPD cops know who the "players" are in their districts. Im guessing that they dont deal with "8 million" on a daily basis, only a few thousand citywide and probably a few hundred district wide.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, IMO, 4th person or not, the main focus should be on the people that were shot, if policy was followed, etc.

Interestingly, the NY Police Department apparently has a policy of not firing a weapon at a moving automobile. Seems like an odd policy.

Although, the policy I am more interested in, in this case, is the 'Three Shots and Assess' policy; recalling that one office fired 31 times. That means at least 9 stops to assess the situation and once to reload.

 

[michaeledward]

City of 8 million or not, Im guessing that the NYPD cops know who the "players" are in their districts. Im guessing that they dont deal with "8 million" on a daily basis, only a few thousand citywide and probably a few hundred district wide.

This undecover unit was apparently playing outside their own district. The officers were part of a 'city-wide' Club Enforcement Unit.

And you seem to be predicating your belief that Mr. Bell, Mr. Benefield and Mr. Guzman are part of the 'few hundered district wide'. I wonder why?