NYPD Shooting

[MJS]

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.

Yes, both are rather interesting. Could you direct me to a link if you have one available? I'd be interested in reading more about this.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, both are rather interesting. Could you direct me to a link if you have one available? I'd be interested in reading more about this.

Mike

This link directs you to an article from 11/27. Much of the premises within are now out of date ... and may seek further refinement ... but, as the mainstream media has largely passed this story by, and some have insinuated that following only the black press has some nefarious purpose - even though they are the only ones still reporting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15924960/

If the officers thought they were justified in using deadly force because Bell was using his car as a weapon, they are mistaken. The problem with this case is that the use of deadly force is never justified unless an officer believes deadly force is being used or is about to be used against him or her. The police department’s policy on shooting at a moving motor vehicle is clear: You cannot do it, even if the vehicle itself is being used as a weapon against you. You cannot shoot at a moving car, even if it is trying to run you over, unless deadly force is being used against you and the car itself does not count as deadly force. A car is clearly exempted from the definition of deadly force.
In order for the officers’ use of force to be justified, they would have had to reasonably believe deadly force was about to be used against them. In other words, that someone had a gun and was about to use it. But no weapon was recovered from the scene, and it appears that no one was armed.

 

[jks9199]

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.

It's very common for law enforcement agencies to strictly limit the circumstances when an officer may fire on a moving vehicle. Some minor little concern about creating a 2000 pound unguided missile... Generally, firing at a moving vehicle is essentially a tactic of last resort, when the officer or public are in imminent danger of deadly harm AND there appears to be no reasonable line of retreat or escape.

I'm not familiar with the details of NYPD training regarding shooting and assessing; my training in my state was to, in theory, assess after every one or 2 shots, and that was fairly standard training across the country. I am, however, quite familiar with extensive, peer reviewed research that shows that each officer makes his own decision about when to start and stop shooting in an incident like this based on their own perceptions about the rapidly unfolding situation. I'm also familar with the simple fact that it's not at all uncommon for an officer involved in a shooting to have shot his gun empty and only recall firing one or two shots. Again, I refer you to the Force Science Research Institute, as well as the work of Col. Dave Grossman (USA, ret.) about what goes on, physically, emotionally, and psychologically during a shooting.

The simple truth is that this incident is under investigation, and that armchair quarterbacking it isn't clearing anything up. Most people doing so have already decided what they believe happened, based on whatever accounts they feel are credible in the light of the biases they bring to the table. (And we all bring biases to the table in a discussion like this; I'm, not unsurprisingly, pro-police and will generally assume that they were doing what they were supposed to unless & until I see evidence to the contrary.)

There's another truth at play, too. Media influence on public opinion may lead to a witch hunt, no matter what the investigation determines.

 

[michaeledward]

Grand Jury testimony in the shooting of Mr. Bell wrapped up today.

Earlier in the week, there were reports of a 55 year old man, who spoke very little English, emerging as a 'new' witness. According to reports, this witness reported a man firing one or two shots at the officers in question, and then running into a building. Further, the reports indicate this witness said the officers vocally announced they were police officers. The reports today are that investigators have known of this witness for some time, and had interviewed several months back.

On Monday, an announcement of the Grand Jury proceedings is expected. The current report is that three of the police officers will be indicted; the three who fired the most shots. What charges may be filed has not been hinted at in today's reports.

Of course, as the Grand Jury proceedings were coming to a close, some areas of New York City have been on a higher alert status, with extra officers deployed. All the usual calls for restraint were made by all officials.

 

[michaeledward]

Three officers were indicted with Manslaughter charges this week.

Two officers were not indicted. These two officers who fired the least amount of shots toward Mr. Bell's automobile.

 

[MJS]

Bumping this old thread back up. Saw this article in todays paper.
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-nyshooting0423.artapr23,0,2036520.story

NEW YORK — - When police killed an unarmed African immigrant in a hail of 41 bullets in 1999, outrage was rampant on the streets of New York.

About 1,200 people were arrested, including elected officials and celebrities, during a month of daily protests. Thousands more marched through the city after the officers were acquitted in Amadou Diallo's death.

Nine years later, three officers will learn their fate Friday in another case of audacious police firepower — 50 shots aimed at an unarmed black man on his wedding day. The city is bracing for more protests if the officers are acquitted.

This time, however, the mood is muted.

Amazing how long this case has been going on. And of course, good ol' Al is making an appearance.

 

[MJS]

Oh boy. I wonder if this is going to spell trouble?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24305660/

 

[Grenadier]

If I were to fathom a guess, there's going to be some isolated rioting. I doubt it will reach nearly the same level as what happened in 1992, with the Rodney King riots, since there wasn't nearly as much hoopla going on.

 

[MJS]

If I were to fathom a guess, there's going to be some isolated rioting. I doubt it will reach nearly the same level as what happened in 1992, with the Rodney King riots, since there wasn't nearly as much hoopla going on.

I've never understood why people take to rioting to voice their opinion. People watch sports. Their fav. team wins and what do they do? Go on a rampage. People watch high profile court cases unfold. They don't like the decision..they riot. IMHO, that does nothing to solve the problem. It just brings on more problems. I'm sure there're better ways to voice their displeasure over this, if people are upset with the outcome. It'll be interesting to see if a civil suit comes out of this.

 

[elder999]

It'll be interesting to see if a civil suit comes out of this.

Bell's fiance had already filed, and the case has been postponed pending the outcome of the criminal trial. I imagine that the civil suit(s) will now go forward......

....no word of any rioting.

 

[MJS]

Another article.

Some highlights.

We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."
He joined Bell's family in the 20-block march 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem's main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out "Kill the police!"

We're going to shut the city down and kill the police? Yeah real nice Rev. I'm sure acting like a bunch of fools is really going to get you much respect. Its interesting because I was reading in my local paper, that many of the people who spoke on behalf of Sean didn't seem too credible.

"We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."

Lets start with unarmed. Well, its said a gun wasn't found, but does that mean there wasnt one at all? Innocent? Were they really?

Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

So running thru the streets acting like animals is really going to help with the credibility of any of these people.

 

[grydth]

I've despised the unrepentent Sharpton since the Brawley hoax.

However - how fair is it to hold the entire crowd responsible for some bystanders who chanted "kill the police" ? There may well have been many people there honestly concerned about the shooting who did not chant or agree with that sentiment.

 

[MJS]

I've despised the unrepentent Sharpton since the Brawley hoax.

However - how fair is it to hold the entire crowd responsible for some bystanders who chanted "kill the police" ? There may well have been many people there honestly concerned about the shooting who did not chant or agree with that sentiment.

Well, sure, I suppose anything is possible. I guess I was just going with one bad apple spoils the bunch and guilty by association. I mean, would you hang around with someone if you knew that they were a troublemaker or known dirtbag?

If you have 50 people yelling "Kill the cops!" and 10 of those people are not interested in violence or killing someone, why would you hang with that group? You have 2 groups technically then, so even if you're against what happened, but also against violence, you'd think those 10 would find another less violent way to act or demo. their disapproval.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Well, sure, I suppose anything is possible. I guess I was just going with one bad apple spoils the bunch and guilty by association. I mean, would you hang around with someone if you knew that they were a troublemaker or known dirtbag?

If you have 50 people yelling "Kill the cops!" and 10 of those people are not interested in violence or killing someone, why would you hang with that group? You have 2 groups technically then, so even if you're against what happened, but also against violence, you'd think those 10 would find another less violent way to act or demo. their disapproval.

I do not know that you can call people who make up a spontaneous demonstration "associates". It is one thing in a planned situation, but this is not that.

So running thru the streets acting like animals is really going to help with the credibility of any of these people.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that not you are calling every group of minority demonstrators is an animal. The reason I say this is due to the context of your quote of the article:

"Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

So were those who demonstrated with Martin Luther King Jr. also animals? I would suggest you think about the way you frame your position and the quotes on which you use to base them.

 

[MJS]

I do not know that you can call people who make up a spontaneous demonstration "associates". It is one thing in a planned situation, but this is not that.

So you're telling me that someone may have innocently been walking by the court house or whatever area this group was in, and wasn't able to tell that it was some sort of protest, especially one with possible violence and not say to yourself, "Hmm..this doesn't look good. Maybe I should leave the area." Sorry, can't buy that. If I had to wager a guess, I'd say that the majority of people who were protesting, were in the court house, were friends or family of the victims.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that not you are calling every group of minority demonstrators is an animal. The reason I say this is due to the context of your quote of the article:

"Sharpton urged people to return for a meeting this week "to plan the day that we will close this city down" with the kind of "massive civil disobedience" once led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

So were those who demonstrated with Martin Luther King Jr. also animals? I would suggest you think about the way you frame your position and the quotes on which you use to base them.

I think you may be reading too deep into my post, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt as well, as I may not have been that clear. But, for the sake of the discussion, let me be clear. First off, I didn't mention race. I quoted parts from an article. Second, it would not matter if the person was black, hispanic, white, or any other race...if you're going out into the streets, calling for civil disobedience, people saying kill cops, then yes, you're acting out of control. Simple figure of speech, which there was no racial motives behind that. I have many black and hispanic friends, so the last thing I am is racial. Look thru my past posts to see if there is anything racial. And lastly, if you're offended by my post, hit the RTM so the post can be reviewed.

 

[Twin Fist]

I didnt take your post that way MJS, I knew exactly what you meant

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

So you're telling me that someone may have innocently been walking by the court house or whatever area this group was in, and wasn't able to tell that it was some sort of protest, especially one with possible violence and not say to yourself, "Hmm..this doesn't look good. Maybe I should leave the area." Sorry, can't buy that. If I had to wager a guess, I'd say that the majority of people who were protesting, were in the court house, were friends or family of the victims.

I think you may be reading too deep into my post, although I will give you the benefit of the doubt as well, as I may not have been that clear. But, for the sake of the discussion, let me be clear. First off, I didn't mention race. I quoted parts from an article. Second, it would not matter if the person was black, hispanic, white, or any other race...if you're going out into the streets, calling for civil disobedience, people saying kill cops, then yes, you're acting out of control. Simple figure of speech, which there was no racial motives behind that. I have many black and hispanic friends, so the last thing I am is racial. Look thru my past posts to see if there is anything racial. And lastly, if you're offended by my post, hit the RTM so the post can be reviewed.

What I am saying is that there were probably several hundred people anticipating the decision. When it did not happen the way they agreed with, they protested. Spontaneously. Some few in the crowd probably said stupid things. That in no way diminishes the intention of the others in non-violent demonstration.

My issue with what you said was simply that you quote a remark discussing protest in the way of Martin Luther King, Jr. Then you proceed to call those who would participate in such "animals". I simply suggested that you be cognizant of the quotes and things that you say and use for formulation of your argument, as they can be misunderstood. In no way did I suggest that you were making a rasict comment, just that it could be easily construed as such by your wording.

My next question for you is whether you disagree with civil disobedience. The reason I ask is because if one were to protest, a la Martin Luther King, Jr. style (as the article you quoted mentions), there would be little risk of being "animal"-like in behavior.

I would suggest that if you are against any form of non-violent demonstration, you leave little else to those who feel that a system of laws that is biased against them few choices other then to resort to violence. I am not suggesting that the system is so, but that there are those that believe it to be so., probably based on historical precedence.

 

[grydth]

Well, sure, I suppose anything is possible. I guess I was just going with one bad apple spoils the bunch and guilty by association. I mean, would you hang around with someone if you knew that they were a troublemaker or known dirtbag?

If you have 50 people yelling "Kill the cops!" and 10 of those people are not interested in violence or killing someone, why would you hang with that group? You have 2 groups technically then, so even if you're against what happened, but also against violence, you'd think those 10 would find another less violent way to act or demo. their disapproval.

I wish you would rethink this one, it simply does not sound like the person I know.

The MSNBC report mentions a 20 block march, with some people at one block chanting "Kill the Police"...... That's nowhere near any 50/10 split in numbers with respect to the crowd's demeanor. Even the disgusting Sharpton was advocating civil disobedience to shut the city down, and it appears the crowd was supporting that course of action.

I don't think you can judge an entire crowd by the words of only a very few.

If you really wish to contend that "one bad apple spoils the bunch", I would submit to you that there will remain precious few unspoiled bunches in the world, to include Martial Talk Forum. A recent - locked - discussion mentioned the return of the despicable practice of anonymous negative repping.... where those who don't have the brains to debate or the integrity/courage to sign their reputation leave digs on others in the dark of night. Applying your standard, are all of us here cowards and sneaks because of the actions of these few clowns?

 

[MJS]

What I am saying is that there were probably several hundred people anticipating the decision. When it did not happen the way they agreed with, they protested. Spontaneously. Some few in the crowd probably said stupid things. That in no way diminishes the intention of the others in non-violent demonstration.

My issue with what you said was simply that you quote a remark discussing protest in the way of Martin Luther King, Jr. Then you proceed to call those who would participate in such "animals". I simply suggested that you be cognizant of the quotes and things that you say and use for formulation of your argument, as they can be misunderstood. In no way did I suggest that you were making a rasict comment, just that it could be easily construed as such by your wording.

My next question for you is whether you disagree with civil disobedience. The reason I ask is because if one were to protest, a la Martin Luther King, Jr. style (as the article you quoted mentions), there would be little risk of being "animal"-like in behavior.

I would suggest that if you are against any form of non-violent demonstration, you leave little else to those who feel that a system of laws that is biased against them few choices other then to resort to violence. I am not suggesting that the system is so, but that there are those that believe it to be so., probably based on historical precedence.

As I said, the term was a simple figure of speech. If someone wants to protest something, go ahead. But the difference lies in how you go about doing it. Is it peaceful? If so, that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But, if you're going to resort to violence, threats of violence, flipping cars, burning things, etc., then yes, you're acting out of control, wild, etc.

If someone was in college and was referred to as a 'party animal' would you say that is a racist term?

 

[MJS]

I wish you would rethink this one, it simply does not sound like the person I know.

The MSNBC report mentions a 20 block march, with some people at one block chanting "Kill the Police"...... That's nowhere near any 50/10 split in numbers with respect to the crowd's demeanor. Even the disgusting Sharpton was advocating civil disobedience to shut the city down, and it appears the crowd was supporting that course of action.

The 50/10 split, was again, an example. If we want to get technical, we don't know how many people were present, but as I said to 5.0 Kenpo, if someone wants to protest, fine, but do it without violence or threats of.

I don't think you can judge an entire crowd by the words of only a very few.

If you really wish to contend that "one bad apple spoils the bunch", I would submit to you that there will remain precious few unspoiled bunches in the world, to include Martial Talk Forum. A recent - locked - discussion mentioned the return of the despicable practice of anonymous negative repping.... where those who don't have the brains to debate or the integrity/courage to sign their reputation leave digs on others in the dark of night. Applying your standard, are all of us here cowards and sneaks because of the actions of these few clowns?

I think you're missing the point here. Lets use pitbulls as an example. If you took a survey, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people would say that they'd never own one, that they're a bad breed, etc. But in reality its not the dog, its the way they're treated. But that does not mean every pit is bad. I know someone who has 2 and she says they're the most gentle dogs around. In this case, with the pits, they are labled by a select few that abuse them. Same thing with this case in NYC. Is every protester out of control? No, but why is it any time a protest is going to happen, the police presence is high?

I really don't think that I have to explain this to you though.