NY cops acquitted

[Alleykat]

I'll just be the devil's advocate for a moment. Cops (one, at least, of whom was African-American, so no reactionary racism on his part) observe that they're being attacked by somebody in a motor vehicle. There are several people in the motor vehicle. It's night time. (That means, to those of you who don't understand, that the sun's not out, and the interior of the car would be dark.)

One of the car's occupants had previously made a threat to "get his gun." In this situation, how the hell do we sit at a keyboard and second-guess how many shots should have been fired?? Been fine with me if they'd fired 151 shots, as long as a threat inside the car was perceived. What would you expect the cops to do, wait until they see the flash of gunfire from inside the car and/or see one of their buddies lying wounded or dead on the pavement?

Good grief! The defense attorneys really did the smart thing by having somebody trained to make decisions try the case, rather than a jury composed of folks like some of you posting here. The problem is seating a jury comprised of the peers of the thugs, not the peers of the cops.

Also, I'd appreciate it if somebody would copy and paste some of those statutes that give cops specifically more authority to exercise lethal force than any other citizens.

[Homerboy]

All of you Chairborne Rangers can go back to reading your SWAT magazines and playing Counter Strike. Unless you have actually BEEN in a gunfight, you have absolutely no say in how they should be conducted. These 4 decorated offciers had ZERO shootings throughout their thousands of arrests, and tens of thousands of stop and frisks in high crime neighborhoods. They followed a thug who just made a comment to "get his gun" to his car, and when approached by the undercover, he rammed the cop while his other thug passenger reached for what was perceived to be a weapon. He then rammed the police van that came behind him, then rammed it AGAIN as he continued to flee. The WHOLE SHOOTING was over in 12 seconds. Ever hear gunfire outside a range with your hearing protection on? Deafening gunfire, flashes from the guns AS WELL AS reflections of gunfire off the glass of the car, smoke, screeching tires, smashing cars, ALL in 12 seconds AFTER your partner yells "He's got a gun" and is hot by a car and you're gonna start counting rounds? One of the thugs (all 3 had extensive records, involving guns and drugs, and don't tell me experienced street cops can't tell a thug with prison time behind him) was hit 16 TIMES and still lived. How good is your aim when you're shooting at a moving target? And the number of shots fired is irrelevant. Cops are trained to shoot until the threat is over, not to count their rounds. How many shots will YOU fire when you 100% believe that you're about to die and your wife is about to be a widow and your kids orphans?

It all comes down to who you believe. Do you believe the 3 recidivist felons with the 50 million dollar lawsuit, who'se testimony changed every time they opened their mouths, or 4 decorated detectives with not one shooting between them?

Typical thug behavior is what this shooting off the ground. Homicides are UP 26% SO FAR this year in NYC. Seems the cops don't trust the public to support them when dealing with the savages out there. Thank God I'm retired. Let them kill each other.

[Wildalaska]

Perhaps before anyone else pontificates about the alleged facts of the case, one should locate and read carefully the Judges decision on the case, especially that which refers to the buddies of the dead man. Kind ways of calling folks liars.

Again brilliant move for the defense and the public...since now all of those who screech about the CJS can see how a criminal verdict is rendered.

Search and ye shall find.

Wildheylookitsstillsnowing(24hourssofar)mustbeasignofaglobalwarmingcrisisAlaska TM

[Homerboy]

By the way, it is estimated that it takes 125,000 rounds to kill ONE insurbent in Iraq. Guess we should start counting our soldiers rounds, huh?

[tc556guy]

Also, I'd appreciate it if somebody would copy and paste some of those statutes that give cops specifically more authority to exercise lethal force than any other citizens.

Covered under Article 35. My link to that section is too slow on my Afghanistan internet service; someone else wil have to post the applicable language.

[pfch1977]

It all comes down to one word; "accountability".

If a citizen were to fire 31 rounds at a vehicle that had simply "brushed" up against them then they would probably be arrested and sentenced to prison.

If an officer fires 31 rounds at a vehicle that had simply "brushed" up against them then that is jusifiable homicide.

I dont believe a double-standard should apply to citizens and police officers. Simply put, if your weapon goes off then you should be held strictly accountable.

In this case, an innocent man was killed because of some words and making an attempt to drive away from the scene. The practice of shooting fleeing felons ended in the 60s folks.

My opinion is that the police were trigger happy in this scenario and they are back pedaling in order to save themselves from a tragic scenario. They should be held strictly accountable for their actions. Even if there was one procedural flaw, then the victim's families should be compensated, the officers fired from the force and tried/convicted of at the very least manslaughter.

Civilians are held accountable for their actions and so should police officers. When I was speeding on the highway and got my ticket, I sure had a lot of reasons that neither the officer or the judge would listen to. I would assume that they would not listen to my reasoning if I shot at a vehicle 31 times either. However, I bet they would listen if I had a gun and badge.

9/11 gave police officers a lot of credibility, but its incidents like these where innocent men's lives are taken where that credibility goes away very fast. I would not trust another NY police officer after reading about an incident like this one.

All you guys out there that think and believe officer's can handle weapons better then civilians need to look at the many videos of youtube and read of incidents like this one. I believe that police cant handle their weapons because they are not held accountable for their actions.

Dont forget, one of the officers apologized for their actions indicating to me that they felt they were wrong:

"I'd like to say sorry to the Bell family for the tragedy," Cooper said.

Hey pal, sorry doesnt bring back Sean Bell and you should pay for your criminal acts just like a civilian would pay for theirs.

[Homerboy]

Comments like your are the reason cops don't choose a jury trial and opt for a bench one. Imagine placing your fate into the hands of 12 people who are ignorant of the law and vote their opinion? Your opinion means nothing, and neither does mine. A judge has to follow the law, and even cop hating judges don't like seeing their judgements overturned. According the the LAW, the cops were within their rights to fire.

And since when does "brushing" up against someone leave an imprint of your jeans on the bumper? The cop was struck while he was jumping up onto the hood of the car that was driving at him.

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

I've noticed lots of guys at the range I go to hate cops. I figure it's because they couldn't pass the psych test, or just hate them because they don't like being told what to do. Either way, when a cop gives you an order, either follow it or suffer the consequences.

These cops are heroes. How many of us on this board would have frozen up and crapped their pants?

Good guys win this one. Bell is in the ground where he put himself.

[pfch1977]

District Attorney Richard Brown said that despite losing the case, prosecutors had "revealed significant deficiencies" in police tactics that need "prompt and serious attention."

[nemoaz]

Poor drug dealers, they try to run down the first cop who obviously was a mad man claiming to be a cop and wearing an obviously fake badge, then they ram the unmarked fake police van with the imposter blue lights, then the crazy fake cops shooting. It's ridiculous. Good thing the Guardian and other left wing propoganda rags are on the case.

And good thing the judge called the drug dealers liars.

[pfch1977]

“I've noticed lots of guys at the range I go to hate cops. I figure it's because they couldn't pass the psych test, or just hate them because they don't like being told what to do. Either way, when a cop gives you an order, either follow it or suffer the consequences.”

This isn’t about hating cops. This is about being held accountable for your actions. The district attorney admitted that there were serious procedural errors made by the officers. The officers have said they were sorry basically admitting fault for the incident.

Civilians are held to a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability when it comes to the discharge of a weapon at a person. Cops are not held to this same degree of scrutiny and accountability.

If I discharged my weapon negligently, then I would expect myself to go to jail and face civil torts. I would expect to be placed in handcuffs and arrested. The police in this incident get off free without spending one night in jail.

When it comes to my weapon, Im very careful with it as I know that I will be held to the highest standard of accountability. Cops are simply not held to this high standard and a lot of backpedaling occurs by administrators when there is an incident such as this one.

The question is “Where the police wrong in firing their weapons?”. According to the district attorney, there were errors made in this incident. The detectives proclaim that they are sorry. The police were obviously wrong. However, they will be set free by a lax judge who was clearly biased and on the side of law enforcement.

Administrative tricks is what got these officers off instead of cold hard facts.

[Homerboy]

First of all, you're not fooling anybody. Your adjectives you use to describe the cops (trigger happy, negligent) tell us all we need to know. Then you tell us about your speeding ticket that you got and the judge or cop didn't want to hear your excuse. Then you say you'll never trust the NY cops ever again, depsite the FACT that NY cops fire their weapons FAR LESS then other departments and based on a couple of isolated incidents. You gonna bring up Amadou Diallo now? It was 9 years ago.

Procedural ERRORS are not criminal acts. And saying you're sorry does not do anything other then express remorse for your actions. It does NOT make them criminal.

And by the way, cops could care less if you like them, trust them, admire them, hate them, or want to be one of them. When you are directed to do something by one, you do it. Failure to follow instructions can cause bad things to happen. And why don't you explain (since you're obviously an expert) how these "trigger happy" cops made it through 15 years in some of the worst neighborhoods in America, while responding to tens of thousands of man with a gun calls, shots fired calls, robbery in prgress, etc, and take hundreds of guns off the streets, while NEVER firing a shot?

"Civilians are held to a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability when it comes to the discharge of a weapon at a person. Cops are not held to this same degree of scrutiny and accountability."

Hoo Boy! You have NO idea how wrong you are! Cops are limited in what they carry, and how they use them. Civilians aren't even CLOSE to the same level of scrutiny that a cop gets. The first thing they do when a cop gets into a shooting is pull out his shooting range scores. My old TO used to kick our asses if we shot more than 85 during requals. Keep racking up those 100's at paper and it will bite you in the ass if you ever DO get into a shooting. EVERY complaint you ever got, whether justifed or not, is used against them. A duty captain immediately removes ALL weapons you own (inclusing rifles and shotguns) if you fire your weapon after a shooting. If you legally own the gun you use to shoot someone, you don't say a thing and you call a lawyer. Cops are COMPLELLED to answer questions that may incriminate them within 48 hours, and even if they DO beat the criminal charges, they can still look forward to deptartment charges, where they can lose their job even though they've been found innocent, and of course the ever present civil rights violations!


Go shoot some paper at the range. It won't shoot back, tough guy.

[RedneckFur]

Procedural ERRORS are not criminal acts.

If it results in the death of an innocent person, then it very well should be a criminal act. Dont forget, cops are civilians too, and should be subect to the very same treatment under the law as somone who doesnt wear a badge.

[TexasSeaRay]

Originally Posted by pfch1977

This isn’t about hating cops. This is about being held accountable for your actions. The district attorney admitted that there were serious procedural errors made by the officers. The officers have said they were sorry basically admitting fault for the incident.

Look up the concept of Imminent Danger.

The fact the these cops apologized DOES NOT mean in any way that they are guilty or innocent or anything else "justice-related." What it means is that they are sorry that someone lost their life and they are sorry that a bad situation turned worse and escalated to the point that gunfire came into play.

And the District Attorney is an ass for saying what he said. I have zero regard for big city District Attorneys and US Attorney's who are politically motivated rather than responsible to their.

Originally Posted by pfch1977

Civilians are held to a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability when it comes to the discharge of a weapon at a person. Cops are not held to this same degree of scrutiny and accountability.

This statement right here clearly indicates that you simply do not know what you are talking about. It is WRONG and I despise people who use their intentional ignorance to defame cops.

Your credibility is severely lacking because your knowledge of facts is damn near non-existent.

Until it improves, I'm simply adding you to my "Ignore List." That way, I won't even have to waste so much as a second reading your asinine "facts."

Jeff

[Homerboy]

If it results in the death of an innocent person, then it very well should be a criminal act. Dont forget, cops are civilians too, and should be subect to the very same treatment under the law as somone who doesnt wear a badge.

Only problem is Bell wasn't innocent. He rammed a police officer, then rammed a police van twice, while he had a BAC of 1.8.

[Crosshair]

Well, time for my $.02. And that is as much as my opinion is worth.

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

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

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

[Homerboy]

Well, time for my $.02. And that is as much as my opinion is worth.

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

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

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

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

Let's placate the liberal cop haters. End ALL plainclothes operations. Put the cops back in uniform and direct them to respond to 911 calls. Let the savages see how life is like without the cops trying to rid their neighborhoods of thugs like Bell and his friends. That's the way it's heading anyway. NONE of my friends still on the job are being aggressive anymore. Much easier to let them kill themselves and take a report. Had they not had a fair minded judge, they could have been looking at 25 years for doing their job!

[nodlenor]

Had these men cooperated and done what the cops told them there probably would not have been anyone killed. They chose to go against what they were told and paid dearly. Put yourself in the cops place and what would you do if a drunk (or anyone else for that matter) wouldn't cooperate. If we hand cuff the cops who is going to do their job. The number of shots fired may or may not have been excessive. You and I weren't there so we don't know. If I felt my life was in danger I would use whatever means I needed to to stay alive and you probably would also.

[Homerboy]

I consider myself to be an expert shooter. At 25 yards, I can put a full magazine into a fist sized grouping. At 15 yards, I can shoot rapidly and blow out the entire head area. The ONE time I fired my gun was at a charging pitbull, and out of the 11 shots I fired, THREE hit the dog, one fatally, the other two just would have pissed him off more. And that was at a DOG. Unless you have been in a real life shooting, with REAL risk to you, you have no comment to make. Period.

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

They all should have unloaded The life of one respectable cop or civilain is worth more than 1000 of the dregs that these three victims were. I only wish the other two thugs joined Bell on that morgue slab. God only knows their criminal life is not over, and they certainly have more victims in their path.

[GPossenti]

If it took 50 shots for the guy to hit the ground, I wouldn't say it's excessive.

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

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

[patrol]

Since when is there a "magic" number of rounds it takes to "stop" a threat? Especially with a inferior handgun. So would 49 been enough? People who think a certain amount of rounds are excessive do not have a clue of what WE in L.E are required to do during deadly force situations. If it takes one round to stop the subject from causing you death or serious bodily harm then that's reasonable. If it takes five magazines to stop a threat then that too is reasonable. The time it is "excessive" is when you go beyond what is needed to stop the threat, in other words your threat has ceased movement and stopped presenting a danger then you continue to shoot. I have been in situations where ive emptied two magazines into a pit bull and did a tactical reload on the second magazine because I was not counting rounds I was watching the vicious huge pit bull chew at me then flip around to walk away then turn and charge me again. I hit the dog ten times before it finally stopped and collapsed with a 40sw and I shot atlest eightteen to twenty rounds and I shoot consistently in the 98% usually100% range and that was at very close up. The point is, when the poop hits the fan you pull that trigger until you are not in danger. Hollywood is not real life. A handgun is an inferior weapon but most times in the heat of the moment it is all we have readily at our disposal. Instead of looking at the amount of rounds shot look at the amount of times the threat was actually hit. If you fire a certain amount of rounds and miss your target you dont say "well i met my quota for rounds fired because the idiots in the press will crucify me if I shoot too many' instead you do what you have to do to go home. Just so you guys know a person trying to run you down in their car is just as dangereous as a person waving around a gun and does require immediate action.

[sholling]

I have no idea of what the real facts were in this case, but I do understand SOP. If the "investigation" followed standard operating procedure (a good bet) here's how would have played out. The department would have spent the next several months doing everything they can to put together a case that the shooting was justified or at least not criminal. The hope would have been that the case would have fallen through the cracks and that the officer would get off. The dead and their friends and family would per SOP be demonized as at least thug associates thus lessing the value of the lives taken to being little more than taking out the trash. SOP.

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

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

[Dmanbass]

Patrol, thank you! I have been watching this thread and you have just made a very intelligent point. I am glad I continued to read. I appreciate your point of view. I also appreciate others pro and con but your's just makes a ton of sense in the real world. Thanks. And thank you for what you do. It is not a job for everybody and I for one am d_ _ M glad you guys and women do it for us.

No sane person want's anyone to be hurt of die but it is so sad to know that LE is always, always second guessed when they are the ones we pay to protect our lives and property. A Judge decided, I will figure he knows more of the facts of the case and made a better decision than I can.

[Homerboy]

I have no idea of what the real facts were in this case, but I do understand SOP. If the "investigation" followed standard operating procedure (a good bet) here's how would have played out. The department would have spent the next several months doing everything they can to put together a case that the shooting was justified or at least not criminal. The hope would have been that the case would have fallen through the cracks and that the officer would get off. The dead and their friends and family would per SOP be demonized as at least thug associates thus lessing the value of the lives taken to being little more than taking out the trash. SOP.

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

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

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

You seem to think cops get away with murder. Next time you need one, call the fire department. This was a good shooting, from start to finish.
And by the way, cops I know LOVE locking up ADA's! They're the ones who plea baragin good felony collars to misdeameanors to inflate their conviction rate and tell the cop that "getting hit is part of your job" before they drop a felony assault to a misdemeanor. ADA"s and cops are NOT friends. Try to get your expertise from sources other then "Law and Order"

[sholling]

What are you basing this on? Are you an expert in police procedure? I can assure you that the nonsense you posted is NOT the case.

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

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

[pfch1977]

Lets walk through the scenario:

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

So what could we have done better?

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

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

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


My opinion is the following:
- The detectives should have had a patrol car with at least two uniformed officers ready to come on the scene.
- The detectives should not have handled the situation without uniformed backup present.
- The detectives should have let the 3 drunks drive off, followed them in the van and then had uniformed backup pull over the Altima.
- It was insane to draw weapons and discharge them in such a crowded environment.