Cops shoot 50 rounds into car, kill unarmed groom - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

Cops shoot 50 rounds into car, kill unarmed groom

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Matthias » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:08 am

lmcjaho wrote:
Omaha Red Sox wrote:If you were being mugged would you rather have your trustworthy hotel maid next to you or a police officer?


Matthias would rather give the criminal his wallet, his keys, and his PINs for all his debit cards than have a cop on the scene apparently...


[Insert lockable comment here]

Go chase after a shiny ball on a busy street.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:10 am

lmcjaho wrote:Okay - since this topic was stupid to begin with


Yes. Police shooting up 3 unarmed civilians in New York (where I live and where this is being discussed, incidentally) is a stupid topic. Let's instead talk about the new Borat movie. Isn't he so funn-eeeeee?
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:12 am

SniperShot wrote:Comparing this to the UCLA taser thing is a bit of a stretch though. How can you fire that many rounds when nobody is shooting back? I can see 3 or 4 shots but 50+? Cops must have been drunk and half asleep.


Yah, it's a stretch. But I do think that it's parallel in the sense that there was some action taken by a civilian that warranted a response but that the police went completely overboard and excessive in fashioning that response. You don't have to tase a guy that's lying on the ground when you have five police. And you don't need to fire 50 rounds at people who are unarmed.

That's where I see the similarity.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby SniperShot » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:18 am

Matthias wrote:
SniperShot wrote:Comparing this to the UCLA taser thing is a bit of a stretch though. How can you fire that many rounds when nobody is shooting back? I can see 3 or 4 shots but 50+? Cops must have been drunk and half asleep.


Yah, it's a stretch. But I do think that it's parallel in the sense that there was some action taken by a civilian that warranted a response but that the police went completely overboard and excessive in fashioning that response. You don't have to tase a guy that's lying on the ground when you have five police. And you don't need to fire 50 rounds at people who are unarmed.

That's where I see the similarity.
I totally agree.

There's also the whole idea of what exactly was this guy doing to attract police attention in the first place? They said in the article police believed he had a gun, he had already rammed an undercover car and a NYPD vehicle. The police probably screamed at them to get out of the car and they might not have listened. Sure I can see how cops would get freaked out if they thought this guy had a gun. But to start shooting first, and to keep shooting, and keep shooting, and keep shooting. That's the tough part.
SniperShot
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 7511
(Past Year: 14)
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Fairfax, VA

Postby Madison » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:15 pm

Matthias wrote:
lmcjaho wrote:Okay - since this topic was stupid to begin with


Yes. Police shooting up 3 unarmed civilians in New York (where I live and where this is being discussed, incidentally) is a stupid topic. Let's instead talk about the new Borat movie. Isn't he so funn-eeeeee?


And you're quite positive the police knew they were unarmed because? Were these cops mind readers, telekinetic, from the future, or what? I must have missed that part of the article. :-? One suspect said one of the other suspects (his friend) had a gun, and the officer heard it. Other than that, I see nothing about if they were armed or not until after this came to an end. :-?

Suspects run over a cop, strike a car, back up, strike the car again, and people are surprised and think it's wrong that the police fired shots? Not me.

I agree that 50 shots is way too much, and I agree they will be in huge trouble (probably lose their jobs) due to the rule they broke about firing on a vehicle. Toss in the hit rate of only 21 of the 50 shots and I'd say they never should hold a gun to begin with, much less fire it.

What I won't do is say they were wrong to fire in the first place. The cop on foot could have been killed, the suspects struck another car twice, they were trying to flee the scene, and according to the suspects themselves, at least one had a gun.

Police firing in that situation is wrong? I think not. I do stipulate that they did go way overboard and deserve whatever happens to them though.
Image

I am the Reaper of Men,
The Chaser of Souls,
The Weaver of Nightmares,
I am The Heart of Darkness.
I now, and ever will be,
The Purity of Evil.
Madison
Lord of Darkness
Lord of Darkness

User avatar
ExecutiveMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberMatchup Meltdown ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5979
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby Matthias » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:38 pm

Lose their jobs? Madison, unless some better mitigating facts come to light, these cops could be on the other side of bars within a year.

And stop mischaracterizing my statements. It's true that they were unarmed. I didn't say that the police didn't know. But they should have figured it out between clip one and clip two. You know what? Let's break this down.

Madison wrote:And you're quite positive the police knew they were unarmed because? Were these cops mind readers, telekinetic, from the future, or what? I must have missed that part of the article.


I never said that the police knew that they were unarmed. I said that they were unarmed. Read the thread. Carefully.

Madison wrote:One suspect said one of the other suspects (his friend) had a gun, and the officer heard it. Other than that, I see nothing about if they were armed or not until after this came to an end.


According to police testimony (which is obviously self-interested). Nothing independent to verify it. Also, what when did these guys become, "suspects"? Of what? I must've missed that part of the article. :-?

Madison wrote:Suspects run over a cop, strike a car, back up, strike the car again, and people are surprised and think it's wrong that the police fired shots? Not me.


Were the police in uniform? Were the "suspects" mind readers, telekinetic, from the future, or what? Were they supposed to know that it was undercover police they were hitting with the car? I must've missed that part of the article. :-?

Madison wrote:I agree that 50 shots is way too much, and I agree they will be in huge trouble (probably lose their jobs) due to the rule they broke about firing on a vehicle. Toss in the hit rate of only 21 of the 50 shots and I'd say they never should hold a gun to begin with, much less fire it.


We agree on this point, although I think you may see murder or manslaughter charges brought up. The DA is already getting together a Grand Jury.

Madison wrote:What I won't do is say they were wrong to fire in the first place. The cop on foot could have been killed, the suspects struck another car twice, they were trying to flee the scene, and according to the suspects themselves, at least one had a gun.


Well, the police manual says that it is wrong to use lethal force when the only threat is coming from a moving vehicle. But they could have shot out the tires or what not. And again, it's according to the police according to the suspects (there's two levels of testimony there). In any case, the real shock in the story is the amount of rounds fired, certainly.

Madison wrote:Police firing in that situation is wrong? I think not. I do stipulate that they did go way overboard and deserve whatever happens to them though.


That's all I've been saying throughout.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Madison » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:10 pm

Matthias wrote:Lose their jobs? Madison, unless some better mitigating facts come to light, these cops could be on the other side of bars within a year.


Doubtful. Very weak case.

Matthias wrote:And stop mischaracterizing my statements. It's true that they were unarmed. I didn't say that the police didn't know. But they should have figured it out between clip one and clip two. You know what? Let's break this down.


You've said all the way through that the police fired on unarmed people and should get into trouble. Fact of the matter is that the police did not know they were unarmed, so making "unarmed" such a big deal in your argument is very weak.

I do agree they shot way too many times though. No argument here on that.

Matthias wrote:
Madison wrote:And you're quite positive the police knew they were unarmed because? Were these cops mind readers, telekinetic, from the future, or what? I must have missed that part of the article.


I never said that the police knew that they were unarmed. I said that they were unarmed. Read the thread. Carefully.


I have read it carefully. You're burning the cops at the stake for the wrong reasons and going ridiculously overboard. All of your whining, crying, and stereotyping has been amplified because you won't drop "unarmed" from your argument. Drop the "unarmed" point, drop the stereotype of people not trusting the police, and stick with the fact they fired too many times and I doubt anyone would disagree. Even you and I agree they shot too many times. If you don't blame them for the first shot, then quit harping on the "unarmed" part because it only makes it look like you expected them to magically know that one suspect was telling a lie about his friend, another suspect.

Matthias wrote:
Madison wrote:One suspect said one of the other suspects (his friend) had a gun, and the officer heard it. Other than that, I see nothing about if they were armed or not until after this came to an end.


According to police testimony (which is obviously self-interested). Nothing independent to verify it. Also, what when did these guys become, "suspects"? Of what? I must've missed that part of the article. :-?


Yep, read the story again. Guns in strip clubs? Is that legal in any state?

Matthias wrote:
Madison wrote:Suspects run over a cop, strike a car, back up, strike the car again, and people are surprised and think it's wrong that the police fired shots? Not me.


Were the police in uniform? Were the "suspects" mind readers, telekinetic, from the future, or what? Were they supposed to know that it was undercover police they were hitting with the car? I must've missed that part of the article. :-?


Does it make a difference who's car they hit, backed up, and hit again? Does it matter who the pedestrian they ran over was? Attempted vehicular manslaughter is a crime no matter if the pedestrian is a cop or not. Breaking the law is breaking the law. How many laws do they have to break before becoming a suspect? One is all it takes. Simply saying they have a gun while at a strip club is enough to become a suspect. Toss in everything else and you now have criminals.

Don't know if the officers identified themselves. Was unclear in the story, so too early to say.

Matthias wrote:
Madison wrote:I agree that 50 shots is way too much, and I agree they will be in huge trouble (probably lose their jobs) due to the rule they broke about firing on a vehicle. Toss in the hit rate of only 21 of the 50 shots and I'd say they never should hold a gun to begin with, much less fire it.


We agree on this point, although I think you may see murder or manslaughter charges brought up. The DA is already getting together a Grand Jury.


Not surprised at all. No one takes responsibility for their actions. Had they not said they had a gun at a strip club, not tried to kill someone with a car, and not repeatedly struck another car, no shots would have been fired. Maybe the judge will see that fact.

Matthias wrote:
Madison wrote:What I won't do is say they were wrong to fire in the first place. The cop on foot could have been killed, the suspects struck another car twice, they were trying to flee the scene, and according to the suspects themselves, at least one had a gun.


Well, the police manual says that it is wrong to use lethal force when the only threat is coming from a moving vehicle. But they could have shot out the tires or what not. And again, it's according to the police according to the suspects (there's two levels of testimony there). In any case, the real shock in the story is the amount of rounds fired, certainly.


Agreed. Too many shots, period. Yes, shoot out the tires or something. Agreed that they broke their own rule.

Matthias wrote:
Madison wrote:Police firing in that situation is wrong? I think not. I do stipulate that they did go way overboard and deserve whatever happens to them though.


That's all I've been saying throughout.


Disagree, or else the "unarmed" part wouldn't be used and structured the way you've been doing it. Drop it from the conversation and then not many people would really be disagreeing with you.
Image

I am the Reaper of Men,
The Chaser of Souls,
The Weaver of Nightmares,
I am The Heart of Darkness.
I now, and ever will be,
The Purity of Evil.
Madison
Lord of Darkness
Lord of Darkness

User avatar
ExecutiveMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberMatchup Meltdown ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5979
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby beanoX3 » Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:08 pm

Something I've heard a lot of cops and soldiers say is that they are not trained to shoot to disable or disarm if their lives are threatened. So not aiming for the tires doesn't surprise me. Happens a lot in movies and TV shows, but hardly happens in real life IMO. Maybe if the cops had confronted the men in the car, identifying themselves and ordering them to step out, after which the suspects then tried to ram someone or something to escape, could I see shooting out the tires as a viable option.

Plus, as I said it earlier, only that one cop who reportedly emptied 2 magazines was really the one who went overboard, not the other 4 cops who fired shots. 2 magazines pretty much accounts for more than half of the rounds fired, while the other four may have only fired a handful. 5 people firing doesn't make 50 rounds fired sound like such a big deal to me.
beanoX3
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 5971
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby sportsaddict » Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:25 pm

Wow, another twist to the story: The victim who was killed was the nephew of the University of Miami's basketball coach.

Man killed by NYC police was Miami basketball coach's nephew
November 28, 2006

CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) -- The unarmed man shot to death by New York police hours before his wedding was the nephew of Miami basketball coach Frank Haith.

Haith called the death of 23-year-old Sean Bell a "tremendous shock to me and my family."

ADVERTISEMENT
"Sean was a good kid who was looking forward to getting married and beginning a new chapter in his life," Haith said in a statement. "Our family is devastated, but I would prefer to wait until all the facts are known before commenting further."

Bell was killed and two of his friends were wounded Saturday after his bachelor party at a strip club in Queens. Suspecting one of the men had a gun, police fired 50 shots at the group's vehicle. The men were unarmed.

Haith will attend Bell's funeral Friday, the school told The Miami Herald on Monday night. Haith was expected to coach the team when it played at Northwestern on Tuesday. He is scheduled to return to the team for its Atlantic Coast Conference opener Sunday at home against Georgia Tech.


http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news;_ylt ... &type=lgns

Crazy stuff. Just terrible to hear about a young man dying like this before his marriage.
sportsaddict
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1266
Joined: 2 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby boojumsnark25 » Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:32 pm

SeaWolf wrote:
lmcjaho wrote:
SeaWolf wrote:I was born here. Doesn't that not make me an immigrant any more than any other nationality being born here? :-?


Only reason you could get born there is because at some point someone (2 someones technically) in your family tree immigrated there right?


Doesn't make me an immigrant, anymore than the black family next door or the Asia's 2 doors down.


but it doesn't make you an immigrant any less either...thats the point that was being made
Image
boojumsnark25
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1407
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Erie, PA

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 16:42 hours
(and 34 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact