Police fire 50 rounds, kill groom on day of wedding

[TypeS]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/25/nyc.shooting.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Police fired 50 rounds Saturday at a car of unarmed men leaving a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day in a shooting that drew a furious outcry from family members and community leaders.

The spray of bullets hit the car 21 times, after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would not say if the collisions were what prompted police to open fire.

It was too early to say whether the shooting was justified, Kelly said. (Watch police give their view of the shooting Video)

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun. But armed with a search warrant, police found no weapons.

"Although it is too early to draw conclusions about this morning's shootings ... we know that the NYPD officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement.

Kelly said the incident stemmed from an undercover operation inside the strip club. Seven officers in plain clothes were investigating the Kalua Cabaret, and five were involved in the shooting. The gunfire also hit nearby homes and a train station, though no residents were injured.

A veteran officer fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said. All the officers carried 9mm handguns.

The groom, who was driving, was identified as Sean Bell, 23. Joseph Guzman, 31, was in the front seat and was shot at least 11 times. Trent Benefield, 23, who was in the back seat, was hit three times. Both men were taken to Mary Immaculate Hospital. Guzman was listed in critical condition and Benefield was in stable condition. (Watch an injured man scream as he's taken away Video)

Kelly said there may have been a fourth person in the car who fled the scene.

Three officers, including the undercover officer hit by the car, were treated and released. Another detective remained hospitalized for hypertension, Kelly said.

Abraham Kamara, 38, who lives a few blocks from the club, said he was getting ready for work at about 4 a.m. when he heard bursts of gunfire.

"First it was like four shots," he said. "And then it was like pop-pop-pop like 12 times."

A grand jury was investigating the incident. Kelly said none of the five officers, who had a combined 49 years of force experience, had previously discharged their weapons in the line of duty. He has not been able to interview the officers because the district attorney must first complete an investigation, he said.

The undercover officers were inside the club to document illicit activity, Kelly said. With one more violation the club would be shut down, Kelly said.

He said the establishment has a "chronic history of narcotics, prostitution and weapons complaints."

The shooting drew angry protests from family members and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Sharpton went to the hospitals where the men were taken and afterward held news conferences. At Jamaica Hospital, the civil rights advocate stood with about two dozen members of Bell's and his fiancee's family.

"I will stand with this family," he said. "This stinks. Something about the story being told did not seem right."

Sharpton said Bell and his fiancee had two children, ages 3 years and 5 months.

At Mary Immaculate Hospital, Sharpton said he was outraged to find the survivors handcuffed to their hospital beds. He said Guzman suffered 17 wounds, though it was unclear how many were bullet wounds, and Benefield was shot three times.

"We're not anti-police ... we're anti-police brutality," he said.

Robert Porter, who identified himself as Bell's first cousin, said he was supposed to be a DJ at the wedding. He said about 250 people were invited and were flying in from all over the country. He said his cousin wasn't the type to confront police and that he was "on the straight and narrow."

"I still don't want to believe it," Porter said, "a beautiful day like this, and he was going to have a beautiful wedding, he was going to live forever with his wife and children. And this happened."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[PapaBear]

When you use your car to try and run down a cop more than once, be prepared to be shot! Plain and simple. The idiot tried it and lost the battle!

[CHPUSMC]

I tried to google "Suspect who attempts to murder NYCPD officers is shot and killed in self defense" but came up with nothing. So I have to go with this story instead.

[dw]

Along the lines of the other media thread, I think another part of the problem is that the general public has no concept that a vehicle can be a deadly weapon... Whether it be driving under the influence or an intentional act, somehow they look at a 3,000 pound projectile as less deadly than a 180 grain one.

[PapaBear]

I tried to google "Suspect who attempts to murder NYCPD officers is shot and killed in self defense" but came up with nothing. So I have to go with this story instead.

Here ya go!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=man+killed+by+new+york+cops+after+bachelor+party

read all that you want to.....there are plenty of articles.

[bcjack]

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?????


NYC Mayor 'Deeply Disturbed' by Police Shooting


Mayor Michael Bloomberg was "deeply disturbed" by the barrage of gunfire unleashed by officers in a weekend shooting that killed a groom on his wedding day, the mayor said Monday.

"I can tell you that it is to me unacceptable or inexplicable how you can have 50-odd shots fired, but that's up to the investigation to find out what really happened," Bloomberg said after meeting with community leaders at City Hall.
Bloomberg was joined by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep. Charles Rangel and several other officials at the meeting.

Sharpton called it a "very candid, a very blunt meeting." He said the message to Bloomberg was: "This city must show moral outrage that 50 shots were fired on three unarmed men."

Bloomberg was steadfast in his support for Kelly, who has been denounced by some community leaders over the shooting.

"I think he's the best police commissioner the city has ever had," Bloomberg said. "Nobody takes this more seriously than Commissioner Kelly and I do."

Police fired an estimated 50 rounds at the groom, Sean Bell, 23, and two other unarmed men in a car early Saturday, hours before he was to have married the mother of his two children.

Five officers were placed on paid administrative leave and stripped of their guns, said Paul Browne, chief spokesman for the NYPD. Police and prosecutors promised a full investigation.

"This warrants an answer," Rangel said as he arrived for the meeting. "Not just to the families of those that were shot and killed but to the people of the city of New York."

On Sunday, several hundred people held a vigil for Bell, some shouting "No justice, no peace!" and demanding Kelly's ouster.

Kelly has said police shot at the car after it drove forward and struck an undercover officer and an unmarked police minivan. The information was based on interviews with witnesses and two officers who did not fire their weapons, he said.

However, Trini Wright, a dancer at the strip club where Bell's bachelor party was held, told the Daily News she was going to a diner with the men and was putting her makeup bag in the trunk of their car when the police minivan appeared.

"The minivan came around the corner and smashed into their car. And they (the police) jumped out shooting," Wright, 28, told the newspaper for Monday editions. "No 'stop.' No 'freeze.' No nothing."

Kelly had said Saturday it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified. He said it was unclear whether the officers, who were in plain clothes, identified themselves before firing.

Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre, made a quiet visit to the site of his shootings before dawn Monday, lighting candles clustered around a photograph of the smiling couple with one of their daughters.

The shootings occurred after 4 a.m. Saturday outside the Kalua Cabaret in Queens. Kelly said the confrontation stemmed from an undercover operation by seven officers investigating the club.

Bell was struck twice. Joseph Guzman, 31, was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, was hit three times. Guzman was in critical condition Monday and Benefield was stable.

The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times. They also hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no residents were injured.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun, but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

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

An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, the car drove forward, striking the officer and minivan, Kelly said.

That officer was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. He had served on the force for five years. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

It was the first time any of the officers, all of whom carried 9 mm handguns, had been involved in a shooting, he said.

At some point, Bell backed the car onto a sidewalk, hitting a building gate, police said. He then drove forward, striking the police vehicle a second time, Kelly said.

The department's policy prohibits shooting at moving vehicles states "unless deadly force is being used against the police officers or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

This isn't the first time the NYPD has come under scrutiny over officer-involved shootings.

In 1999, police killed Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea in western Africa who was shot 19 times. The four officers in that case were acquitted of criminal charges. And in 2003, Ousmane Zongo, a native of Burkina Faso in western Africa, was hit four times, twice in the back. In that case, one officer was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, but acquitted of the more serious charge of second-degree manslaughter.

Rangel said the latest shooting "reminds me of a tragedy that took place with Mr. Diallo. And we can't have that. We can't have that."
___

[bcjack]

More from da' Mayor!!!

Mayor Meets With Family of Slain Groom

By TOM HAYS
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Mayor Michael Bloomberg met Tuesday with the family of the man who was killed on his wedding day in a barrage of police gunfire as he left his bachelor party, and investigators questioned a third civilian witness.

Three days after the fatal encounter, it remained unclear why four detectives and one police officer opened fire while conducting an undercover operation at a strip club.

The unidentified witness was on a darkened block in Queens when five police officers killed 23-year-old Sean Bell and injured two friends as the three men sat inside a car, officials said.

There are two other civilian witnesses: One woman on the street who says she saw officers firing their weapons, and a second woman who from her window spotted a man running away from the area around the time of the shooting. Investigators were trying to determine whether that man had been with the three who were shot. They also reviewed security videotape from the scene.

On Tuesday, Bloomberg went to the Bell family's Queens church, where he met for about an hour with the parents and fiancee of the victim, along with the Rev. Al Sharpton. The mayor then met at a restaurant with about 50 community leaders.

Bell's mother later told WNBC-TV that she appreciated the expressions of sympathy from the mayor and police commissioner, but that she would prefer them not to attend her son's funeral Friday.

"I would rather just have the close friends and family," Valerie Bell said.

Some have questioned whether the shooting was racially motivated because the victims were all black. The five officers who fired their guns included two blacks, two whites and one Hispanic.

The mayor held a similar meeting Monday at City Hall in which he declared that officers appeared to use "excessive force" when Bell was killed hours before his wedding. He stood by his comments Tuesday.
"I am a civilian. I am not a professional law enforcement officer," he said. "I used the word excessive and that's fine. That was my personal opinion. It may turn out to be that it was not excessive."

Councilman James Sanders Jr. of Queens said he warned Bloomberg about possible unrest.

"I alerted the mayor that the temperature on the streets has increased to a large degree," he said. "While we are sitting in these meetings, a lot of people are out on the streets."

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said some tension was inevitable because of "the nature of what police departments do - we arrest people, we give them summonses, we're the bearers of bad news, we use force and sometimes we use deadly force."

Police investigators have not interviewed the officers because of a district attorney probe that could result in criminal charges, nor have the officers spoken publicly. An attorney for the detectives' union, Philip Karasyk, has called the incident "a tragedy, but not a crime."

Union officials familiar with the officers' account say at least one undercover detective was convinced there was a gun in the car. They also allege that Bell defied orders to stop and used the vehicle as a weapon, bumping the undercover detective and ramming an unmarked police van.

"They are genuinely concerned and very sympathetic toward the three men who were shot," said Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives' Endowment Association. "However, they are anxious to speak to the district attorney in Queens and tell their side of the story."

The gunfire early Saturday stemmed from an undercover operation inside the Kalua Cabaret, where seven officers in plain clothes were investigating alleged prostitution and drug use.

Kelly has said Bell was involved in an argument outside the club after 4 a.m., and one of his friends made a reference to a gun. An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward - striking him and an undercover police minivan, Kelly said.

The officer who had followed the group on foot was apparently the first to open fire, Kelly said. One 12-year veteran fired his weapon 31 times, emptying two full magazines, Kelly said.

Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said it was unlikely the officers would face criminal charges. But, he added, the shooting was certain to prompt an overhaul of police tactics.

"I'd be shocked if they ever conduct an operation like this again," he said.

The five officers were placed on paid administrative leave and stripped of their guns during the investigation.

The survivors were Joseph Guzman, 31, who was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, who was hit three times. Guzman was in critical condition and Benefield in stable condition.

The shooting raised tensions beyond New York. Prosecutors in Essex County, N.J., said Tuesday they had information that gangs might target police in retaliation for Bell's death. The warning was shared with police departments and other law enforcement agencies.

___

[paulmc71]

If the driver is deciding to use the vehicle as a weapon and endanger lives, is it right to open fire on ALL occupants of the vehicle?


Comments?

[uoplax13]

Is it right, on some moral level probably not, but would I? Probably. Is it a little callous to say "tough" for the "innocent" passengers? Sure, assuming they're "innocent".......am I any any position to second guess those NYPD guys, nope. How do you open fire on only the driver of a vehicle occupied x2, x3, x4 or however many? In the next 6 months I expect the CHP to train me well, but asking them to give me the ability to be able to direct my bullets only at one person in a loaded car as it travels towards me/is moving at night, etc... well I doubt that's going to happen.

[Mac]

The mayor has pretty much already thrown those coppers under the bus before the investigation has even begun. Keeping some pretty, uh, "distinguished" company, too....a radical, militant racist activist among them. I wonder what the reaction would be if a mayor appeared at a press conference accompanied by the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Brotherhood after a white suspect was shot. Pretty much the same thing.

The cops may have screwed up, or they may have not.....there are presently way too many unanswered questions. Anybody who draws a conclusion based upon the facts that are out there right now is rushing to judgment....and that includes the mayor. At this point in the investigation, his stance should be much more neutral than it is....and he shouldn't be rubbing elbows with Muslim extremists, either.

...The shooting raised tensions beyond New York. Prosecutors in Essex County, N.J., said Tuesday they had information that gangs might target police in retaliation for Bell's death. The warning was shared with police departments and other law enforcement agencies...

Gee....don't gang members normally do things like that when ONE OF THEIR OWN is involved in the incident??? Makes ya wonder......

[David]

If the driver is deciding to use the vehicle as a weapon and endanger lives, is it right to open fire on ALL occupants of the vehicle?


Comments?
You're being chased around on foot by a nut in a car with passengers trying to kill you, and you can fire two magazines worth of ammo (31 rounds total) from a Glock 19/S&W 5906/SIG P226, and hit nothing but the driver? :rolleyes:

You must have some kind of superpowers or something.

[not5150]

You are opening fire on the car and the driver. Tough luck if you hit the passengers.

If you want fair, go to Pomona.

[NWTSCL]

Out of some 50 rounds, 2 hit the driver. Maybe 21 hit the car, and even if that number does not include the 16-22 possible that hit the envolved people, which it very well may, at least 7 missed their intended target completely. The public details are thin, but you have to admit those numbers don't sound good.

I know this was in NY, so most here probably aren't familiar with their weapons training. But how extensive is the training of California officers with moving targets?

[Welpe]

Out of some 50 rounds, 2 hit the driver. Maybe 21 hit the car, and even if that number does not include the 16-22 possible that hit the envolved people, which it very well may, at least 7 missed their intended target completely. The public details are thin, but you have to admit those numbers don't sound good.

How well do you think you'd do if you have to shoot at a moving car that is being driven by somebody intent on hitting and probably killing you?

[not5150]

Adrenaline and the fear of death does wonderful things to your fine motor skills....

The hit ratio sounds about right.

[NWTSCL]

I have not had extensive firearms training, which is why I asked how extensive it actually is. So I cannot answer that with any expertise. And from the details we've read, no one can say with 100% certainty that the driver was "intent on hitting and probably killing."

Has there ever been studies and statistics published on acceptable hit ratios in similar circumstances? In my opinion, I don't see how any bullets, for a lack of better terminology, "flying wild" can be considered "right." Are there certain cirumstances when adrenaline and other factors are so high that a well-trained officer should not open fire? Or should adrenaline-rushed officers always open fire?

I don't mean to downplay the situation, but there are too many details that we do not know.

[dw]

Out of some 50 rounds, 2 hit the driver. Maybe 21 hit the car, and even if that number does not include the 16-22 possible that hit the envolved people, which it very well may, at least 7 missed their intended target completely. The public details are thin, but you have to admit those numbers don't sound good.

I know this was in NY, so most here probably aren't familiar with their weapons training. But how extensive is the training of California officers with moving targets?

Numbers sound pretty good to me at face value... What ranges were involved? How fast was the vehicle moving and in what direction? Were the officers moving as they were shooting? These are all very important factors that I have not seen any answers to.

A combat shooting is not the same as marksmanship at the local range... Try hitting the driver of a moving vehicle (presumably one that is trying to run you over) while retreating and with the greatest surge of adrenaline you've ever felt. Oh, and at night... With that in consideration, 7/50 missing the "target" works for me.

[NWTSCL]

With that in consideration, 7/50 missing the "target" works for me.
If the numbers in the print stories are correct, 7 would be the minimum. Because, as you'd probably agree, several of the rounds that made holes in the vehicle likely made holes in the vehicle's occupants. And I don't think the vehicle as a whole was the target.

[dw]

And from the details we've read, no one can say with 100% certainty that the driver was "intent on hitting and probably killing."

Again, we have to speak hypothetically as none of us know what went on that morning... Personally however, if I have a vehicle staring me in the face and it appears it is being used as a weapon, I am not going to stop to interview the driver and determine his stated intent. Maybe he is a NASCAR driver and has the skill to hit and injure without killing me... I don't particularly care.

I will reiterate that a combat shooting is not a set of organized events. It is a fight to save your life and go home to your family. We plan and train as best as possible, but obviously it is impossible to train for every circumstance. Most shootings last only seconds. Anyone who reviews the events after the fact, with the benefit of time and facts that may not have been known to the officer during the shooting, can argue things should have been done differently. Even after the fact with the same knowledge, there will be differing opinions as to how a situation should have been handled.

In my opinion, any shooting during which an officer abides by policy and law and sees his or her family at the day is a successful one.

I will say that I have not been involved in a combat shooting, however there have been times when I felt justified to use deadly force. I chose not to, but tomorrow may be different... I hope that if I ever do use deadly force, those who cast judgement will do so with all the facts and consider only law and policy -- though I know that is not realistic.

I am not defending the police officers involved in this incident. I do not know them or the facts of the incident. I am simply suggesting there is a helluva' lot more involved than aim, shoot, and stop the threat.

Unfortunately we have come to the point in our society where a cop who (again, hypothetically) acts in self defense and kills a car load of gang bangers is persecuted as an overzealous, incompetent, power hungry, oppressive, racist.

[not5150]

"I don't mean to downplay the situation, but there are too many details that we do not know."

An officer in a deadly force situation has to turn uncertainty into order. You wouldn't have time to go through your "logic tree", while a car is speeding at you.

I bet you are the type of person who wants all the questions answered, all the i's dotted and the t's crossed before you make a decision. This ain't going to happen. These type of people freeze in violent situations. They turn into a wet (sometimes literally) mass of immovable jelly.

Yes, it would be nice to have ESP and read the driver's thoughts. It would be nice to have the steadiest hands on Earth, rivaling that of an NRA pistol champ, and put rounds through the windshield into the driver. It would be nice to not have the angle of the windshield deform the bullet trajectory to hit somewhere else.

The real world is ugly, chaotic and cold. Sometimes you have to make the best judgment based on your experience and what you perceive at the time. You just have to deal with the consequences afterwards.

[NWTSCL]

Unfortunately we have come to the point in our society where a cop who (again, hypothetically) acts in self defense and kills a car load of gang bangers is persecuted as an overzealous, incompetent, power hungry, oppressive, racist.

Then you've already prejudged the people, because I have never seen anything that says they were "gang bangers". Guilty until proven innocent. On this note, you must also feel it was ok for Bloomberg to prejudge the officers publicly. I don't.

[NWTSCL]

I bet you are the type of person who wants all the questions answered, all the i's dotted and the t's crossed before you make a decision. This ain't going to happen. These type of people freeze in violent situations. They turn into a wet (sometimes literally) mass of immovable jelly.

I'm glad that you aleady know exactly who I am, and you are so confident your in people-reading skills that you can typecast me, or anyone, with very little knowledge, and you are equally confident to use your very unique abilities without discretion.

[not5150]

I bet you are the type of person who wants all the questions answered, all the i's dotted and the t's crossed before you make a decision. This ain't going to happen. These type of people freeze in violent situations. They turn into a wet (sometimes literally) mass of immovable jelly.

I'm glad that you aleady know exactly who I am, and you are so confident your in people-reading skills that you can typecast me, or anyone, with very little knowledge, and you are equally confident to use your very unique abilities without discretion.

And yet you've provided no explanation about why I'm supposedly wrong. I'm making my decision based purely on what I see typed by you... a situation analogous to what the officer at the shooting had to do.

Which brings us full circle... you need to make certainty out of uncertainty. Can you do it?

[CHPUSMC]

I bet you are the type of person who wants all the questions answered, all the i's dotted and the t's crossed before you make a decision. This ain't going to happen. These type of people freeze in violent situations. They turn into a wet (sometimes literally) mass of immovable jelly.

I'm glad that you aleady know exactly who I am, and you are so confident your in people-reading skills that you can typecast me, or anyone, with very little knowledge, and you are equally confident to use your very unique abilities without discretion.

As the forum's turn, these are the days of our lives.

It's funny how forums are. You can say one thing and then someone takes it wrong and then Houston, we have ignition. T-Minus 30 seconds and counting for forum explosion.

My take on this is that I will let the investigation play itself out (Unlike Bloomberg or Jackson) before I play the blame gang. I do wonder what the officer who fired 31 rounds was thinking thou. Contagious fire happens, but when you fire 5x to 6x more rounds then the other officers you need to be able to articulate his reasoning to the investigating team responsible. I'm sure that Bloomberg did not fully interview this officer and I think it was a very poor judgment call on his part to question the actions of one of his police officers in a press conference like he did.

Given time we will know the truth on what happened and if sure that any punnishment, if any, will be justified and swift.

On a side note, I recieved a rifle expert rating in the Marines 3 years in a row of the 4 years that I served. However, I'm not going to hunt down the quote so I might take it outta context a little, so I apologize ahead of time if I do. "It seems to me that missing the target 7 times out of 50 is too high". Simply put, I'm sure that a large majority of those rounds were fired in the first 10 seconds, probably as the shooter was mobile, at night. I know that I would not be able to hit the paper target 100% of the time given those circumstances.

When S^$% hits the fan it usually does so at a high rate of speed and your job is to not get hit by it.

Oh yeah, and "Can't we all just get along?"

[Mac]

Are there certain cirumstances when adrenaline and other factors are so high that a well-trained officer should not open fire? Or should adrenaline-rushed officers always open fire?
"Never" and "always" are two words which do not fit into deadly force scenarios. Each situation is different, with its own set of dynamics, and needs to be judged accordingly.

In regards to the "hit ratio" - I've qualified at the "Master" level (the highest rating) for the vast majority of my career, with both revolvers and semi-autos, and can punch a nice, tight group into a paper target at the range - day or night, indoor or outdoor, in wind, rain, stifling heat, biting cold, fog or whatever. I've competed in police combat shooting competitions with timed/scored courses of fire including physical exertion, moving targets, building entries and split second good guy/bad guy determinations, and even have a nice first-place plaque from one of them. I've done quite a bit of simunitions training against live targets in real world situations. I've experienced the effects that movement, exertion and even a little bit of adrenaline have on a shooting platform, and I'll tell you that even the absolute best marksman isn't going to shoot the same neat, tight shot group in a "real-life" combat shooting. I don't know anything about how NYPD trains, I don't know anything about the involved officers' skill/training levels, and I'm not going to pass judgment on the officer who dumped three mags downrange because we don't have all the facts - but on the face of it, 7 rounds out of 50 missing the target in such a situation certainly isn't an outlandish ratio.

To any civilian who wants to get a small taste of what it's like, I'd recommend that you go to your nearest "paintball" field, find a highly competitive and proficient team, and play a few games with them. I don't mean a casual game amongst friends - I mean a competitive match with seasoned players. That's about the closest you'll ever come to combat conditions short of the "real thing". Shoot your paintball gun at the range and gloat over how accurate you are - then watch your shooting skills go to hell out on the field after you've run, dove through bushes, rolled around, and dodged 300-fps .68 caliber projectiles whistling past you. Your adrenaline will be pumping, you'll be panting and aching - and people will be shooting back at you. While you still may hit your target, you'll find that it's nowhere near as easy, nor will you be as accurate, as you were on the range under far less stressful conditions....and that still falls far short of the real deal where the stakes are much higher and you don't just "wipe it off" when you've been hit.

Back to the original topic - As I said before, there aren't enough facts out yet to make any kind of accurate assessment of this particular shooting....either to commend or condemn them. If they were wrong, let the cards fall where they will - but if not, it shouldn't be made out to be anything more than what it is. It's a sad commentary on today's society when an officer has to hope that the person they use justified force against is of the same sex, race, socio-economic standing, sexual preference, religion and age as they are, just to avoid any controversy over the shooting being motivated by one of the above.

[not5150]

"Oh yeah, and "Can't we all just get along?""

Unfortunately, some of us are getting a bit ornery as we get older :badgrin:

[dw]

Unfortunately we have come to the point in our society where a cop who (again, hypothetically) acts in self defense and kills a car load of gang bangers is persecuted as an overzealous, incompetent, power hungry, oppressive, racist.

Then you've already prejudged the people, because I have never seen anything that says they were "gang bangers". Guilty until proven innocent. On this note, you must also feel it was ok for Bloomberg to prejudge the officers publicly. I don't.

Ummm... I was using a hypothetical situation to illustrate my point. But, okay -- add prejudiced to the list. :rolleyes:

[NWTSCL]

Ummm... I was using a hypothetical situation to illustrate my point. But, okay -- add prejudiced to the list. :rolleyes:
On that note...Unfortunately we have come to the point in our society where people (again, hypothetically) are shot it a hail of gunfire by a group of cops because one thought he heard mention of a gun. According to reports, this cop was the only one who may have heard it. Yet the police have said that the supposed fourth man, the one who supposedly took off, was the one with the gun! (This is in the report below.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/nyregion/03shooting.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1165161715-OERr+UKFWl2NAaZuD6mTeg


Unfortunately we have come to a time where everyone in a vehicle is shot by highly trained officers, even though only one person is in control of the vehicle. Unfortuantely we all have come to the point that everyone must worry about getting shot because someone else, who ran off, may have had a gun.

[Mac]

...Unfortuantely we all have come to the point that everyone must worry about getting shot because someone else, who ran off, may have had a gun.
Rather broad sweeping generalization, isn't it?

[Mac]

If you're not a officer or an applicant and are just here for the purpose of baiting officers, making sweeping generalizations about law enforcement and debating every current event with anybody who'll take it up with you, you're not going to last long.

The purpose of this board isn't for the general public to come here and tell us how screwed up they think cops are. We get more than enough of that while we're at work.

[NWTSCL]

If you're not a officer or an applicant and are just here for the purpose of baiting officers, making sweeping generalizations about law enforcement and debating every current event with anybody who'll take it up with you, you're not going to last long.
If you'll go back and review the all the posts that I've made over time, you'll see that I have been contributing very informative and helpful information. It wasn't until officers began making their 'sweeping generalizations'--conduct that you are condemning of me--about the general public, genralizations that are degrading and insulting, that I started posting things that certain officers view as objectionable, even though there is no falsity to them. If it can be dished out here, but not taken, then, yeah, I guess this forum isn't place for me. This forum is open to everyone, even general public. But if the consensus here, especially by the moderators, is to not care about what the general public has to say, then yes--I won't 'last long here.' Neither will anyone else. Why is this forum open to the general public if you don't want to hear from them? I'd think that officers would want to see the public's perspective on things, especially alternatate perspectives. But I guess I'm wrong with this bunch. So have at it. Keep bashing the public, and the public will intensify their negative and critical view of officers.

[SweetTaterPie]

If you're not a officer or an applicant and are just here for the purpose of baiting officers, making sweeping generalizations about law enforcement and debating every current event with anybody who'll take it up with you, you're not going to last long.
If you'll go back and review the all the posts that I've made over time, you'll see that I have been contributing very informative and helpful information. It wasn't until officers began making their 'sweeping generalizations'--conduct that you are condemning of me--about the general public, genralizations that are degrading and insulting, that I started posting things that certain officers view as objectionable, even though there is no falsity to them. If it can be dished out here, but not taken, then, yeah, I guess this forum isn't place for me. This forum is open to everyone, even general public. But if the consensus here, especially by the moderators, is to not care about what the general public has to say, then yes--I won't 'last long here.' Neither will anyone else. Why is this forum open to the general public if you don't want to hear from them? I'd think that officers would want to see the public's perspective on things, especially alternatate perspectives. But I guess I'm wrong with this bunch. So have at it. Keep bashing the public, and the public will intensify their negative and critical view of officers.

The problem isn't with a dissenting opinion, it's with the aggressive tenor. No one learns anything or, for that matter, listens to anything someone says, if an openly hostile attitude is perceived. You have just complained that officers on this forum post generalizations that are insulting and degrading to the public; and, you stated that those insulting comments spurred your mutually insulting and degrading comments toward law enforcement. I'd never seen anything you wrote, until you decided to rant on my perception of daylight headlight sections. Yet you felt compelled to "judge" me without asking for a clarification, or an explanation, first. Could it be that you misunderstood me, because you don't do my job, don't walk in my shoes, et cetera? You'll note that I elected to take the high road, regarding the aforementioned post, because I viewed your comments as antagonistic, and I realized my own response would tend to be colored by that. You state there is no falsity to your statements...who is the judge of that, you alone? You begin to sound like the person who claims the thousand others must be wrong, for he/she cannot be. The majority of what I've read from you, in my short time on this forum, has been negatively tinged, and targeted at law enforcement. How do you expect others to take your comments. You're not offering an opinion, you're just throwing barely veiled zingers with high-hit probability, innuendo with intent. I won't try to tell you whether you should be here or not....it's a free Internet designed for our use by Al Gore. But it certainly won't be an enjoyable experience for you if you decide that every dissenting opinion must be interpreted as a hostile action against you.

[dw]

If you'll go back and review the all the posts that I've made over time, you'll see that I have been contributing very informative and helpful information. It wasn't until officers began making their 'sweeping generalizations'--conduct that you are condemning of me--about the general public, genralizations that are degrading and insulting, that I started posting things that certain officers view as objectionable, even though there is no falsity to them. If it can be dished out here, but not taken, then, yeah, I guess this forum isn't place for me. This forum is open to everyone, even general public. But if the consensus here, especially by the moderators, is to not care about what the general public has to say, then yes--I won't 'last long here.' Neither will anyone else. Why is this forum open to the general public if you don't want to hear from them? I'd think that officers would want to see the public's perspective on things, especially alternatate perspectives. But I guess I'm wrong with this bunch. So have at it. Keep bashing the public, and the public will intensify their negative and critical view of officers.

Okay, I'll bite.

I don't see how anyone here has bashed the public. Some of us have expressed opinions that differ with yours and much of the general public -- in my book that doesn't constitute bashing. We see things differently than most of the public as we have received specialized training and have experienced things most of the public can not imagine. Regarding my posts, I think I was pretty clear that I was expressing my opinion. By no means do I claim to be the end-all expert on anything.

Maybe I'm naive, but I expect we should be able to have an articulate discussion about, say, shooting policies. I would very much like you to be able to at least understand our side of things, if not agree with it. I too am willing to see your side of things, though I may not agree with it. It is difficult to discuss an opinion on this specific case because none of us were there. If we're going to have such a debate, I find it easier to lay out a scenario we can all work with. As has been said however, nothing is absolute in law enforcement.

Back to the topic, let me throw this out: Does society have unrealistic expectations? There is such a thing as risk and collateral damage. Though the public is exposed to record violence in television and film, that violence is often portrayed in a "neat and orderly" fashion; the bad guy gets dead and the good guy, though injured, goes home. We've watched COPS for over a decade where things usually go well -- the chaos that can be law enforcement is not shown. Are we too sheltered? I have never served in the military, or been overseas, but I think experiencing life where life itself is uncertain for the average citizen may put things in perspective. We have things pretty good here and we have a lot of men and women to thank for that. We should strive for excellence and a Utopian society; unfortunately as things stand, that is not reality. We expect to call 911 and have the police come and make everything better. The reality is that doo doo happens and we make the best of it. We make the best of it based on our training and experience. With the exception of corrupt officers who slip through the cracks, we're in this for the "right" reason and have a desire to improve the quality of life.

Should we restrict combat shootings during an adrenaline rush? My opinion: No, to do so would virtually abolish firearms as weapons as the vast majority of shootings will be coupled with adrenaline. You mentioned most of the shooting in the aforementioned incident occurring within 10 seconds. I'm not sure where that number came from, but most combat shootings last far less than 10 seconds. I emphasize the point because 10 seconds is a long time to gather and evaluate information.

Consider the following: You're an off-duty officer or a civilian with a firearm. You are in line at Starbucks and carrying a .357 round that may or may not over penetrate a person. Two customers in front of you and with his back toward you, a man puts a gun to the cashier's head, demanding money. What do you do?





If you took more than one second to make a decision, you failed. I provide the scenario not to address a specific situation, but to illustrate decision making. Sure, there are a hundred other factors that I have left out of the scenario, but that is often our reality. We have to make life or death decisions based on the information available at the time, and those decisions have to be made in a split second.

[CHPUSMC]

[quote=NWTSCL
Should we restrict combat shootings during an adrenaline rush? My opinion: No, to do so would virtually abolish firearms as weapons as the vast majority of shootings will be coupled with adrenaline. You mentioned most of the shooting in the aforementioned incident occurring within 10 seconds. I'm not sure where that number came from, but most combat shootings last far less than 10 seconds. I emphasize the point because 10 seconds is a long time to gather and evaluate information.


I have to admit DW the 10 seconds came from my closet and was no way intended as fact or what happened in this case.

Simply put, I'm sure that a large majority of those rounds were fired in the first 10 seconds, probably as the shooter was mobile, at night. I know that I would not be able to hit the paper target 100% of the time given those circumstances.


10 seconds was the amount of time that it took me to dry fire 16 rounds from my Beretta 92fs, reload a mag from a belt and dry fire 15 more rounds (I was probably slower then the officer because if my pistol was loaded then I would not have had to apply as much trigger pressure with the hammer cocked) It was an assumption on my part that the officer who fired the 31 rounds took, in the ball park, 10 seconds to fire those rounds...maybe at a faster rate, maybe at a slower rate. There is more information about this shooting then anyone here in California could know even with our forum crystal ball of truth. My apologies since I did not state just the facts and threw in an opinion. We need to let the case run its course and see where ends up.

[NWTSCL]

Okay, I'll bite.

I don't see how anyone here has bashed the public.
Do you truly want to know? Or, as I fear it is, would anyone who points out the specifics be setting themselves up for a public lashing here?

[dw]

Okay, I'll bite.

I don't see how anyone here has bashed the public.
Do you truly want to know? Or, as I fear it is, would anyone who points out the specifics be setting themselves up for a public lashing here?

Yup, you're right. I spent the time writing not in an attempt to provide insight, but rather to bait you so we could lash out with all our repressed anger.

We're done. Thread locked.