NY shooting, cops acquitted

[Ace-o-fire]

I don’t know anything about this case, but.


If they just pulling up the race card in this "They shot him cuz he was black" Then he must have been doing something wrong. They could have said "They shot him cuz he wasn’t responding back" maybe then i would give them.

Now 50 is a lot, but when it comes too it, If he was still standing then they might load more in to him. I don’t know how cops work. My friends dad was a cop, and he would say something like if the man goes down and you can see he hands clearly then they don’t shoot, but if they guy is walking at them with his hands hidden then they will assume the worst.


Now I don’t think cops should use a "Shoot to kill" attitude, it should be more "Shoot to injure, or “shoot to immobilize” they could have shot him in the legs or the arms or something.

I think the police offers shouldn’t be tried of anything, they should just be taken off the streets for the rest of their career.

[sb]

If they just pulling up the race card in this "They shot him cuz he was black" Then he must have been doing something wrong. They could have said "They shot him cuz he wasn’t responding back" maybe then i would give them.a

First shot fired came from a Black officer.

[Ace-o-fire]

If they just pulling up the race card in this "They shot him cuz he was black" Then he must have been doing something wrong. They could have said "They shot him cuz he wasn’t responding back" maybe then i would give them.a

First shot fired came from a Black officer.

oh didnt know.

well guess i have no clue why they are up in arms.

[Melchiah]

But...what difference does it make? Maybe he flipped out and was just so distressed he completely fell back onto training...there's instances of guys in the military that just keep shooting and shooting long after the threat is neutralized. Cops don't get in shootouts every day, this is on the average rare. You're trying to imply that he was playing cowboy out there, that he relished what he was doing etc, and just because he reloaded you can't reasonably come to that conclusion.

You can fire him because he shouldn't have shot at the guy in the first place, because protocol was broken. But you can't fire the guy if he did everything right but just shot too many times. I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

At which point he has proven himself unfit for that kind of work. Military personnel, cops, whatever. If you "flip out" under the pressure, you are unfit for the work.

As someone above said, there is no need to be training cops to empty their clips into perps. That is just shitty marksmanship. 1-3 rounds is sufficient to bring anyone down unless they are jacked up on dust or some other drug.

[Nystul]

But...what difference does it make? Maybe he flipped out and was just so distressed he completely fell back onto training...there's instances of guys in the military that just keep shooting and shooting long after the threat is neutralized. Cops don't get in shootouts every day, this is on the average rare. You're trying to imply that he was playing cowboy out there, that he relished what he was doing etc, and just because he reloaded you can't reasonably come to that conclusion.

You can fire him because he shouldn't have shot at the guy in the first place, because protocol was broken. But you can't fire the guy if he did everything right but just shot too many times. I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

At which point he has proven himself unfit for that kind of work. Military personnel, cops, whatever. If you "flip out" under the pressure, you are unfit for the work.

As someone above said, there is no need to be training cops to empty their clips into perps. That is just shitty marksmanship. 1-3 rounds is sufficient to bring anyone down unless they are jacked up on dust or some other drug.

"Please hold still sir, before this escalates into a shootout, I need to do a blood test to determine if you are on PCP."

Also, I don't remember where I saw this but handguns, even in the hands of the average trained officer are remarkably inaccurate. I want to say like less than 50% but in the heat of the moment, especially when the target is live and moving, it is far harder to hit someone than most people would think. I'm not going to go look it up because I'm tired and lazy but suffice to say that the odds of hitting something are much lower than people would think.

[Koyuki]

But...what difference does it make? Maybe he flipped out and was just so distressed he completely fell back onto training...there's instances of guys in the military that just keep shooting and shooting long after the threat is neutralized. Cops don't get in shootouts every day, this is on the average rare. You're trying to imply that he was playing cowboy out there, that he relished what he was doing etc, and just because he reloaded you can't reasonably come to that conclusion.

You can fire him because he shouldn't have shot at the guy in the first place, because protocol was broken. But you can't fire the guy if he did everything right but just shot too many times. I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

At which point he has proven himself unfit for that kind of work. Military personnel, cops, whatever. If you "flip out" under the pressure, you are unfit for the work.

As someone above said, there is no need to be training cops to empty their clips into perps. That is just shitty marksmanship. 1-3 rounds is sufficient to bring anyone down unless they are jacked up on dust or some other drug.

"Please hold still sir, before this escalates into a shootout, I need to do a blood test to determine if you are on PCP."

Also, I don't remember where I saw this but handguns, even in the hands of the average trained officer are remarkably inaccurate. I want to say like less than 50% but in the heat of the moment, especially when the target is live and moving, it is far harder to hit someone than most people would think. I'm not going to go look it up because I'm tired and lazy but suffice to say that the odds of hitting something are much lower than people would think.

You do know it's easy as fuck for someone to tell if a person is on something right?

[Nystul]

But...what difference does it make? Maybe he flipped out and was just so distressed he completely fell back onto training...there's instances of guys in the military that just keep shooting and shooting long after the threat is neutralized. Cops don't get in shootouts every day, this is on the average rare. You're trying to imply that he was playing cowboy out there, that he relished what he was doing etc, and just because he reloaded you can't reasonably come to that conclusion.

You can fire him because he shouldn't have shot at the guy in the first place, because protocol was broken. But you can't fire the guy if he did everything right but just shot too many times. I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

At which point he has proven himself unfit for that kind of work. Military personnel, cops, whatever. If you "flip out" under the pressure, you are unfit for the work.

As someone above said, there is no need to be training cops to empty their clips into perps. That is just shitty marksmanship. 1-3 rounds is sufficient to bring anyone down unless they are jacked up on dust or some other drug.

"Please hold still sir, before this escalates into a shootout, I need to do a blood test to determine if you are on PCP."

Also, I don't remember where I saw this but handguns, even in the hands of the average trained officer are remarkably inaccurate. I want to say like less than 50% but in the heat of the moment, especially when the target is live and moving, it is far harder to hit someone than most people would think. I'm not going to go look it up because I'm tired and lazy but suffice to say that the odds of hitting something are much lower than people would think.

You do know it's easy as fuck for someone to tell if a person is on something right?

You can tell the difference between someone on coke, on meth, on PCP, on acid, on crack? On the fly? While under duress?

[Koyuki]

But...what difference does it make? Maybe he flipped out and was just so distressed he completely fell back onto training...there's instances of guys in the military that just keep shooting and shooting long after the threat is neutralized. Cops don't get in shootouts every day, this is on the average rare. You're trying to imply that he was playing cowboy out there, that he relished what he was doing etc, and just because he reloaded you can't reasonably come to that conclusion.

You can fire him because he shouldn't have shot at the guy in the first place, because protocol was broken. But you can't fire the guy if he did everything right but just shot too many times. I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

At which point he has proven himself unfit for that kind of work. Military personnel, cops, whatever. If you "flip out" under the pressure, you are unfit for the work.

As someone above said, there is no need to be training cops to empty their clips into perps. That is just shitty marksmanship. 1-3 rounds is sufficient to bring anyone down unless they are jacked up on dust or some other drug.

"Please hold still sir, before this escalates into a shootout, I need to do a blood test to determine if you are on PCP."

Also, I don't remember where I saw this but handguns, even in the hands of the average trained officer are remarkably inaccurate. I want to say like less than 50% but in the heat of the moment, especially when the target is live and moving, it is far harder to hit someone than most people would think. I'm not going to go look it up because I'm tired and lazy but suffice to say that the odds of hitting something are much lower than people would think.

You do know it's easy as fuck for someone to tell if a person is on something right?

You can tell the difference between someone on coke, on meth, on PCP, on acid, on crack? On the fly? While under duress?

You can't differentiate no, but if you can tell he is on something be it meth, coke, pcp or whatever that alone should give you more then enough reason to be very cautious on how you proceed.

[Xiona]

honestly i can see why a spray of bullets are used. if the probability that ill live goes up with each bullet i fire, chances are i would fire as many as possible. when people get loud or spectators try and put in their 2 cents i would definately feel more threatened.

it has nothing to do with race, it looked to me like it was a tense situation

[Melchiah]

If you put three 9mm rounds into a person and they aren't writhing in pain and are still trying to hurt you, it's fairly obvious they are either Bruce Banner or on something. 31 rounds is excessive. This cop was shooting rounds into a subdued perp.

[sb]

honestly i can see why a spray of bullets are used. if the probability that ill live goes up with each bullet i fire, chances are i would fire as many as possible.

Surveillance cameras at the Port Authority's Jamaica AirTrain station a half block away from the shooting site recorded one of the bullets fired by the officers shattering through the station's glass window and narrowly missing a civilian and two Port Authority patrolmen who were standing on the station's elevated platform.[19][30](from the Sean Bell wiki)

This is why you don't spray.

[BRP]

I don't think they should face criminal charges, but I hope they suffer some significant consequences. Like a major demotion or being relieved. Sounds like they made a huge mistake in reacting to the situation. I'm no cop so I don't know what they teach them to do.

[Alina]

yeah no one should evaluate the actions of others for any reason because they're not that person.

No. I do think there should be accountability, especially when we're talking about people who's decisions can affect the lives' of others. However, when people make it seem like they KNOW what happened, and WHY it happened, and that "there should be no reason to reload", when they weren't even there, that's when it's too much.

It pisses me off when people so easily judge the actions of another person, when they have no idea what drove them to that decision at that point in time. Remember, hindsight is 20/20, but in a potential life and death situation, the decision you make isn't exactly laid out in front of you as "right" and "wrong". You don't have the luxury of time to analyze the situation, nor is it possible to mind read and find out what your potential threat is going to do.

Remember, police officers are out there risking their lives for ours. Haven't the amount of cop killings gone up in recent years? Don't forget that behind the uniform, they are people too. They have families and friends they need to think about, as well. I would hope that no one would be ridiculous enough to think that they should be willing to die, just in case that person reaching into their pockets is actually grabbing something other than a gun. If you are stupid enough to not listen to a police officer, and do something that might give them cause to shoot you, that's your own fault.

[Deejay]

I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

Yes it is, because 2-10 shots makes it look like you were shooting to neutralize the target. If the target dies then it's just a sad/negative outcome from your effort to stop him from whatever he was doing.

When you unload 31 rounds, it doesn't look like your main effort was to neutralize the target, but to shoot so many times that there is 0% chance he survives. In this instance your motive was to kill instead of put a stop to whatever the guy was attempting to do.

[thestalkmore]

I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

Yes it is, because 2-10 shots makes it look like you were shooting to neutralize the target. If the target dies then it's just a sad/negative outcome from your effort to stop him from whatever he was doing.

When you unload 31 rounds, it doesn't look like your main effort was to neutralize the target, but to shoot so many times that there is 0% chance he survives. In this instance your motive was to kill instead of put a stop to whatever the guy was attempting to do.

Did you miss the entire thread/10000000 posts about how police are trained to shoot to kill, not to neutralize?

[Deejay]

I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

Yes it is, because 2-10 shots makes it look like you were shooting to neutralize the target. If the target dies then it's just a sad/negative outcome from your effort to stop him from whatever he was doing.

When you unload 31 rounds, it doesn't look like your main effort was to neutralize the target, but to shoot so many times that there is 0% chance he survives. In this instance your motive was to kill instead of put a stop to whatever the guy was attempting to do.

Did you miss the entire thread/10000000 posts about how police are trained to shoot to kill, not to neutralize?

Did you miss the part of my post where I was replying to what Nystul was saying? If he's pointing out that excessive force=killing, i'm saying that killing via 31 shots could be viewed as a hate crime. It shouldn't take a anyone, much less a cop to kill someone with 31 bullets.

[Khamsin]

I don't see where the big deal is. Excessive force would be killing someone, not killing someone too much.

Yes it is, because 2-10 shots makes it look like you were shooting to neutralize the target. If the target dies then it's just a sad/negative outcome from your effort to stop him from whatever he was doing.

When you unload 31 rounds, it doesn't look like your main effort was to neutralize the target, but to shoot so many times that there is 0% chance he survives. In this instance your motive was to kill instead of put a stop to whatever the guy was attempting to do.

You don't shoot 2-10 rounds at someone hoping they'll survive. The motive was to kill from the first bullet fired.

[Beckwin]

yeah no one should evaluate the actions of others for any reason because they're not that person.

No. I do think there should be accountability, especially when we're talking about people who's decisions can affect the lives' of others. However, when people make it seem like they KNOW what happened, and WHY it happened, and that "there should be no reason to reload", when they weren't even there, that's when it's too much.

It pisses me off when people so easily judge the actions of another person, when they have no idea what drove them to that decision at that point in time. Remember, hindsight is 20/20, but in a potential life and death situation, the decision you make isn't exactly laid out in front of you as "right" and "wrong". You don't have the luxury of time to analyze the situation, nor is it possible to mind read and find out what your potential threat is going to do.

Remember, police officers are out there risking their lives for ours. Haven't the amount of cop killings gone up in recent years? Don't forget that behind the uniform, they are people too. They have families and friends they need to think about, as well. I would hope that no one would be ridiculous enough to think that they should be willing to die, just in case that person reaching into their pockets is actually grabbing something other than a gun. If you are stupid enough to not listen to a police officer, and do something that might give them cause to shoot you, that's your own fault.

we're giving out opinions based on what we do know.

without being there or having police training, looking at the numbers and seeing one guy fire 31 bullets (at least 1 full clip; possibly 2) while his coworkers fired ~10 at most on a vehicle occupied by people not shooting back raises some pretty obvious and legitimate questions.

if you want to offer dissenting opinion towards those that don't think the end result was evaluated and handled justly then that's fine, but criticizing people for asking pretty reasonable questions just kinda reeks of authoritarianism, to me.

[Nystul]

as far as I know, cops either don't shoot at all, or shoot with the intent to kill. Kill is finite. There is no somewhat killed, mostly killed, thoroughly killed...The end result is person is dead no matter how many bits and pieces they end up in.

There are two elements to people's reaction to this case. I don't know the details to the case, I don't care to know. It doesn't really matter as far as this argument is concerned.

1. Excessive force: For someone who was merely reaching for a wallet, the *decision to shoot* shows excessive force. The decision to shoot MEANS the decision to kill the person. That, on the surface, seems to be beyond reasonable expectations. Cops have a difficult job to balance their own safety and the safety of innocent civilians. This is actually why there is a shoot to kill policy- pulling the trigger is the final absolute last resort, or it should be. The number of bullets fired is irrelevant because the end result is the same- guy is dead. This is different than beating someone. Hit once, well...shit happens. Hit repeatedly and, typically, the injuries are worse, the outcome is worse. But killing...well...it's like dumping buckets of water on someone. After the first one the job is done. You can't get more wet, you're already wet. It may be unnecessary but it doesn't change the end result.

2. Implications of many bullets: some are trying to infer from the number of rounds shot that the cop was relishing this or enjoying it or something. But, at least superficially, that doesn't have to be the case. I wasn't there, I didn't see how the guy reacted, what happened when he was shot etc.

To me, it seems that the cop was poorly trained in how to enter and manage a situation like this, where someone is drawn upon and makes a movement, and his poor training or poor execution of his training lead him to incorrectly make the decision to use deadly force.


Edit- story: A few months ago my fiance and I were driving home from the gym when she spotted a car that had slid down the ravine from a dirt road off the main road we were on. We circled back for a second look but there isn't a shoulder and traffic moves at 55 here so pulling over safely was hard etc. We went about half a mile up and there was a cop that had pulled someone over for speeding. I pulled in behind the cop to eventually tell him about it- we didn't get a good enough look at the car to know if it was recent or not or a junker or whatever. Anyway I pull in behind him staying back about 3 car lengths to not crowd him and make him nervous. I also made it a point to stay in the car and not approach. Eventually he came over to our car and we went and looked (the car was old, had been there a while, is still there btw). After he took our info etc he shook my hand and said "by the way...if you ever need to do something like this again, pull in FRONT of the cop. Not behind. It makes us nervous. There are a lot of good people out there but there are enough that don't like us."

Point is, cops are constantly on guard- at least a good one. I understand that they need to be careful and cautious, but as I said, a balance needs to be struck between cop safety and everyone else safety. It's not so easy.

[Beckwin]

I just want to take the time to remind everyone that had the killed & injured actually been responsible citizens using their 2nd amendment right, they would not have fallen victim to their government oppressors and this would've ended much better.