Sean Bell's Killers (NYC Cops) Walk

[shinerbock]

Of course saying "go get my gun" doesn't mean they have one, but if you've heard that, and someone makes some sudden movement in a tense situation, it can certainly create reasonable fear for your life.

I still don't see how this shooting is anything other than absurd, but I don't think that statement can be discounted.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Of course saying "go get my gun" doesn't mean they have one, but if you've heard that, and someone makes some sudden movement in a tense situation, it can certainly create reasonable fear for your life.

I still don't see how this shooting is anything other than absurd, but I don't think that statement can be discounted.

still doesn't mean you fire reload and keep firing

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

still doesn't mean you fire reload and keep firing

And clearly I didn't say anything that would give rise to such an inference.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

And clearly I didn't say anything that would give rise to such an inference.

"reasonable fear for your life"?


mmmkay

SHOOT TIL SAFE

April 7, 2008 -- The NYPD trains its officers to continue firing their weapons until a target no longer poses a threat, an expert will testify this week at the trial of three officers charged in the 50-shot killing of Sean Bell.

The witness, an expert in police training and tactics, will explain when police officers "can use deadly force," said a defense source.

He is also expected to contradict the prosecution's claim that the officers should have fired just three times and then stopped to assess the situation.

"It's a ridiculous notion of firing three shots and then stopping, which is never taught in the Police Department," the source said.

Detective Michael Oliver fired 31 times and Detective Gescard Isnora 11 times during the chaotic events of Nov. 25, 2006, outside the Kalua strip club in Jamaica. Both are charged with manslaughter. Detective Michael Cooper, who fired four times, is charged with reckless endangerment. Two other cops fired a total of four bullets.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04072008...ted_105371.htm

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

"reasonable fear ..."?


mmmkay

Reasonable fear has nothing to do with the totality of the circumstances. I have no idea what really happened, but the comments about a gun certainly add to the argument that at least initially, the officers reasonably feared for their lives.

[NappyBison]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Of course saying "go get my gun" doesn't mean they have one, but if you've heard that, and someone makes some sudden movement in a tense situation, it can certainly create reasonable fear for your life.

I still don't see how this shooting is anything other than absurd, but I don't think that statement can be discounted.

Yes this is true, and given the circumstances I'd be wary of Bell and his friends if I was an officer on the scene. Police training should tell you that after at least one shot, you've successfully disabled your target to say the least After the first round did they think Bell was still a "threat" to their lives????

Come on!

NYPD is notorious for using excessive force throughout history. They're comparable to a watered-down version of the Ku Klux Klan if you ask me.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

Yes this is true, and given the circumstances I'd be wary of Bell and his friends if I was an officer on the scene. Police training should tell you that after at least one shot, you've successfully disabled your target to say the least After the first round did they think Bell was still a "threat" to their lives????

Come on!

Next time you have a conversation with an officer or perhaps a solder/Marine, ask them that question.
I know that I can not give you the answer that you deserve or are looking for. And a strongly suspect that very few posters on GC can either.

I am aware of studies on that very matter however.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

Yes this is true, and given the circumstances I'd be wary of Bell and his friends if I was an officer on the scene. Police training should tell you that after at least one shot, you've successfully disabled your target to say the least After the first round did they think Bell was still a "threat" to their lives????

Come on!

I think the amount of shots is certainly worthy of high scrutiny, but I disagree with what you're saying.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting multiple times, especially if you think the other person has a gun. Unless you completely stop the threat with one round, you keep going. I think that is a big problem in these cases, because if they can explain away firing initially, it is difficult to say the amount of rounds fired changes it from self-defense to anything else.

[NappyBison]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think the amount of shots is certainly worthy of high scrutiny, but I disagree with what you're saying.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting multiple times, especially if you think the other person has a gun. Unless you completely stop the threat with one round, you keep going. I think that is a big problem in these cases, because if they can explain away firing initially, it is difficult to say the amount of rounds fired changes it from self-defense to anything else.

I don't think "anything worth shooting" is worth shooting multiple times. Especially from the professional standpoint of an officer of the law. A shooting such as this is expecting of rival gangs who harbor hate behind their bullets. Self-defense is just a crutch that the NYPD has used for years to justify wrongful slaughters such as these.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

I don't think "anything worth shooting" is worth shooting multiple times. Especially from the professional standpoint of an officer of the law. A shooting such as this is expecting of rival gangs who harbor hate behind their bullets. Self-defense is just a crutch that the NYPD has used for years to justify wrongful slaughters such as these.

Originally Posted by jon1856

Next time you have a conversation with an officer or perhaps a solder/Marine, ask them that question.
I know that I can not give you the answer that you deserve or are looking for. And a strongly suspect that very few posters on GC can either.

I am aware of studies on that very matter however.

And BTB Nappy, those studys cover much more than NYPD.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

I don't think "anything worth shooting" is worth shooting multiple times. Especially from the professional standpoint of an officer of the law. A shooting such as this is expecting of rival gangs who harbor hate behind their bullets. Self-defense is just a crutch that the NYPD has used for years to justify wrongful slaughters such as these.

It depends on the circumstances.

I can think of plenty of situations that I have seen where once shot just isn't going to get the job done.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

I don't think "anything worth shooting" is worth shooting multiple times. Especially from the professional standpoint of an officer of the law. A shooting such as this is expecting of rival gangs who harbor hate behind their bullets. Self-defense is just a crutch that the NYPD has used for years to justify wrongful slaughters such as these.

I'm not disputing that 50 seems like a very high number. I'm arguing that shooting merely once is unrealistic in a lot of situations. The average cop is not capable of consistent shots guaranteed to stop an aggressor. Even the most capable shooters in the country are likely to fire more than a single round at someone they believe poses a danger.

[NappyBison]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm not disputing that 50 seems like a very high number. I'm arguing that shooting merely once is unrealistic in a lot of situations. The average cop is not capable of consistent shots guaranteed to stop an aggressor. Even the most capable shooters in the country are likely to fire more than a single round at someone they believe poses a danger.

I agree that it may take more than one round to stop an aggressor, but in Bell's case it was overkill. Unless these cops were trying to take out a wooly mammoth, 50 rounds was more than enough to stop Bell or any other human being for that matter.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

I agree that it may take more than one round to stop an aggressor, but in Bell's case it was overkill. Unless these cops were trying to take out a wooly mammoth, 50 rounds was more than enough to stop Bell or any other human being for that matter.

Yeah, and in addition to the high number of rounds, they were dispersed pretty wildly. Extremely reckless shooting, it appears.

Fifty rounds in a shootout is not ridiculous, but with no return fire and only one "aggressor," it certainly is a large number.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by NappyBison

NYPD is notorious for using excessive force throughout history. They're comparable to a watered-down version of the Ku Klux Klan if you ask me.

Could you send me a PM with any kind of documention on this?