Sean Bell's Killers (NYC Cops) Walk

[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.