Cops kill Groom.

deep_thinkin said:
I doubt they would do that on purpose. Read my post. If a first shot was fired and several followed after the first ram, the driver would be *****ting his pants and freaking out. It's kind of hard to think when in a panic. He may have rammed the gas and not have been aware of his actions.
How do you hit a van..[the first one might have been an accident] then throw the car in reverse, crash into a store, hitting or nearly hitting an officer, throw the car in drive again and ram the van again and it NOT be done on purpose?

As can be seen in the pic in the link I posted

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/nyregion/26cops.html?em&ex=1164690000&en=3224a01c2af0d48e&ei=5087

it's not like it was a confined space.
 
According to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, officers do NOT have permission to fire on a moving vehicle unless the person or persons in the vehicle are firing at the officers first. This was announced earlier by Kelly at a press conference.

According to the NY Post, reason the gunfire happened was not due to the accident, but the officer that was nearly run down fired at the car. The bullet went through the car, seeming like the people in the car were shooting at the undercover officers.

Mayor Bloomberg seemingly condemned the shooting during the press conference, not saying that anyone was at fault yet (the DA will decide that after a grand jury) but that the use of 50 rounds was overkill.

One officer (12 years) shot 31 times. The officer nearly run down (5 years) shot 11 times. The other 3 officers (5 years, 11 years and 17 years respectively) shot a total of 8 times, I believe 3, 4 and 1.
 
Master Chief said:
Oh, so they were in a car ramming a van? I thought they were in a van ramming... a van. :dry: Regardless, it was still sloppily handled no matter how much you try to justify it being defense. The officers weren't even in uniform and most likely didn't identify themselves as police officers.
When being attacked, their first priorty is to defend themselves. The time it takes to identify themselves can be the difference between any of them walking away and being hurt or killed.
 
Totally agree Savage. jks, I fail to see how a man's life and the near-fatal injuries his buddies suffered are worth 3 car dents and a non-fatal car hit. 50 rounds?

"...unless those 30 were needed". Yeah, getthafckouttaheah. Stop grasping for straws.
 
jks said:
When being attacked, their first priorty is to defend themselves. The time it takes to identify themselves can be the difference between any of them walking away and being hurt or killed.

But dude, the rules of engagement.
 
jks said:
Then common sense would be to drive away, not continue ramming them.
You make it seem like an attack. The driver was drunk obviously. He tried to back up and get out of there, I'm sure, but instead rammed them again. It was a crazy situation. I wonder what the cops would have done if they didn't have guns. To me that use of force was unnecessary. The front of the car is like...lodged into the police van. It's not going anywhere. Why fire at it? Unless I missed the part where the car backed up again and tried to drive off.
 
jks said:
How do you hit a van..[the first one might have been an accident] then throw the car in reverse, crash into a store, hitting or nearly hitting an officer, throw the car in drive again and ram the van again and it NOT be done on purpose?

As can be seen in the pic in the link I posted

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/nyregion/26cops.html?em&ex=1164690000&en=3224a01c2af0d48e&ei=5087%0A

it's not like it was a confined space.

When you're being SHOT at by guys you can't see, at night, which means it's dark, the guys would most likely be very freaked. They may not have been able to see [due to whatever reason] and weren't able to drive away.
After all, the man that was driving was the man that was killed? Right? If he was KILLED he was most likely injured. The first shot may have seriously wounded him to the point where controlling the van would have become a difficult task.
Yet again, I'll bring up the fact that this was at night. Even if there was parking lighting, the night brings a daze among people who are completely sober. They were probably going through the same daze.
 
And since when was the life of 3 people more important than 1 and maybe a few damaged cars? Yeah, they add up to a point, but 3 people... well, they beat that out pretty well.
 
NDX said:
According to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, officers do NOT have permission to fire on a moving vehicle unless the person or persons in the vehicle are firing at the officers first. This was announced earlier by Kelly at a press conference.
hmmmmm. He may have been trying to calm the masses down with that statement. I can't imagine such a large jurisdiction as NYC not allowing officers to fire at an automobile when their lives are in danger as the automobile is a lethal weapon in this instance, when virtually every other jusrisdiction, including the one I worked for, would allow it if there was no chance of any bystanders being injured or worse.

According to the NY Post, reason the gunfire happened was not due to the accident, but the officer that was nearly run down fired at the car. The bullet went through the car, seeming like the people in the car were shooting at the undercover officers.
I also find it very difficult to believe that a veteran of 5 years [same service time as me] would fire a single shot if he felt his life was in danger unless that single shot effectively ended the situation.

Mayor Bloomberg seemingly condemned the shooting during the press conference, not saying that anyone was at fault yet (the DA will decide that after a grand jury) but that the use of 50 rounds was overkill.
which would come down on the one officer who fired 30 rounds. I'm sure the DA investigation will turn up if that many rounds were needed for that officer to stop the car, but either way he seriously need to be qualified more often than he is.
 
deep_thinkin said:
When you're being SHOT at by guys you can't see, at night, which means it's dark, the guys would most likely be very freaked. They may not have been able to see [due to whatever reason] and weren't able to drive away.
After all, the man that was driving was the man that was killed? Right? If he was KILLED he was most likely injured. The first shot may have seriously wounded him to the point where controlling the van would have become a difficult task.
Yet again, I'll bring up the fact that this was at night. Even if there was parking lighting, the night brings a daze among people who are completely sober. They were probably going through the same daze.
if, may, might etc...

Let's try to leave "what if's" out of the equation as none of us know any of the what if's yet. Let's talk about what we know and about the facts. Anyone can invent any scenario with the info we have.
 
Master Chief said:
They weren't fired on. :huh:
And? Since when is a gun the only instrument that can be used to harm or kill someone? :huh:
 
jks said:
And? Since when is a gun the only instrument that can be used to harm or kill someone? :huh:

lol, since never, they still violated the ROE. :huh:
 
The weapon was immobilized. You posted the picture yourself. That car wasn't going anywhere. If they pulled out their guns and asked the driver and his friends to get out, there would be no problem. If they did that and the driver still backed up and tried to get away, or worse, attack them, then they would be justified.
 
I still believe that the police are in a deep hole.

But I must say that what ISN'T "what if" is the fact that they were most likely freaking out. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People can't concentrate when under drama, pressure, fear and etc.

Someone needs to look in their files and see if there's any criminal record.
 
jks said:
Where did they violate it?

I thought you could only return fire. As in you'd have to be getting shot at to shoot. :huh:
 
Savage said:
The weapon was immobilized. You posted the picture yourself. That car wasn't going anywhere.
Of course not. The officers made sure that the driver wouldn't get a chance to injure or kill them.
If they pulled out their guns and asked the driver and his friends to get out, there would be no problem.
Really? What are the lottery numbers for this week?
If they did that and the driver still backed up and tried to get away, or worse, attack them, then they would be justified.
They are justified already. The driver had already demonstrated his intentions by repeatedly striking the vehicle and almost striking an officer.
 
Master Chief said:
I thought you could only return fire. As in you'd have to be getting shot at to shoot. :huh:
No. Anytime you reasonably believe your life is in imminent danger or in defending someone else who's life is in imminent danger, lethal force may be used. For instance, in my case I was charged at by someone with a knife.
 
jks said:
Really? What are the lottery numbers for this week?

No matter what, there are always going to be risks. But since the guys were unarmed and probably already injured, they probably couldn't do much but TRY run away and be caught.
 
But the car stopped! You keep saying that they only stopped when they were fired at. Nowhere does it say that they tried to escape. The movement of the car ended once it hit their van a second time. For all we know the guys would have gotten out and apologized but we don't know that. Any role the driver and his friends played in the situation stopped once they hit the van a second time and stopped. They didn't try to back up for another go. They stopped. If they were being fired at while trying to escape then I'm sure they would have gotten a bit further than, you know, being lodged in the thing.

They turned the corner, hit the van. "Whoops. Let's get outta here." Back up and hit an officer. "Aw crap!" drive forward and hit the van again. They are then fired upon. We don't know any details yet but that was the impression I got.
 
jks said:
No. Anytime you reasonably believe your life is in imminent danger or in defending someone else who's life is in imminent danger, lethal force may be used. For instance, in my case I was charged at by someone with a knife.

Aaah, k. But a knife isn't a car. Anyhoo this is kind of boring. The guy's dead, his family and friends are grieving, a lot of people are outraged, oh well. The coppers will most likely get off [except the guy who fired 31 shots], and that's that. :ninja:
 
Geez, first Kramer and now this. Is there nowhere in America the black man can be safe? :o Reminds me of the guy that dropped his wallet and got shot 50 times.

In all honesty though, I have a cousin that's a cop as well (in podunk Beloit, Wisconsin no less), and he says that the cops were most assuredly in the wrong to continue firing round after round like they're in a ****in FPS.
 
terry78 said:
Geez, first Kramer and now this. Is there nowhere in America the black man can be safe? :o Reminds me of the guy that dropped his wallet and got shot 50 times.

Told ya'll is Amadou Diallo all over again. Except the cops "thought" that he(Amadou) was pulling out a gun which was in fact his wallet to probably show them his I.D. And those b*tches got off scott free. And they too re-loaded and pumped him with 42 bullets.

Now this. Why is it only occuring in the 3 states that black people actually exist in large numbers? I'd moved to Idaho but...:whatever:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"