NYPD Officers Aquitted

[Shady]

I think some of you need to look beyond the amount of bullets fired, and delve a little deeper into this case before automatically convicting these officers.

One's guilt or innocence isn't based on how many shots were fired. The police are trained to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger. For example, point a fake gun at a cop and see what happens. They won't be aiming for your knees.

A few facts:

1) For the officers to have been found guilty, the prosecution would have had to prove there was no justification for the shooting.

2) The club the victim attended was under investigation for suspected prostitution and drug offenses.

3) The deceased had been arrested three times, twice for drugs and once for a gun.

4) The second victim had nine arrests including one for armed robbery.

5) The third has a juvenile record for gun possession and robbery.

6) The police involved, believed that some type of altercation was about to occur, and that a gun/guns were in the possession of the suspects.

7) Of the five officers involved in the shooting, according to police sources, none have ever discharged their weapons while on duty.

[jbg]

I think some of you need to look beyond the amount of bullets fired, and delve a little deeper into this case before automatically convicting these officers.

One's guilt or innocence isn't based on how many shots were fired. The police are trained to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger. For example, point a fake gun at a cop and see what happens. They won't be aiming for your knees.

Thank you for introducing sanity to this thread.

[Guest American Woman]

I think some of you need to look beyond the amount of bullets fired, and delve a little deeper into this case before automatically convicting these officers.

One's guilt or innocence isn't based on how many shots were fired. The police are trained to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger. For example, point a fake gun at a cop and see what happens. They won't be aiming for your knees.

No one aimed a fake gun at the officers, so that's quite a different scenario from this one. Furthermore, how many shots were fired is a factor, which is why the two officers who fired 31 shots and 11 shots were up for manslaughter and assault charges along with charges of reckless endangerment.

A few facts:

1) For the officers to have been found guilty, the prosecution would have had to prove there was no justification for the shooting.

2) The club the victim attended was under investigation for suspected prostitution and drug offenses.

3) The deceased had been arrested three times, twice for drugs and once for a gun.

4) The second victim had nine arrests including one for armed robbery.

5) The third has a juvenile record for gun possession and robbery.

6) The police involved, believed that some type of altercation was about to occur, and that a gun/guns were in the possession of the suspects.

7) Of the five officers involved in the shooting, according to police sources, none have ever discharged their weapons while on duty.

First of all, I'd like a link to a source for your facts. Secondly, I'd like to point out that #2 is meaningless. Attending a night club that's under investigation for prostitution isn't "justification" for being shot at. As for #3, #4, and #5, even if true, those factors are meaningless since the cops had no idea who they were shooting at. In fact, they didn't even know they were the only ones doing the shooting until the smoke cleared; they thought they were under fire.

Furthermore, there could be "justification" for shooting at a suspect while "reckless endangerment" could still apply. Case in point, the third officer was not charged for the groom's death, only reckless endangerment.

Edited April 30, 2008 by American Woman

[Shady]

No one aimed a fake gun at the officers, so that's quite a different scenario from this one. Furthermore, how many shots were fired is a factor, which is why the two officers who fired 31 shots and 11 shots were up for manslaughter and assault charges along with charges of reckless endangerment.

First of all, I'd like a link to a source for your facts. Secondly, I'd like to point out that #2 is meaningless. Attending a night club that's under investigation for prostitution isn't "justification" for being shot at. As for #3, #4, and #5, even if true, those factors are meaningless since the cops had no idea who they were shooting at. In fact, they didn't even know they were the only ones doing the shooting until the smoke cleared; they thought they were under fire.

Furthermore, there could be "justification" for shooting at a suspect while "reckless endangerment" could still apply. Case in point, the third officer was not charged for the groom's death, only reckless endangerment.

I mentioned the fake gun instance to point out that police officers are trained to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger. I never said that anyone in this situation used or pointed a fake gun. I thought that was pretty obvious. And yes they were up for manslaughter and assault charges, as well as reckless endangerment. But they were found not guilty. There wasn't enough evidence suggesting that to be the case. The prosecution's witnesses provided very questionable testimony. If you wan't to believe they were guilty, fine, that's up to you.

I never said that because the night club was under investigation it was justification for the shootings. I'm not sure where you're getting that from either. The other points provide a context to the incident in question. It's not the picture you'd like to paint, of officers, coming out of nowhere, shooting at people for no reason.

Link

[jbg]

No one aimed a fake gun at the officers, so that's quite a different scenario from this one. Furthermore, how many shots were fired is a factor, which is why the two officers who fired 31 shots and 11 shots were up for manslaughter and assault charges along with charges of reckless endangerment.

First of all, I'd like a link to a source for your facts. Secondly, I'd like to point out that #2 is meaningless. Attending a night club that's under investigation for prostitution isn't "justification" for being shot at. As for #3, #4, and #5, even if true, those factors are meaningless since the cops had no idea who they were shooting at. In fact, they didn't even know they were the only ones doing the shooting until the smoke cleared; they thought they were under fire.

Furthermore, there could be "justification" for shooting at a suspect while "reckless endangerment" could still apply. Case in point, the third officer was not charged for the groom's death, only reckless endangerment.

Here is the best answer to your post:

The sad fact is, people who are a threat to police officers don't have a sign on their foreheads so the cops know who is and who isn't a danger. Cops have been killed without any warning for something as routine as pulling someone over for speeding. If they value their lives, they have to approach every situation with caution. Anyone who doesn't recognize this is at fault. If they don't cooperate, and they expect cops to put up with that and put their concerns first, then they are in effect endangering police officers lives with those expectations.

What's going to happen with these videos and prejudgements, I'm afraid, is to deter a lot of good, conscientious people from becoming cops-- and we'll just be left with the hard-assed, abusive cops who don't give a damn; the very kind of cop that people are protesting. So people would be smart to think before judging/mouthing off, because if this starts to become the trend, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

[Guest American Woman]

What does that have to do with "reckless endangerment??" What does that have to do with emptying a semi-automatic weapon, reloading, and emptying it again -- all the while not even knowing that no one is shooting back?? Pay attention to who and what I'm being critical of; what charge and what verdict I've posted about, because I think a cop who fires 31 rounds outside of a public venue, with so much smoke from the shooting spree that they can't tell what's going on, would be, to quote my post, "the very kind of cop that people are protesting."

[jbg]

What does that have to do with "reckless endangerment??" What does that have to do with emptying a semi-automatic weapon, reloading, and emptying it again -- all the while not even knowing that no one is shooting back?? Pay attention to who and what I'm being critical of; what charge and what verdict I've posted about, because I think a cop who fires 31 rounds outside of a public venue, with so much smoke from the shooting spree that they can't tell what's going on, would be, to quote my post, "the very kind of cop that people are protesting."

I'm not sure I follow the difference. Please help. You correctly supported police discretion in the Taser indicent. How is this different? The riders in that van placed themselves in danger by ramming another vehicle rather than just leaving. Maybe people should be careful about drug use when they're in public, and inability to handle oneself properly could be deadly.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure I follow the difference. Please help. You correctly supported police discretion in the Taser indicent. How is this different? The riders in that van placed themselves in danger by ramming another vehicle rather than just leaving. Maybe people should be careful about drug use when they're in public, and inability to handle oneself properly could be deadly.

You seriously have to ask how blindly firing 31 shots with a deadly semi-automatic weapon in a public area while thinking shots are being fired back and not knowing otherwise until the smoke has cleared is different from using what is considered to be a 'non-lethal' weapon that has no chance of hitting anything or anyone other than the target?

[Prosecuters] said that Cooper fired wildly, with one of his shots even hitting an elevated airport train station. link

Sure sounds like reckless endangerment to me. Luckily no one else was killed.

[bush_cheney2004]

[Prosecuters] said that Cooper fired wildly, with one of his shots even hitting an elevated airport train station. link

Sure sounds like reckless endangerment to me. Luckily no one else was killed.

Prosecuters obviously did not impress the judge with the charge of misdemeanor or non-violent reckless endangerment, particularly since no one else was killed or injured. "Blindly" is a very subjective opinion.

[Shady]

You seriously have to ask how blindly firing 31 shots

I disagree with your premise. No one was firing "blindly". Your characterization of the events is false. You make it sound as though the police officers were shooting their guns up in the air, and in all kinds of directions. That's not what happened. So either you're misinformed, or lying. Take your pick.

[Guest American Woman]

Prosecuters obviously did not impress the judge with the charge of misdemeanor or non-violent reckless endangerment, particularly since no one else was killed or injured. "Blindly" is a very subjective opinion.

So what if one judge wasn't "impressed?" He's only human, capable of bad judgement; and many a judge has made a horrible call. I've read of many such cases. The fact that no one else was killed or injured is pure luck; luckily no one else was around/or in the path of the stray bullets.

Edited May 3, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I disagree with your premise. No one was firing "blindly". Your characterization of the events is false. You make it sound as though the police officers were shooting their guns up in the air, and in all kinds of directions. That's not what happened. So either you're misinformed, or lying. Take your pick.

I pick choice #3: you're wrong.

I hate to break it to you, but your 'disagreeing with my premise' doesn't make your take on it correct. The police were shooting "blindly" since they didn't even know bullets weren't being shot back at them 'until the smoke cleared;' and I suppose you think they were aiming for that "elevated airport train station?" But since I've been referring to the cop who emptied his weapon, reloaded, and emptied it again, I repeat: that's what my comments have been, and continue to be, in regards to.

I'm not 'making it sound' like anything other than what it was since I'm repeating what happened.

Edited May 3, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

So what if one judge wasn't "impressed?" He's only human, capable of bad judgement; and many a judge has made a horrible call. I've read of many such cases. The fact that no one else was killed or injured is pure luck; luckily no one else was around/or in the path of the stray bullets.

No need to pout...the law says that the "only human" judge gets a more significant say in the matter than you. What you have read is irrelevant in the adjudication of this specific case.

[Guest American Woman]

No need to pout...

When I start getting responses like that, I know what I've said can't be refuted.

[bush_cheney2004]

When I start getting responses like that, I know what I've said can't be refuted.

You have been refuted many times. Wanna buy some Canadian napalm?