Police kill wedding groom

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Gotta wait for more facts on this one, such as what prompted the shooting to begin with. As the article states, it's unknown if the vehicle collisions started it and what communication happened. 50 shots is crazy though.

On a side note, 31 rounds from one officer? Two mags? I've never seen an officer carry extended mags.

Bottom line is they wereNOT fired upon yet they fire 50 rounds???

WTFBBQ have we brought Iraqi here to the states now?

No, but running people over with your car is assault with a deadly weapon. If he drove into police vehicles and appeared intent on running somebody down, it may have been justified. I'm not saying it definitely is, but there needs to be more facts in this case.

And just to head off any stupid ramblings you might come up with Dave, calling me a rich Republican or any stupid shite like that, I'm often critical of police abusing authority and a search of my post history here would confirm that.

Actually, it doesn't matter. NYPD regs stipulate that deadly force should NOT be used if the vehicle is the ONLY threatening aspect of the encounter.

The simple facts:
1) bunch of guys out for a REALLY good time
2) undercover cops suspicious of something
3) cops fire 51 bullets
4) 1 mortally wounded, another with 11 wounds on the edge, and at least a third seriously injured . . . all unarmed civilians
5) police unable to release a cogent story

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Gotta wait for more facts on this one, such as what prompted the shooting to begin with. As the article states, it's unknown if the vehicle collisions started it and what communication happened. 50 shots is crazy though.

On a side note, 31 rounds from one officer? Two mags? I've never seen an officer carry extended mags.

Bottom line is they wereNOT fired upon yet they fire 50 rounds???

WTFBBQ have we brought Iraqi here to the states now?

No, but running people over with your car is assault with a deadly weapon. If he drove into police vehicles and appeared intent on running somebody down, it may have been justified. I'm not saying it definitely is, but there needs to be more facts in this case.

And just to head off any stupid ramblings you might come up with Dave, calling me a rich Republican or any stupid shite like that, I'm often critical of police abusing authority and a search of my post history here would confirm that.

Actually, it doesn't matter. NYPD regs stipulate that deadly force should NOT be used if the vehicle is the ONLY threatening aspect of the encounter.

The simple facts:
1) bunch of guys out for a REALLY good time
2) undercover cops suspicious of something
3) cops fire 51 bullets
4) 1 mortally wounded, another with 11 wounds on the edge, and at least a third seriously injured . . . all unarmed civilians
5) police unable to release a cogent story

I understand there are regulations and the guy's action in no way justifies police shooting at the guy 51 times. But I think the guy is also somewhat responsible if he indeed struck an undercover police and the police car with his car, and started the whole incident. Cops are human as well, and when they face danger and unknown, they don't take out the rule book, read it and act according to the rule books, they act with instincts. It's not a perfect system, if we want things like this never to happen, BOTH SIDES have to act responsibly.

 

[getbush]

I say we organize a march on some random strip club to protest lying strippers.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/27/nyc.shooting.ap/index.html">But a witness account emerged Monday disputing that version of events.

Trini Wright, a dancer at the strip club where Bell's bachelor party was held, told the Daily News she was going to a diner with the men and was putting her makeup bag in the trunk of their car when the police minivan appeared.

"The minivan came around the corner and smashed into their car. And they (the police) jumped out shooting," Wright, 28, told the newspaper for Monday editions. "No 'stop.' No 'freeze.' No nothing."

.</a>

Not an issue for the police... I'm sure Trini Wright has a criminal past, so her version of the truth is meaningless. Sorry.

:roll:
Edit - Your verion of an opinion is meaningless since you have a criminal past and associate with Trini Wright.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Blaming the victims doesn't work very well in this case.

You get a badge and a gun BECAUSE you are responsible. Accordingly, you are held to a higher standard. You don't have to take out a rule book or read it, because you are well-trained and disciplined.

There's only two sides to this issue . . . right and wrong . . . in describing the type of people qualified to work in law enforcement.

Now in the broader scheme of 'contributory' behaviors by the civilians . . . that's undetermined b/c even the police have failed to give an account that makes sense. Their first story was about an argument that included 'mentioning' a gun and how the cops followed the bachelor party to their car, the guys got into their car, and then rammed the vehicles/tried to run one cop over. If they stuck with that story it still sounds like the cops started it. Why? Well if the cops suspected the guys had a gun in the car . . . you wouldn't let them get into it. If the cops were just waiting for them to be outside (for fear one of the guys might be carrying), you still wouldn't let them get into their car.

Kelly has said that police shot at the car after it drove forward and struck an undercover officer and an unmarked police minivan. The information was based on interviews with witnesses and two officers who did not fire their weapons, he said.

So the only threat was the car driving towards an officer (who HAD to be VERY near the car) and driving into the minivan (which HAD to be in the street/parking lot). Sounds like the cops precipitated it.

Kelly had said Saturday the police department was still piecing together what happened and that it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified. He said it was unclear whether the officers, who were in plain clothes, identified themselves before firing.

The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times. They also hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no residents were injured.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun, but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

You basically have the chief saying . . . not sure what happened, don't know if officers identified themselves, don't know why the cops shot up the neighborhood, not sure why they started shooting in the first place.

It will be interesting if it was a recent model police minivan. In that case, the event data recorder would show if the minivan accelerated and struck something (Wright's account) as opposed to other witnesses and two nonshooting cops that claim the car drove forwards and hit the cop/minivan. The two accounts cannot be reconciled b/c there's no way she was putting her makeup bag in the trunk while it's moving to hit the cop/minivan.

 

[beyoku]

It would be good to see the ballistics on this too. Depending on how far the "cops were following" they would SEEM to be in the rear of the group/car. YET the cops say the driver went FOWARD and rammed the cop/minivan. Did they sorround the car? Did the driver do a 180? Did the cops shoot more at the front, back, or side of the car? We dont know yet. Anyone got a picture of the car. This sucks, just one more reason why i dont do bachelor parties. Just get married already.

I think that the cops surrounded the car, pulled out guns, and the guys got spooked and tried drove off. Also it seems that the cops were not doing an "official investigation" - maybe they were just trying to get some freebies.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Blaming the victims doesn't work very well in this case.

You get a badge and a gun BECAUSE you are responsible. Accordingly, you are held to a higher standard. You don't have to take out a rule book or read it, because you are well-trained and disciplined.

There's only two sides to this issue . . . right and wrong . . . in describing the type of people qualified to work in law enforcement.

Now in the broader scheme of 'contributory' behaviors by the civilians . . . that's undetermined b/c even the police have failed to give an account that makes sense. Their first story was about an argument that included 'mentioning' a gun and how the cops followed the bachelor party to their car, the guys got into their car, and then rammed the vehicles/tried to run one cop over. If they stuck with that story it still sounds like the cops started it. Why? Well if the cops suspected the guys had a gun in the car . . . you wouldn't let them get into it. If the cops were just waiting for them to be outside (for fear one of the guys might be carrying), you still wouldn't let them get into their car.

Kelly has said that police shot at the car after it drove forward and struck an undercover officer and an unmarked police minivan. The information was based on interviews with witnesses and two officers who did not fire their weapons, he said.

So the only threat was the car driving towards an officer (who HAD to be VERY near the car) and driving into the minivan (which HAD to be in the street/parking lot). Sounds like the cops precipitated it.

Kelly had said Saturday the police department was still piecing together what happened and that it was too early to say whether the shooting was justified. He said it was unclear whether the officers, who were in plain clothes, identified themselves before firing.

The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times. They also hit nearby homes and shattered windows at a train station, though no residents were injured.

Police thought one of the men in the car might have had a gun, but investigators found no weapons. It was unclear what prompted police to open fire, Kelly said.

You basically have the chief saying . . . not sure what happened, don't know if officers identified themselves, don't know why the cops shot up the neighborhood, not sure why they started shooting in the first place.

It will be interesting if it was a recent model police minivan. In that case, the event data recorder would show if the minivan accelerated and struck something (Wright's account) as opposed to other witnesses and two nonshooting cops that claim the car drove forwards and hit the cop/minivan. The two accounts cannot be reconciled b/c there's no way she was putting her makeup bag in the trunk while it's moving to hit the cop/minivan.

I don't know how you read it (bolded parts), but I think the statement says the groom's car struct the undercover police and not just drove towards him.

I agree with you that police should be held to a higher standard. But again, police are human and not robots. No matter how you train them, when their life is on the line (try having someone drive a car and hit you, or seeing your friends getting hit by car on purpose) they will react with some violant force. I do agree shooting the car 50 times is extreme, but again, if you and your partner/friend was struck by the car on purpose, you might react extremely.

I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: beyoku[/i]


:roll:
Edit - Your version of an opinion is meaningless since you have a criminal past and associate with Trini Wright.

:beer: I don't know what Strip Club Trini works, but I'll try and get a lap dance and check her trustworthyness.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone

Originally posted by: beyoku[/i]


:roll:
Edit - Your version of an opinion is meaningless since you have a criminal past and associate with Trini Wright.

:beer: I don't know what Strip Club Trini works, but I'll try and get a lap dance and check her trustworthyness.

I heard her crabs have herpes

 

[getbush]

The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

LOL, this coming from someone that said "But history has shown that nothing will happen to them because the victims are black and their lives mean little compared to these fearful animals who think the badge and gun give them the right to slaughter the innocent with no consequences for their actions" about cops. Its quite obvious who has the "obvious and irrational bias".

Why do you guys keep forgetting that the guy hit the cop with his car, not just hit the cops car, he actually hit the cop. If someone intentionally hit a civilian with his car (thats something called attempted murder) then they would be fully justified in shooting him.

For those of you that do not understand this, a car is a deadly weapon.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

No, the keyword is hitting, it doesn't matter if they are a cop or civilian, you are not allowed to hit someone with your car.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

Did they perhaps try to hit the officer because he started shooting at them?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

No, the keyword is hitting, it doesn't matter if they are a cop or civilian, you are not allowed to hit someone with your car.

What if it was unintentional, are you still legally allowed to kill the occupants? What if they wer trying to get away from the location in a hurry? Are you honestly defending the actions of the police in this instance? Do you think they acted appropriately?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

No, the keyword is hitting, it doesn't matter if they are a cop or civilian, you are not allowed to hit someone with your car.

I wasn't avoiding the officer being hit, had to go back and re-read.

Yes a car is a deadly weapon. But if I were to pull a gun on someone and they tried to run me over and I shot them, I'd be in a heap of feces. Assuming that's the order of events.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

No, the keyword is hitting, it doesn't matter if they are a cop or civilian, you are not allowed to hit someone with your car.

I wasn't avoiding the officer being hit, had to go back and re-read.

Yes a car is a deadly weapon. But if I were to pull a gun on someone and they tried to run me over and I shot them, I'd be in a heap of feces. Assuming that's the order of events.

Second paragraph says,

"The spray of bullets hit the car 21 times, after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would not say if the collisions were what prompted police to open fire. "

I haven't seen anything stating that the Police shot at them before they tried (and did) to hit the officer. If the car was idling and they shot him for no reason then yea, you're right, but from the article it looks like they shot after the officer got hit.

 

[getbush]

If you say so narmer. You're an idiot b/c a few of us have already pointed out that policy doesn't allow shooting when the vehicle is the only form of threat. You just argue your ignorant points. Take the policy and run with it.

If it were legal for an officer to use deadly force when under attack from a car hit, that right would not be pursuant to being in uniform. That is an asinine assertion. If you hit enough pedestrians with your car, odds are eventually you will hit an undercover cop. This guy just happened to get one on the first try, unlucky enough for him.

Everyone is hung up on the number of shots. 50 shots were fired because ONE guy unloaded 31. That was probably a little overkill. The guy that got hit fired 11, and the others 2 or 3. Now in a justified shoot, besides that one guy, I'd say that's reasonable. The issue is, they should have fired at ALL because of the policy. Argue based on the policy, not your prejudices against a group you hate fro their prejudices.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

Did they perhaps try to hit the officer because he started shooting at them?

Not according to the article.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

No, the keyword is hitting, it doesn't matter if they are a cop or civilian, you are not allowed to hit someone with your car.

What if it was unintentional, are you still legally allowed to kill the occupants? What if they wer trying to get away from the location in a hurry? Are you honestly defending the actions of the police in this instance? Do you think they acted appropriately?

Yes I am defending the actions of the Police, until its proven otherwise they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Cops don't just go around shooting random people that are involved in automobile accidents, get a grip.

 

[getbush]

Read an article, it would be the classy thing to do.

And if you're still not compelled, they hit the officer, then the van, then he started firing.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: getbush
The officer was hit by the car. They drove forward into him. Don't twist it liked they bumped their car and that was it. If a civilian with a CCW was struck in anger by a vehicle I'm pretty sure he would have just cause to light the guy up. A car is a deadly weapon.

And that civilian would be facing serious charges, angry or not. We have a similar situation here where it doesn't look like the police identify themselves at all and they blaze up the car because it hit unmarked police vehicles. Your defense of the officers are weak and I'm sure you know that.

IF you're a cop or know someone who is and is being partial, please admit so so we can comprehend your obvious and irrational bias.

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: rchiu
I am not putting the blame totally on the victim, the police definetly should take the blame for the excessive force. But if the police chief's statement is true, that the victim struct the police with his car first, both party is to blame for the whole incident. At the very least, the victim didn't have to drive the car towards the police. If he did nothing wrong, and didn't have anything to hide, why not just surrender himself, and get a lawyer later if he felt the police stopped him without probably cause?

I can bet if a civilian was rear ended and opened fire on another car and killed a guy they'd be facing murder charges. If it was a marked car that's fine.

Did you just conveniently skip over the part about the guy hitting the undercover cop with his car?

Undercover being the keyword, not hitting.

No, the keyword is hitting, it doesn't matter if they are a cop or civilian, you are not allowed to hit someone with your car.

I wasn't avoiding the officer being hit, had to go back and re-read.

Yes a car is a deadly weapon. But if I were to pull a gun on someone and they tried to run me over and I shot them, I'd be in a heap of feces. Assuming that's the order of events.

Second paragraph says,

"The spray of bullets hit the car 21 times, after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and then an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would not say if the collisions were what prompted police to open fire. "

I haven't seen anything stating that the Police shot at them before they tried (and did) to hit the officer. If the car was idling and they shot him for no reason then yea, you're right, but from the article it looks like they shot after the officer got hit.

Pulling a gun != firing

I imagine it being the cops pulled or had their guns drawn, approached the car, guys freaked out and tried to get away, hitting an undercover officer and unmarked car. Then the officers fired.

Also could be they just got spooked by several people approaching the car, even if they didn't have guns.

If a group of guys were approaching me after leaving the titty bar at 3am I'd be thinking they were up to no good whether I saw guys or not. And if I run them over, I'm going to have to prove I was in fear of my life.

 

[getbush]

Ignore narmer. He thinks running over someone with a car is some kind of loophole assault that precludes the potential victim from defending themselves. I cite my CCW example where he said that civilian would be brought up on charges. What charges I'm not sure. Attempted self-defense in teh face of attempted murder I suppose.