This is just sad...

[HotHolly]

So, happy good morning - and AOL has this as one of their cover stories: Groom Never Makes it to Alter. OR something like that.

We shoot a lot of weddings, so I was curious. Aw, man! Why does stuff like that happen, and he had kids...

If you're wondering why you got out of bed this morning, skip to the Sunday comics. Ooh, maybe I have a newspaper outside! That was a bummer.

[lscottpht]

Ugh, I just finished reading about this on AOL. So sad!

[iCe]

? Sounds like someone used bad judgement... If the cops want your attention, you shouldn't give it to them by trying to run over them or by smashing your vehicle into one of theirs. On the other hand... 50 rounds fired into a car full of unarmed men is way over the top...

The journalist seemed to be a tad biased against the cops to me.

[TxLerman]

I read the story on CNN. One officer fired 31 rounds alone. How does one justify firing 31 rounds at unarmed men? Considering the men were unarmed, the NYPD is going to have another scandel on its use of force. I'm sure the plaintiffs attorneys have already written the wrongful death lawsuits. Only this time, I hope they win!

[pippin]

An undercover officer walked closely behind Bell and his friends as they headed for their car. As he walked toward the front of the vehicle, they drove forward — striking him and a nearby undercover police vehicle.

this here is the line that gets me. I'm curious to see if the cop actually identified himself to them. Whats to say they actually saw the cop also when they drove forward.

but 50 shots? thats just an insane amount of shots fired at unarmed men.

[iCe]

I'm finding it hard to understand either side of this one.

[h00kemh0rns]

I'm waiting for this to unfold where more of the story is told from witnesses, the police and the victims/suspects. From what we know thus far:

• On going investigation with the club
• Reference to a gun was made by one of the people involved.
• Victim hit a police officer and an unmarked van twice.
• 50 shots were fired

Questions I have are:

• Did the undercover officer identify himself at any point before being struck by the van?
• Why didn't they try to stop them from leaving/getting in the vehicle? Or did they?

Even if he didn't identify himself the suspect made a conscious decision to hit a man. Then made a point to hit the unmarked police van. I'm thinking there is alot more to this story and needs to unfold before we lay blame.

[pippin]

Originally Posted by iCe

I'm finding it hard to understand either side of this one.

definitely, there's inconsistencies with both sides of the story.

[h00kemh0rns]

Originally Posted by pippin

this here is the line that gets me. I'm curious to see if the cop actually identified himself to them. Whats to say they actually saw the cop also when they drove forward.

but 50 shots? thats just an insane amount of shots fired at unarmed men.

They were armed the minute they got into the vehicle and hit another man.

[pippin]

but at the same time - why didn't the police try to stop the men from getting into the car?

[iCe]

Even if he didn't identify himself the suspect made a conscious decision to hit a man. Then made a point to hit the unmarked police van. I'm thinking there is alot more to this story and needs to unfold before we lay blame.

But does that warrant firing 50 rounds at a vehicle that is driving away?

I agree that there is probably more to the story.

I wouldn't want the job of being a LEO. You're expected to be perfect. The job is, in my opinion, overwhelmingly boring and very often underappreciated. The boredom MIGHT be punctuated with a few moments of "excitement" and that excitement can very well kill you if you react incorrectly. Overall the job doesn't pay that well. You are required to maintain proficiency with a deadly weapon however you are, in most cases, required to purchase your own ammo to maintain that proficiency. Very few can afford the luxury of buying ammo when their first priority is to feed their family. In the event that you actually do shoot someone or shoot at someone your decision making process is immediatly brought under close scrutiny by the media and the general public. As well it should be however, if we don't give them the tools to learn how to react under pressure (Ie fund their training) who are we to expect them to react any differently than any of us would (perhaps some of us vs any of us is a better way to put that).

50 rounds is a ridiculous number of rounds to fire at a vehicle that is not firing on you.

[h00kemh0rns]

Originally Posted by pippin

but at the same time - why didn't the police try to stop the men from getting into the car?

At this point we don't know they didn't. It's all speculation right now. But I'd be surprised that they didn't make an attempt to stop them before they got into the vehicle.

[h00kemh0rns]

Originally Posted by iCe

But does that warrant firing 50 rounds at a vehicle that is driving away?

I agree that there is probably more to the story.

I wouldn't want the job of being a LEO. You're expected to be perfect. The job is, in my opinion, overwhelmingly boring and very often underappreciated. The boredom MIGHT be punctuated with a few moments of "excitement" and that excitement can very well kill you if you react incorrectly. Overall the job doesn't pay that well. You are required to maintain proficiency with a deadly weapon however you are, in most cases, required to purchase your own ammo to maintain that proficiency. Very few can afford the luxury of buying ammo when their first priority is to feed their family. In the event that you actually do shoot someone or shoot at someone your decision making process is immediatly brought under close scrutiny by the media and the general public. As well it should be however, if we don't give them the tools to learn how to react under pressure (Ie fund their training) who are we to expect them to react any differently than any of us would (perhaps some of us vs any of us is a better way to put that).

50 rounds is a ridiculous number of rounds to fire at a vehicle that is not firing on you.

Hitting a man and a vehicle and then hitting the vehicle again after being fired on justifies the 50 rounds. The suspects are using a deadly weapon against a human being. At this point the police are there to prevent loss of life at the hands of the suspect and deadly force is authorized. There's no debating that.

[Patti Edens]

I thought the most troubling part of the whole thing was that there was a policy that allowed the officers to drink while on duty and making decisions that involve shooting guns and using deadly force with those guns.

That is disgusting in my opinion. It has been proven time and again that alcohol will effect one's ability to make good decisions. I don't have any idea if the police officers in this case had been drinking. And even if they had been, I don't know if the alcohol could have had any bearing on the outcome.

I just don't think police officers on duty should be allowed to indulge in alcohol or any other drug that could alter their ability to make decisions.

For those of you on the forum that are officers, is this a standard policy for most police departments?

p

[ShutteredEye]

In before the lock....